Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending in the application. The amendment filed March 30, 2026 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The amendments to claims 1 and 8 overcome the previous rejections to the claims. New arguments follow.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 6 is respectfully acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Roig et al (US 20230030128 A1, published 2023-02-02 with effective filing date 2021-10-15) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roig et al.
Evidentiary support is provided by “calender,” Dictionary.com.
Regarding Claim 8, Roig discloses an electrode ([0082, 0086], Figs. 5-6) comprising:
a substrate (step 402); and
an active material layer
(steps 404 and 406 teach a first active layer and a second active layer, together they constitute an active material layer),
wherein the active material layer is disposed on a surface of the substrate (step 404),
wherein the active material layer includes a first layer and a second layer
(step 404 teaches the first active layer, i.e. first layer, and step 406 teaches the second active layer, i.e. second layer),
wherein the first layer is disposed between the substrate and the second layer
(step 406 teaches that the second active layer is deposited onto the first active layer),
wherein the second layer is in contact with the first layer
(Fig. 5, step 406 of Fig. 6, and [0093, 0095] teach that the second active layer can be deposited or coated onto the first active layer to form a multilayered electrode, thereby teaching the second layer is in contact with the first layer),
wherein the first layer and the second layer are each independently a composite powder,
([ 0091-0093] teach the first and second active layers can be coated dry in separate steps as an active material with a binder, wherein the material of the active layers are in the form of particles adhered together by a binder, thereby reading on each layer as independently a composite powder formed by active material and binder)
comprising an active material and a binder melted and re-solidified on a surface of the active material
([0098, 0117] teach calendering of the electrode such as with a hot roll process, which can melt the binders included in the electrode layers. After the calendering process (including the heat treatment) is completed, the binders are expected to re-solidify on the surface of the active material).
Roig teaches calendering of the electrode, which will smooth, or flatten, the electrode based on the definition of calender (Dictionary.com defines calender as subjecting a material to a process in which cloth, paper, or the like, is smoothed, glazed, etc. by pressing between rotating cylinders (p1 noun def. 1; p2 verb definition). Without the claim language providing further specificity regarding the flatness of a surface at the interface between the first layer and the second layer, as pertaining to the limitation “flat at an interface between the first layer and the second layer,” the calendering of the electrode as taught by Roig would be expected to result in “a surface of the first layer is flat at an interface between the first layer and the second layer.”
The invention taught by prior art Roig is drawn to a substantially identical product of an electrode. The new limitation of “wherein the first layer is formed by applying a first coating material onto the surface of the substrate with an electrostatic force, … and wherein the second layer is formed by applying a second coating material onto a surface of the compressed first layer with an electrostatic force from a roll having the second coating material adhered thereto provided vertically below the compressed first layer, such that the second coating material adheres to the surface of the compressed first layer” is a product-by-process limitation and does not imply additional structural considerations as a result of the process steps. Hence, the new limitation does not structurally differentiate the product of the claimed invention from the product taught by Roig. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable; see MPEP 2113, I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) in view of Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Uchida teaches an electrode manufacturing method (Figs. 1-2) comprising:
(a) forming a first layer by applying a first coating material onto a surface of a substrate (translation of [0024]-[0025] teaches application of a first coating material comprising a first active material and binder onto the current collector Z (substrate) which forms a first layer. Given that the powder of the first coating material is maintained on the substrate before the pressing step, it can be said to be adhered to the surface of the substrate),
(b) compressing the first layer by applying a first pressing force to the first layer, thereby forming a compressed first layer;
(Uchida further teaches use of pressure rolls 1 and 2 to press and mold the deposited layer with applied pressure P1 to the first layer 53, thereby forming a compressed first layer ([0026]).
(c) forming a second layer by applying a second coating material onto a surface of the compressed first layer, such that the second coating material adheres to the surface of the compressed first layer;
(Uchida consequently teaches the deposition of a second coating material onto a surface of the first layer 53, post-compression ([0027]). Given that the powder of the second coating material is maintained on the substrate before a pressing step, it can be said to be adhered to the surface of the substrate)
(d) compressing the second layer by applying a second pressing force to the second layer; and
(Uchida teaches compressing the second coating material by applying a second pressing force P2 with second pressure rolls 3 and 4 to the second layer 63 ([0028])).
(e) forming an active material layer including the first layer and the second layer,
(Uchida teaches both the first mixture layer and the second layer each independently has an active material and a binder ([0025], [0027]), and that together they form mixture layer G (Fig. 2; [0031]), wherein layer G reads on the claimed active material layer.)
Wherein the second coating material is in a dry state, and
(Uchida also discloses that the second coating material is formed in a dry process therefore it must be in a dry state as claimed ([0009] lines 1-3).)
Wherein the first coating material and the second coating material are each independently a composite powder, comprising an active material and a binder
(Uchida discloses “the mixture is composed of particles that contain at least an active material and a binder and are granulated into a powder form” ([0008]) which reads upon each of the coating materials independently a composite powder, comprising an active material and a binder).
Uchida does not teach applying a first coating material onto a surface of a substrate with an electrostatic force (as claimed by step a) nor teaches applying a second coating material onto a surface of the compressed first layer with an electrostatic force from a roll having the second coating material adhered thereto provided vertically below the compressed first layer (as claimed by step c). Uchida further does not teach wherein the binder is melted and re-solidified on a surface of the active material (step e).
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches (Fig. 2, reproduced below) an electrode sheet manufacturing method wherein electrode mixture material can be adhered in a powder state on a current collector substrate ([0009]) by an electrostatic force acting between the electrode mixture material and the current collector foil ([0008] lines 25-32), as claimed. Specifically, Tanaka teaches “at the first applying position A, an electrostatic force acts between the current collector foil 20 and the power of the electrode mixture material 40” [0031] and “at the first applying position A, the powder of the electrode mixture material 40 can be caused to adhere and be applied on the first surface 21 of the current collector foil 20” [0032], thereby teaching applying a first coating material (i.e., electrode mixture material) onto a surface of a substrate (i.e., current collector) with an electrostatic force, such that the first coating material adheres to the surface of the substrate.
Fig. 2 of Tanaka, annotated:
PNG
media_image1.png
649
977
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tanaka also teaches the applying steps can be performed multiple times ([0009] lines 7-11), disclosing a second applying step performed at position B of Fig. 2, wherein the electrode mixture material 40 at position B (second coating material) is applied on the first surface 21 of the current collector 20 which already has electrode mixture material 40 from the first applying position A (i.e., the first layer) ([0048]). Tanaka further discloses that the powder of the electrode mixture material 40 moves from the supply roll 130B (a roll having the second coating material adhered thereto that is provided vertically below the first layer as claimed) toward the current collector foil 20 as indicated by arrow Zb by an electrostatic force and which causes the electrode mixture material 40 (second coating material) to adhere to the surface of the first layer ([0036] lines 1-11), as claimed.
Tanaka discloses that use of their method eliminates a step for solvent removal and can speed up the deposition process, thereby providing an efficiently manufactured high-quality electrode sheet ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have improved Uchida’s electrode manufacturing method by using Tanaka’s electrostatic powder application method given that it is a suitable option for powder coating in a dry process with advantages of manufacturing efficiency and quality, and with the expectation that it would work.
Tanaka also teaches a heating-pressing position C wherein heating and pressing is applied to the electrode mixture material after the second applying position B ([0049]), wherein the press rolls used can be set at a heating temperature at which the binder passing through the heating-pressing position C is softened or melted and to cause binding action in the active material ([0041-0042]). Tanaka states that as a result, the layer of the electrode mixture material disposed on the first surface of the current collector is fixed onto the first surface of the current collector foil with the binding action of the binder ([0051]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the modified method of Uchida to include Tanaka’s teaching of applying a heat treatment to the electrode mixture material at the pressing steps such that the binders melt and cause binding action. Consequently, within the method of modified Uchida, the binders would be expected to melt and then re-solidify on a surface of the active materials after passing through the heat-treatment.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Uchida further discloses that the first coating material is also formed in a dry process ([0009] lines 1-3), therefore it must be in a dry state as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1 and Uchida further teaches wherein the second pressing force P2 is 40-70% of the first pressing force P1 ([0028] lines 10-11), and therefore it is different from the first pressing force as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Tanaka of the combination teaches their multi-layer powder application method allows for more efficient manufacturing of an electrode mixture layer having a desired thickness compared to a method using a single coating application step ([0055]-[0056], [0058] lines 17-21). A skilled artisan looking to form an electrode with a desired thickness for its electrode mixture layer to have a sufficient amount of the electrode mixture material would have been motivated to modify modified Uchida’s manufacturing process to use Tanaka’s powder application method, because it provides the advantage of more efficiently forming a high-quality electrode sheet having the desired thickness of the electrode mixture layer as compared to a method using a single coating application step. Consequently, the multi-layer electrode formed from the modified process would have a second layer that has the same chemical composition as the first layer.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1. Given that Uchida teaches the second coating material 63 is formed by a dry process ([0009] lines 1-3), the layer is expected to have a solid fraction of about 100% by mass fraction.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) in view of Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kawai et al (JP2003077463A).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Uchida teaches the pressure used to pressurize the second deposition layer is lower than the pressure used to pressurize the first deposition layer ([0014]). Accordingly, the pressing force associated with the pressure used to pressurize the second deposition layer, i.e. the second pressing force, is expected to be lower than the pressing force used to pressurize the first deposition layer, i.e. the first pressing force. Uchida teaches the second pressure rolls 3 and 4 are used to apply a second pressing force to the second layer 62 (Fig. 1, [0028]), which over the area of the layer, would result in a second roll linear pressure. Uchida further teaches in Fig. 5(b) that when the applied pressure of the second mixture layer (second roll linear pressure) is 1.0 ton (t)/cm or less (ca., 9.80 kN/cm), the reaction resistance of the electrode decreases to 140 mΩ or less ([0047]). Specifically, Fig. 5(b), reproduced below, shows that the resistance decreases monotonically with decreasing second roll linear pressure. The taught range of the second roll linear pressure as 1.0 ton (t)/cm or less overlaps with the claimed range of 0.02 to 0.2 kN/cm. Additionally, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use routine experimentation to optimize the electrode resistance based on the second roll linear pressure conditions described by Uchida to have arrived at the claimed range.
Fig. 5(b) of Uchida:
PNG
media_image2.png
288
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination does not teach a first roll linear pressure generated by the first pressing force is 0.2 to 2 kN/cm.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawai taches a method for producing a multi-layer electrode wherein the compaction pressure applied to a dried electrode material layer is gradually reduced, such that the pressure applied to the (n+1)th layer is 60% or less than that applied to the nth layer based on the desired difference in average porosity (machine translation: [0035], [0038]). Kawai also discloses that the compaction pressure for an electrode mixture layer can be 294 N/cm ([0037]), which is about 0.2 kN/cm and overlaps with the claimed ranges for both the first roll linear pressure and the second roll linear pressure. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Kawai also teaches that when the average porosity is larger for a layer further from the current collector compared to that of a layer on the current collector side, it results in selective lithium absorption during charging and a larger charge capacity compared to when the average porosity is constant in the negative electrode material layer ([0005]).
A skilled artisan would have recognized compaction pressure of a mixture layer as a result-effective variable and would have been motivated to modify modified Uchida’s method to utilize routine experimentation based on the Kawai’s taught pressure conditions to adjust the first roll linear pressure according to the second roll linear pressure, and accordingly, the porosities of the second layer relative to the first layer, to optimize the charge capacity of the electrode, and would have thereby arrived at the claimed range for the first roll linear pressure.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1) in view of Uchida (JP 2014049240 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka teaches an electrode manufacturing method (Fig. 2) comprising:
(a) forming a first layer by applying a first coating material (electrode mixture material 40) onto a surface of a substrate (current collector 20) with an electrostatic force, such that the first coating material adheres to the surface of the substrate (Fig. 2; Tanaka teaches “at the first applying position A, an electrostatic force acts between the current collector foil 20 and the power of the electrode mixture material 40” ([0031]), and teaches “at the first applying position A, the powder of the electrode mixture material 40 can be caused to adhere and be applied on the first surface 21 of the current collector foil 20”([0032]), thereby teaching applying a first coating material (electrode mixture material) onto a surface of a substrate (current collector) with an electrostatic force, such that the first coating material adheres to the surface of the substrate.);
(c) forming a second layer by applying a second coating material (electrode mixture material 40) onto a surface of the first layer (Fig. 2 and [0048] describe a second applying step at position B wherein the electrode mixture material 40 is applied on the first surface 21 of the current collector 20 on which the first layer was already formed at position A)
with an electrostatic force from a roll having the second coating material adhered thereto provided vertically below the first layer, such that the second coating material adheres to the surface of the first layer;
(Fig. 2 and [0036-0037] disclose that the powder of the electrode mixture material 40, i.e. second coating material, moves from the supply roll 130B on which it is adhered toward the current collector substrate 20 as indicated by arrow Zb by an electrostatic force and which causes the second coating material to adhere to the surface of the first layer; roll 130B is disclosed as provided vertically below the first layer)
(d) compressing the second layer by applying a second pressing force to the second layer (Fig. 2 and [0039]-[0040] teach a first hot press roll 191 and second hot press roll 192 at heat-pressing position C that apply a pushing force in the thickness direction, i.e. a second pressing force, on the applied electrode mixture materials on the substrate, including the second layer, which would thereby be expected to compress the second layer in the thickness direction); and
(e) forming an active material layer including the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 1 and [0020] teach an active material layer 30 and wherein the electrode mixture material 40 used to form the first layer and the second layer of active material layer 30 includes at least an active material 41 and a binder 42, thereby reading on an active material layer),
Wherein the second coating material is in a dry state ([0052] teaches solvent is unnecessary for forming the electrode mixture layer, thereby the second coating material is in a dry state), and
Wherein the first coating material and the second coating material are each independently a composite powder, comprising an active material and a binder melted and re-solidified on a surface of the active material
([0020] teaches the electrode mixture material, which forms the first coating material and the second coating material, is a composite comprising an active material and a binder, and [0008] teaches it is in a powder form. Each coating material is applied at a different position in the process shown in Fig. 2 and thus are each independently a composite powder;
Tanaka also teaches a heating-pressing position C wherein heating and pressing is applied to the electrode mixture material after the second applying position B ([0049]) wherein the press rolls used can be set at a heating temperature at which the binder passing through the heating-pressing position C is softened or melted and to cause binding action in the active material ([0041-0042]). Consequently, the binders would be expected to melt and re-solidify on a surface of the active materials after passing through the heat treatment.)
Tanaka does not teach the limitations of step (b).
In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches a dry manufacturing method for a multi-layer electrode for a battery (Figs. 1-2) wherein pressure rolls 1 and 2 are used to apply pressure P1, which would be associated with a first pressing force, to compress the first layer 53 (step b) ([0026]). They also teach that applying a pressure to the first layer can be used to mold the thickness of the first deposition layer and also to improve the peel strength of the resulting first layer ([0026]). A skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Tanaka’s method at the time of filing to compress the first layer by applying a first pressing force to the first layer because Uchida teaches it is a known configuration that can improve the peel strength of the first layer between the current collector and the mixture layer.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Tanaka further teaches the first coating material is in a dry state ([0052] teaches solvent is unnecessary for forming the electrode mixture layer, thereby the first coating material is in a dry state).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1 but the combination does not teach the second pressing force is different from the first pressing force.
Uchida of the combination further teaches that using a smaller pressure to compress the second layer than the pressure used to compress the first layer provides the advantage of more effectively forming an ion conduction path through which the electrolyte can penetrate in the second mixture layer, and consequently further reduces the battery resistance ([0014], [0028]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Uchida’s teaching to modify modified Tanaka to use a second pressing force that is smaller than the first pressing force given that Uchida teaches it is a known configuration that provides a benefit for improving electrolyte penetration in the second mixture layer that is the inlet side of the electrolyte, and thereby, further reduces the battery resistance. Accordingly, the second pressing force is different from the first pressing force.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Tanaka shows in Fig. 1 a continuous electrode sheet formed by deposition of multiple electrode mixture layers of the process in Fig. 2 ([0013], [0020]), thereby teaching the second coating material has the same chemical composition as the first coating material. Additionally, Tanaka teaches that their method of forming a multilayer mixture layer allows for improved manufacturing efficiency of a high-quality electrode sheet having an electrode mixture layer with a sufficient thickness compared to a single-step method ([0055]-[0056], [0058] lines 17-21). A skilled artisan looking to form an electrode with a desired thickness for its electrode mixture layer would have used a second layer that has the same chemical composition as the first layer to take advantage of more efficiently forming a high-quality electrode sheet having the desired thickness of the electrode mixture layer as compared to a method using a single coating application step.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1. Given that Tanaka teaches their method of electrostatically coating the electrode mixture layers uses a solvent-free process ([0052]), the layer is expected to have a solid fraction of about 100% by mass fraction.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1) in view of Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kawai et al (JP2003077463A).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Uchida of the combination further teaches in Fig. 5(b) that when the applied pressure of the second mixture layer (second roll linear pressure) is 1.0 ton (t)/cm or less (ca., 9.80 kN/cm), the reaction resistance of the electrode decreases to 140 mΩ or less ([0047]). Specifically, Fig. 5(b) shows that the resistance decreases monotonically with a reduction in second roll linear pressure. The taught range of the second roll linear pressure as 1.0 ton (t)/cm or less overlaps with the claimed range of 0.02 to 0.2 kN/cm. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to use routine experimentation to adjust the second roll linear pressure conditions to optimize the electrode resistance based on the conditions described by Uchida and would have arrived at the claimed range. Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
The combination does not teach a first roll linear pressure generated by the first pressing force is 0.2 to 2 kN/cm.
In the same field of endeavor, Kawai teaches a method for producing a multi-layer electrode wherein the compaction pressure applied to a dried electrode material layer is gradually reduced with each consecutive layer applied, such that the pressure applied to the (n+1)th layer is 60% or less than that applied to the nth layer based on the desired difference in average porosity (machine translation: [0035], [0038]). Kawai also discloses that the compaction pressure for an electrode mixture layer can be 294 N/cm ([0037]), which is about 0.2 kN/cm and overlaps with the claimed ranges for both the first roll linear pressure and the second roll linear pressure. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Kawai also teaches that when the average porosity is larger for a layer further from the current collector compared to that of a layer on the current collector side, it results in selective lithium absorption during charging and a larger charge capacity compared to when the average porosity is constant in the negative electrode material layer ([0005]).
A skilled artisan would have recognized compaction pressure of a mixture layer as a result-effective variable and would have been motivated to modify modified Tanaka’s method to utilize routine experimentation based on the Kawai’s taught pressure conditions to adjust the first roll linear pressure according to the second roll linear pressure, and accordingly, the porosities of the second layer relative to the first layer, to optimize the charge capacity of the electrode, and would have thereby arrived at the claimed range for the first roll linear pressure.
Claims 8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) and Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Uchida teaches an electrode 100 comprising:
A substrate; (current collector Z as a substrate (Fig. 2, [0031]),
An active material layer (active material layer G)
Wherein the active material is disposed on a surface of the substrate (active material G is disposed on the surface of substrate Z (Fig. 2; [0031]))
Wherein the active material layer G includes a first layer 53 and a second layer 63 (Fig. 2 and [0031])
Wherein the first layer 53 is disposed between the substrate Z and the second layer 63 (Fig. 2),
Wherein the second layer 63 is in contact with the first layer 53 (Fig. 2),
Wherein the first layer 53 and the second layer 63 are each independently a composite powder, comprising an active material and a binder (Uchida teaches in [0025] and [0027] that the first layer and the second layer are each independently a composite powder comprising an active material and a binder because they are each independently formed by the mixtures of a composite powder comprising an active material and a binder).
Uchida further teaches wherein the first layer is formed by applying a first coating material onto the surface of the substrate, such that the first coating material adheres to the surface of the substrate,
([0024]-[0025] teach application of a first coating material comprising a first active material and binder onto the current collector Z (substrate) which forms a first layer. Given that the powder of the first coating material is maintained on the substrate before the pressing step, it can be said to be adhered to the surface of the substrate)
Uchida also teaches the first layer is compressed by applying a first pressing force to the first layer, thereby forming a compressed first layer.
([0026] teaches the use of pressure rolls 1 and 2 to press and mold the deposited layer with applied pressure P1 to the first layer 53, thereby forming a compressed first layer).
Uchida teaches wherein the second layer is formed by applying a second coating material onto a surface of the compressed first layer, such that the second coating material adheres to the surface of the compressed first layer.
([0027] teaches the deposition of a second coating material onto a surface of the first layer 53, post-compression. Given that the powder of the second coating material is maintained on the substrate before a pressing step, it can be said to be adhered to the surface of the substrate)
Uchida does not teach the limitation of “a binder melted and re-solidified on a surface of the active material, wherein a surface of the first layer is flat at an interface between the first layer and the second layer.”
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches a heating-pressing position C wherein heating and pressing is applied to the electrode mixture material after the second applying position B [0049] wherein press rolls used for the process can be set at a heating temperature at which the binder passing through the heating-pressing position C is softened or melted and to cause binding action in the active material [0041-0042]. Tanaka states that as a result, the layer of the electrode mixture material disposed on the first surface of the current collector is fixed onto the first surface of the current collector foil with the binding action of the binder [0051]. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified the method used to manufacture the electrode of Uchida to include Tanaka’s teaching of applying a heat treatment to the electrode mixture material at the pressing steps such that the binders melt and cause binding action. Consequently, within the method of manufacturing Uchida’s electrode, the binders would be expected to melt and re-solidify on a surface of the active materials after passing through the heat-treatment.
The invention taught by the prior art combination is drawn to a substantially identical product of an electrode. The new limitation of “wherein the first layer is formed by applying a first coating material onto the surface of the substrate with an electrostatic force, … and wherein the second layer is formed by applying a second coating material onto a surface of the compressed first layer with an electrostatic force from a roll having the second coating material adhered thereto provided vertically below the compressed first layer, such that the second coating material adheres to the surface of the compressed first layer” is a product-by-process limitation and does not imply additional structural considerations as a result of the process steps. Hence, the new limitation does not structurally differentiate the product of the claimed invention from the product taught by the prior art. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable; see MPEP 2113, I.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 8. Uchida further teaches the pressure applied to pressurize and mold the second layer (associated with a second pressing force) is smaller than the pressure applied to pressurize and mold the first layer (associated with a first pressing force), such that voids (ion conduction paths) through which the electrolyte can penetrate can be more effectively formed in the second layer ([0012] lines 1-4). Uchida also teaches that compression of the layers reduces the void space in the active material layers by bringing the active materials into close contact with each other and with a binder ([0012] lines 8-11). Therefore, it is presumed that the second layer has a larger void space, or lower packing density, than the first layer because the second pressing force is smaller than the first pressing force. Consequently, the second layer has a density that is different from and lower than the first layer, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 8. Tanaka of the combination teaches their multi-layer powder application method allows for more efficient manufacturing of an electrode mixture layer having a desired thickness compared to a method using a single coating application step ([0055]-[0056], [0058] lines 17-21). A skilled artisan looking to form Uchida’s electrode with a desired thickness for its electrode mixture layer to have a sufficient amount of the electrode mixture material would have been motivated to modify the manufacturing process used to make Uchida’s electrode to use Tanaka’s powder application method, because it provides the advantage of more efficiently forming a high-quality electrode sheet having the desired thickness of the electrode mixture layer as compared to a method using a single coating application step. Consequently, the multi-layer electrode formed would have a second layer that has the same chemical composition as the first layer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) and Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Ohata (JP 2004247249 A).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 8 but does not teach “wherein at the interface between the first layer and the second layer, the first layer has a flatness of 1.15 or less” as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, Ohata teaches a method for producing a secondary battery electrode having a uniform thickness and discloses “If the thickness of the electrode active material layer is non-uniform, the depth of discharge varies depending on the part of the electrode, and the battery characteristics are likely to deteriorate” (translation p2: lines 14-16); therefore, thickness uniformity of an active material layer is a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the thickness of the first layer and the thickness of the second layer to achieve uniform thickness and minimize thickness heterogeneity, including at the surface of the first layer at the interface between the first layer and the second layer, to avoid position-dependent discharge of the layer and deterioration of battery characteristics. Electrode active layers with uniform thickness would be presumed to have a length of a contour line of the surface of the first layer at the interface between the first layer and the second layer (L’) to be substantially equal to L, an entire width of the active material layer in a cross section parallel to the thickness direction of the active material layer as measured from an SEM image of the cross-section, and therefore F would be presumed to have a flatness of 1.15 or less, as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 30, 2026 that inserting Uchida’s intermediate compression step into Tanaka’s process would negate Tanaka’s intended purpose and destroy its principle of operation have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Tanaka does not indicate that introduction of an intermediate compression step would interfere with its manufacture efficiency of an electrode sheet ([0005-0006, 0009]). Tanaka also does not indicate that a mechanically compacted powder layer would prevent use of an electrostatic force to transfer dry powder from a supply roll to the layer and destroy Tanaka’s principle of operation. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726 09/04/2026
Prosecution Insights