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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application. The amendment filed October 16, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 8 overcomes the original objection to the claim.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 overcomes the original 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the claim.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 overcomes the original 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1 and 5 over Shin and the amendment to claim 8 overcomes the original 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 8 and 12 over Shin in view of Ohata and over Shin in view of Uchida with evidentiary reference Alfa Chemistry “Properties and Uses of Polyvinylidene Fluoride.”
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). Evidentiary support is provided by “compound,” Dictionary.com, and “granulate,” Dictionary.com.
Regarding claim 1, Uchida teaches a manufacturing method for an electrode for a lithium ion secondary battery (Figs. 1-2) that deposits a first coating material comprising a first active material and binder onto the current collector Z (substrate) which forms a first layer (limitation a) (translation: [0024]-[0025]), and 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 (limitation b) ([0026]). Given that the powder is maintained on the substrate before the pressing step, it can be said to be adhered to the surface of the substrate. Uchida consequently teaches the deposition of a second coating material onto a surface of the first layer 53, post-compression (limitation c) ([0027]), and then 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]). Given that 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]), layer G reads on the claimed active material layer of limitation e. 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).
Regarding the first coating material and second coating material, 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. Additionally, the definition of “compound” according to Dictionary.com is “something formed by combining parts, elements, etc” (Dictionary.com: “compound”, p2, noun, definition 1). A broad reasonable interpretation of the word “compound” characterizes Uchida’s particles containing at least an active material and a binder which are granulated, that is, formed into granules or grains (Dictionary.com: “granulate”, p1, verb, definition 1), because the active material and binder ingredients are combined into granules or grains. Therefore, Uchida teaches wherein the first coating material and the second coating material are each independently a composite powder, comprising an active material and a binder compounded therein.
Uchida does not teach wherein in (c), a roll having the second coating material adhered thereto is provided vertically below the first layer, and the second coating material adheres to the surface of the first layer from the roll by being flown by electrostatic force.
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.
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 that for the second applying step performed at the position B of Fig. 2, the electrode mixture material 40 at position B (second coating material) is applied on the first surface 21 of the current collector 20 on which the electrode mixture material 40 has already been applied in the first applying step at the first applying position A (which formed the first coating material) ([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 from the roll by being flown by electrostatic force ([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.
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 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 6, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Tanaka of the combination teaches that first coating material is adhered to the surface of the substrate by electrostatic force ([0032] and [0046] disclose the electrostatic force causes the electrode mixture material 40, i.e. first coating material, to move from the supply roll 130A to the first surface 21 of the current collector substrate at position A; Fig. 2). Additionally, as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Tanaka teaches the second coating material adheres to the surface of the first layer by electrostatic force ([0036] lines 1-11, [0048]).
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). Evidentiary support is provided by “compound,” Dictionary.com, and “granulate,” Dictionary.com.
Regarding Claim 1, Tanaka teaches an electrode manufacturing method (Fig. 2) comprising:
(a) forming a first layer by adhering a first coating material (electrode mixture material 40) on a surface of a substrate (current collector 20) (Fig. 2 and [0048] describe a first applying step at the first applying position A to formed the first layer);
(c) forming a second layer by applying a second coating material (electrode mixture material 40) to a surface of the first layer (Fig. 2 and [0048] describe a second applying step at the second applying position B wherein the electrode mixture material 40 is applied on the first surface 21 of the current collector 20 on which the first coating material was already formed during the first applying step at position A);
(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 compounded therein ([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), and
Wherein in (c),
A roll having the second coating material adhered thereto is provided vertically below the first layer (Fig. 2 and [0036] disclose a roll 130B at position B corresponding to the second applying step that has the second coating material 40 adhered to it, wherein Fig. 2 and [0037] disclose that roll 130B is provided vertically below the first layer), and
The second coating material adheres to the surface of the first layer from the roll by being flown by electrostatic force ([0036] lines 1-11 disclose that the powder of the electrode mixture material 40, i.e. second coating material, moves from the supply roll 130B 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 from the roll by being flown by electrostatic force).
Tanaka does not teach step (b) or that the active material and binder are compounded therein the composite powder of the first coating material and the second coating material. Tanaka’s Fig. 3 shows electrode mixture material 40 as a particle formed by active material 41 and binder 42 but does not provide details on compounding.
In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches a dry manufacturing method for a multi-layer electrode for a lithium ion secondary 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 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.
Uchida also teaches the use of electrode active material mixtures formed by granulation of active material and a binder ([0016]; Paragraphs [0025] and [0027] describe example mixtures), wherein the granulation process combines the active material and binder based on the definition of granulation (Dictionary.com: “granulate”, p1, verb, definition 1 defines granulate as to form into granules or grains). Thus, based on a broad reasonable interpretation of “compound” as “something formed by combining parts, elements, etc” (Dictionary.com: “compound”, p2, noun, definition 1), the granulation process can be said to result in a composite powder in which an active material and binder are compounded therein.
Uchida further teaches that such granulated particles have many pores formed on the surface and inside the granules that provide ion conduction paths for electrolyte penetration and that can reduce battery resistance ([0016]-[0017], [0014]). A skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Tanaka’s method to use coating materials in the form of powders consisting of granulated particles as taught by Uchida to provide pores for ion conduction and reduce battery resistance, thereby improving battery performance.
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 6, the combination above teaches the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, and Tanaka further teaches the first coating material adheres to the surface of the substrate by electrostatic force (Fig. 2 and [0032]; the first applying step at position A uses electrostatic force ZA to adhere the first coating material 40 to the surface of substrate 20), and wherein the second coating material adheres to the surface of the first layer by electrostatic force (Fig. 2 and [0036]; the second applying step at position B uses electrostatic force ZB to adhere the second coating material 40 to the already applied first layer formed by first coating material 40 at position A).
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 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) in view of Ohata (JP 2004247249 A). Evidentiary support is provided by “compound,” Dictionary.com, and “granulate,” Dictionary.com.
Regarding Claim 8, Uchida teaches an electrode 100 comprising current collector Z as a substrate (Fig. 2, [0031]), wherein an active material layer G, which includes a first layer 53 and a second layer 63, is disposed on the surface of substrate Z (Fig. 2; [0031]). Uchida further teaches the first layer 53 is disposed between the substrate Z and the second layer 63, and the second layer 63 is in contact with the first layer 53 (Fig. 2), and wherein the first layer 53 and the second layer 63 each independently includes an active material and a binder ([0025], [0027]).
Regarding the mixtures used to form the first layer and the second layer, 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]), therefore 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. Additionally, the definition of “compound” according to Dictionary.com is “something formed by combining parts, elements, etc” (Dictionary.com: “compound”, p2, noun, definition 1). A broad reasonable interpretation of the word “compound” would read on Uchida’s particles containing at least an active material and a binder which are granulated, that is, formed into granules or grains (Dictionary.com: “granulate”, p1, verb, definition 1), because the active material and binder ingredients are being combined into granules or grains Therefore, Uchida teaches wherein the first layer and the second layer are also each independently a composite powder, comprising an active material and a binder compounded therein.
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 modified Uchida’s electrode to adjust the thickness of the first layer and the thickness of the second layer as taught by Ohata to achieve uniform thickness and minimize thickness heterogeneity, which would be presumed to result in a flat surface of the first layer at an interface between the first layer and the second layer, to avoid position-dependent discharge of the layer and deterioration of battery characteristics. Consequently, the prior art meets the limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 8. As previously pointed out in addressing claim 8, 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.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) in view of Ohata (JP 2004247249 A) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of in view of Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Uchida 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.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20200295353 A1) in view of Uchida (JP 2014049240 A) and Ohata (JP 2004247249 A).
Regarding Claim 8, Tanaka teaches (Fig. 1) an electrode 10 comprising:
A substrate 20 ([0017]: current collector 20); and
An active material layer ([0017]: 30),
Wherein the active material layer 30 is disposed on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 1),
Wherein the active material layer 30 includes a first layer and a second layer,
(Tanaka teaches a method of forming active material 30 in Fig. 2, comprising a first applying step of forming a first layer at position A on a surface of a substrate 20 ([0048]), and a second applying step of forming a second layer at position B wherein electrode mixture material 40 at position B is applied to the first surface 21 of the current collector 20 on which the first coating material was formed during the first applying step at position A ([0048]));
Wherein the first layer is disposed between the substrate and the second layer (Tanaka’s method would result in the first layer, applied at position A of Fig. 2, to be disposed between the substrate 20 and the second layer applied at position B),
Wherein the second layer is in contact with the first layer (Tanaka’s method would result in the second layer in contact with the first layer given that there is no intervening layer)
Wherein the first layer and the second layer are each independently a composite powder, comprising an active material and a binder (([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 of the first and second layers is applied at a different position and is independently a composite powder),
Tanaka does not teach the active material and binder are compounded therein the composite powder of the first coating material and the second coating material, and Tanaka also does not claim that a surface of the first layer is flat at an interface between the first layer and the second layer. Tanaka’s Fig. 3 shows electrode mixture material 40 as a particle formed by active material 41 and binder 42 but does not provide details on compounding.
In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches the use of electrode active material mixtures formed by granulation of active material and a binder ([0016]; Paragraphs [0025] and [0027] describe example mixtures), wherein the granulation process combines the active material and binder based on the definition of granulation (Dictionary.com: “granulate”, p1, verb, definition 1 defines granulate as to form into granules or grains). Thus, based on a broad reasonable interpretation of “compound” as “something formed by combining parts, elements, etc” (Dictionary.com: “compound”, p2, noun, definition 1), the granulation process can be said to result in a composite powder in which an active material and binder are compounded therein.
Uchida further teaches that such granulated particles have many pores formed on the surface and inside the granules that provide ion conduction paths for electrolyte penetration and that can reduce battery resistance ([0016]-[0017], [0014]). A skilled artisan at the time of filing would have been motivated to modify Tanaka’s electrode to use powder coating materials formed of granulated particles as taught by Uchida to provide pores for ion conduction and reduce battery resistance, thereby improving battery performance.
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 further modified modified Tanaka’s electrode to adjust the thickness of the first layer and the thickness of the second layer as taught by Ohata to achieve uniform thickness and minimize thickness heterogeneity, which would be presumed to result in a flat surface of the first layer at an interface between the first layer and the second layer, to avoid position-dependent discharge of the layer and deterioration of battery characteristics. Consequently, the prior art meets the limitation as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 8. As previously pointed out in addressing claim 8, 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.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 8, but does not teach a second layer that has a density different from or lower than the first layer.
Uchida of the combination further teaches when 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) ([0014], [0028]), there is an advantage of more effectively forming void spaces as ion conduction paths through which the electrolyte can penetrate in the second mixture layer, which further reduces the battery resistance ([0014]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the process used to manufacture modified Tanaka’s electrode to use a smaller second 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. Different pressing forces used for the second layer and the first layer are expected to result in different void space, as Uchida notes that a larger compression force reduces the void space in the active material layer ([0014], [0017]). 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 of claim 8, 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 the conveyance speed of the current collector substrate to be maintained at a high speed while the supply rolls for feeding the first and second layer materials can be set to have appropriate rotation speeds that are not excessively high ([0058]), in contrast to a method with a single coating application step ([0055]-[0056]). Tanaka’s method is taught to improve the manufacturing efficiency of a high-quality electrode sheet having an electrode mixture layer with a sufficient thickness ([0058] lines 17-21). A skilled artisan looking to form an electrode with a desired thickness associated with a sufficient amount of material for its electrode mixture layer would have used a second layer that has the same chemical composition as the first layer to more efficiently form a high-quality electrode sheet having the desired thickness of the electrode mixture layer as compared to a method using a single application step. Accordingly, the product electrode would have a second layer that has the same composition as the first layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 16, 2025 with respect to the rejections of claims over Shin, specifically, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1 and 5 over Shin (p7 para 4-6), the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 8 and 12 over Shin in view of Ohata (p9 para 2-3), and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim 8 and 12 over Shin in view of Uchida and Amin-Sanayei with evidentiary reference Alfa Chemistry (p9 para 2-3) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
However, Applicant’s arguments filed October 16, 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims over Uchida, specifically, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1-4 and 7 over Shin (p7 para 3), the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 8-11 over Uchida in view of Amin-Sanayei with evidentiary reference Alfa Chemistry, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 8-11 over Uchida in view of Ohata have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Uchida does not teach or suggest the claimed composite powder in which an active material and binder are compounded therein. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Uchida teaches the use of electrode active material mixtures formed by granulation of active material and a binder ([0016]; Paragraphs [0025] and [0027] describe example mixtures), wherein the granulation process combines the active material and binder based on the definition of granulation (Dictionary.com: “granulate”, p1, verb, definition 1 defines granulate as to form into granules or grains). Thus, based on a broad reasonable interpretation of “compound” as “something formed by combining parts, elements, etc” (Dictionary.com: “compound”, p2, noun, definition 1), the granulation process can be said to result in a composite powder in which an active material and binder are compounded therein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 01/07/2026