DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/3/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu et al. teaches an electrode for secondary battery by
the electrode for batteries in column 2 lines 22 to 29 that may be a secondary battery as
noted in column 10 line 53 and shown in Fig. 3 comprising: an electrode current collector by the mesh metal net in Example 1 and 2 in column 9 lines 41-67 and aluminum foil in Example 3 in column 10 lines 34-46 and Fig. 3; and an electrode layer located on the electrode current collector by the paste for the electrode applied to the net in Example 1 and 2 in column 9 lines 41-67 and applied to the aluminum foil in column 10 line 34-46 and in Fig. 3, wherein the electrode layer comprises an electrode composition in which an active material, a conductive material, and a binder are dry-mixed by the electrode composition includes the core-shell composite fine particles that act as a binder in column 2 lines 22-29, active materials, and conductive materials by the powdery electrode material in the electrode composition that may be an active material or conductive agents in column 6 lines 8-18. It is understood that the electrode
composition is within the paste by the explanation of forming the aqueous dispersion or
paste in Example 1-3 in column 9 lines 41 to column 10 line 47 that reference the same
process as Reference Example 1 in column 7 line 35 to column 8 line 50.
The Examiner notes that claim 1 is drawn to products by process. Per
MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by
the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The
patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. 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 even though the prior product was made by a different
process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) In the
instant case, the product set forth in product-by-process claims of the electrode layer in
which the composition is dry-mixed is the same as that set forth by Shimizu et al. in
which a paste is applied to a conductor and dried in column 9 line 41 to column 10 line
47.
Shimizu et al. teaches wherein the binder comprises a first binder and a second
binder by the binder in column 2 lines 22-29 being formed of a core and shell particles,
with the first binder and the second binder being different from each other by the shell
being made of a non-fibrillating polymer and the core of a fibrillating polytetrafluoroethylene in column 2 lines 22-29, and wherein the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder by the PTFE core being surrounded by the polymer shell in column 2 lines 22-29. Shimizu et al. also teaches in column 4 lines 10-37 and column 5 lines 21-52 that the size of the binder particles and the ratio of core to shell of the particles are adjusted so that sufficient fibrillation occurs and the particles are uniformly dispersed in the electrode materials to create inherent binding properties of the particles.
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein: a content ratio of the first
binder to the second binder is from 0.1:10 to 10:0.1 by the core to shell ratio by weight
of 98:2 to 50:50 in column 2 lines 22-29 of which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein: the first binder comprises
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) by the core is made of polytetrafluoroethylene in
column 2 lines 22-29, and the second binder comprises an acrylic polymer material by
the shell may be made of a polymer selected from polymerizing a hydrocarbon
monomer such as methyl acrylate, an acrylic compound, in column 3 lines 15-25 and
column 3 line 47 to column 4 line 4.
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein: the active material comprises
at least one selected from the group consisting of lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO₂), lithium
nickel oxide (LiNiO₂), lithium manganese oxide and lithium copper oxide (Li2CuO2) by
the lithium cobalt dioxide, lithium nickel dioxide, lithium manganese oxide compounds, lithium compounds of copper oxide, and lithium vanadium oxides that may be active
materials in column 6 lines 8-25.
Regarding claim 18, Shimizu et al. teaches a secondary battery by the batteries
in column 2 line 22 that may be a secondary battery as noted in column 10 line 53 and
shown in Fig. 3 comprising an electrode for secondary battery by the electrode for
batteries in column 2 lines 22 to 29 that may be a secondary battery as noted in column
10 line 53 and shown in Fig. 3 as set forth in claim 1 and an electrolyte by the non-
aqueous electrolyte in column 4 lines 50-51.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated
by Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763) and in the alternative under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)(1)
over Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763).
In regards to claim 2, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same
structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in
which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by
the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
consider it to inherently have the claimed compositional property of a glass transition
temperature (Tg) of the second binder is larger than a glass transition temperature (Tg)
of the first binder, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally,
considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same composition as
those recited in the dependent claim 6 and the instant specification and examples of
PTFE and an acrylic polymer material, it would further be reasonably considered an inherent property, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification.
See MPEP 2112.01.
In the alternative, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same
structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in
which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by
the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect
it to have the claimed compositional property of a glass transition temperature (Tg) of
the second binder is larger than a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the first binder,
lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and
second binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the
dependent claim 6 and the instant specification and examples of PTFE and an acrylic
polymer material, it would be reasonably expected, lacking any distinction or anything to
the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines
20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same
structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in
which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by
the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably
consider it to inherently have the claimed compositional property the glass transition
temperature (Tg) of the first binder is 15 degrees Celsius or more and 100 degrees
Celsius or less, and the glass transition temperature (Tg) of the second binder is 25 degrees Celsius or more and 115 degrees Celsius or less, lacking any distinction or
anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the
prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claim 6 and the
instant specification and examples of PTFE and an acrylic polymer material, it would
further be reasonably considered an inherent property, lacking any distinction or
anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page
13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01.
In the alternative, given that the prior art, Shimizu et al., discloses the same
structure and composition of: a first and second binder different from each other in
which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first binder, as recited thus far by
the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect
it to have the claimed compositional property of the glass transition temperature (Tg) of
the first binder is 15 degrees Celsius or more and 100 degrees Celsius or less, and the
glass transition temperature (Tg) of the second binder is 25 degrees Celsius or more
and 115 degrees Celsius or less, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary.
Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the prior art have the same
composition as those recited in the dependent claim 6 and the instant specification and
examples of PTFE and an acrylic polymer material, it would be reasonably expected,
lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2,
page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP
2112.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu
et al. (U.S. 5,707,763) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu et al. teaches wherein a content of the binder is
0.51% by weight or more and 11.99% by weight or less based on a total weight of the
electrode composition by the electrode composition comprises 0.1-10 wt. % of core-
shell composite fine particles in column 6 line 8-10 that column 2 lines 22-29 explain as
the binder.
This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case
of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shimizu et al. (U.S. 5,707,763) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of
Wang et al. (US 2019/0305316 A1). Wang et al. was cited in the IDS filed
12/21/2022.
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu et al. teaches that the electrode paste was extruded,
dried, and underwent a tensile test in column 7 lines 9-33 in the best mode of carrying
out the invention however a paste was applied to the current collector in Examples 1-3
in column 9 line 41 to column 10 line 47.
Shimizu et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the electrode composition is
manufactured into a freestanding film, and the freestanding film is attached onto the
electrode current collector.
However, Wang et al. teaches turning binders and active materials including a
fibrillizable binder such as PTFE and a non-fibrillizable binder into a free-standing
electrode film in [0035] that may be attached to a current collector in [0027]. Wang et al.
notes electrode films were discovered to exhibit improved mechanical and processing
characteristics in [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying a known technique of
manufacturing electrode films out of electrode binders and active materials, like Wang
et al., to known materials, like the electrode materials of Shimizu et al., to yield
predictable results and result in an improved system of improved mechanical and
processing characteristics as noted in [0023] of Wang et al..
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu et al. teaches that the electrode paste was extruded,
dried, and underwent a tensile test in column 7 lines 9-33 in the best mode of carrying
out the invention however a paste was applied to the current collector in Examples 1-3
in column 9 line 41 to column 10 line 47.
Shimizu et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the freestanding film has a tensile
strength of 5kgf/cm² or more and 50kgf/cm² or less.
However, Wang et al. teaches turning binders and active materials including a
fibrillizable binder such as PTFE and a non-fibrillizable binder into a free-standing
electrode film in [0035]. Wang et al. notes electrode films were discovered to exhibit
improved mechanical and processing characteristics in [0023].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying a known technique of
manufacturing electrode films out of electrode binders and active materials, like Wang
et al., to known materials, like the electrode materials of Shimizu et al., to yield
predictable results and result in an improved system of improved mechanical and
processing characteristics as noted in [0023] of Wang et al..
Given that the prior art, the combination of teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang
et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder
different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first
binder and the electrode composition is manufactured into a freestanding film, as
recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably consider it to inherently have the claimed property of the freestanding film having a tensile strength of 5kgf/cm² or more and 50kgf/cm² or less, lacking any
distinction or anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second
binders of the prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent
claims 5-7, an overlapping range with the dependent composition claim 4, and the same
PTFE and acrylic polymer material composition as the instant specification and
examples, it would further be reasonably considered an inherent property, lacking any
distinction or anything to the contrary. See page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-
25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant specification. See MPEP 2112.01. This is
further supported that the instant specification highlighted the tensile strength depends
upon the first and second binder attachment structure of the second binder being
attached to the surface of the first binder affecting the tensile strength on page 6 lines 9-
24 which was noted in claim 1 and met by Shimizu et al. by the binder in column 2 lines
22-29 being formed of a core and shell particles. The instant specification notes when
the glass transition temperature of the second binder is greater than that of the first and
within the temperature ranges claimed, and when the first and second binder may within
the claimed content ratio to each other and the electrode composition, it affects the
tensile strength from page 8 line 25 to page 10 line 9. These factors, claimed in
dependent claims 2-5, were noted to lead to the claimed tensile strength and these
claims were all met by Shimizu et al. above. Thus, it would further be reasonably
considered inherent that upon the combination of teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang
et al. to produce a free-standing film out of the electrode composition of Shimizu et al., it
would have the claimed tensile strength considering all compositional limitations were met of which were the factors noted to affect the tensile strength in the instant
specification.
Given that the prior art, the combination of teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang
et al., discloses the same structure and composition of: a first and second binder
different from each other in which the second binder is attached to a surface of the first
binder and the electrode composition is manufactured into a freestanding film, as
recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would
reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of the freestanding film having a
tensile strength of 5kgf/cm² or more and 50kgf/cm² or less, lacking any distinction or
anything to the contrary. Additionally, considering the first and second binders of the
prior art have the same composition as those recited in the dependent claims 5-7, an
overlapping range with the dependent composition claim 4, and the same PTFE and
acrylic polymer material composition as the instant specification and examples, it would
further be reasonably expected, lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See
page 6 line 24 to page 7 line 2, page 7 line 9-25, and page 13 lines 20-25 of the instant
specification. See MPEP 2112.01. This is further supported that the instant specification
highlighted the tensile strength depends upon the first and second binder attachment
structure of the second binder being attached to the surface of the first binder affecting
the tensile strength on page 6 lines 9-24, which was noted in claim 1 and met by
Shimizu et al. by the binder in column 2 lines 22-29 being formed of a core and shell
particles. The instant specification notes when the glass transition temperature of the
second binder is greater than that of the first and within the temperature ranges
claimed, and when the first and second binder may within the claimed content ratio to each other and the electrode composition, it affects the tensile strength from page 8 line
25 to page 10 line 9. These factors, claimed in dependent claims 2-5, were noted to
lead to the claimed tensile strength and these claims were all met by Shimizu et al.
above. Thus, it would further be reasonably expected that upon the combination of
teachings of Shimizu et al. and Wang et al. to produce a free-standing film out of the
electrode composition of Shimizu et al., it would have the claimed tensile strength
considering all compositional limitations were met of which were the factors noted to
affect the tensile strength in the instant specification.
Response to Arguments
The amendments made to the claims, filed on 3/18/2026, have overcome the objections made to the claims that were presented in the last Office Action.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Shimizu does not disclose that the first binder forms bridges connecting between particles of the active material because the first binder is the core of a core-shell particle and Shimizu forms these particles to avoid fibrillization, which creates the bridges. Shimizu teaches that the binder particle size and ratio of the core to the shell needs to be in a certain range in order for enough fibrillization to occur and for the binder particles to be uniformly dispersed in the active material. Additionally, it is inherent, and taught by Shimizu, that binders are dispersed in active materials in order to bind the active material particles together. Thus, the binder particles of Shimizu would be uniformly distributed through the active material to bind the active material particles together. This binding would be equivalent to bridging between the active material particles.
Applicants also argue that Wang fails to cure the deficiencies of Shimizu. As discussed above, Shimizu teaches every limitation of claim 1 of the present invention. Wang is only relied upon to teach limitations of dependent claims.
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 BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights