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 .
Summary
Claims 1-2, 4-19 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1, 4-5, 7-17, 19 in the reply filed on Nov. 5, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 2, 6, and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, 14-15 of copending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches an electrode, comprising: a current collector; and an active material layer on one or both side of the current collector, wherein the active material layer comprises an electrode active material and a particulate binder, wherein the electrode comprises a network region and a blank region observed on a surface of the current collector after a standard peel test, wherein the network region is a region comprising the particulate binder, and having a height of 3 times or more an average particle diameter of the particulate binder, which correspond to the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) additionally recites “wherein the blank region is a region that does not comprise the particulate binder or a region comprising the particulate binder, and having a height of 1.5 times or less the average particle diameter of the particulate binder,” a limitation which corresponds to the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 5, claim 7 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) recites the electrode of their claim 1 wherein an area occupied by the network region satisfies Equation 1: A/W≤30 wherein A is a ratio (unit: %) of an area occupied by the network region relative to the total area of the surface of the current collector and W is a content (weight%) of the binder in the active material layer, which corresponds to the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, claim 5 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches the electrode of their claim 1, wherein the binder comprises one or more selected from a group consisting of species that correspond to the list of recited species in claim 8 for the particulate binder of the instant application.
Regarding claim 10, claim 6 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches the electrode of their claim 1 and also teaches wherein the network region has a height of 1.4 µm or more.
Regarding claim 11, claim 8 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches the electrode of their claim 1 and teaches an amount of the binder included in the active material layer is from 0.5 weight% to 10 weight%.
Regarding claim 12, claim 10 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches the electrode of their claim 1 and wherein the electrode active material is a particulate material.
Regarding claim 13, claim 11 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches the electrode of their claim 1, and teaches wherein a ratio (D1/D2) of an average particle diameter (D1) of the electrode active material relative to an average particle diameter (D2) of the particulate binder is in a range of 10 to 1,000.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches the electrode of their claim 1, and further teaches the electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode or a positive electrode.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 of co-pending Application No. 18/274,706 (reference application) teaches the electrode of their claim 1, and further teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode or a positive electrode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein the network region is the region including the particulate binder and the network region is the region having a height of three times or more an average particle diameter of the particulate binder.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation of “the region” in the claim and therefore is indefinite.
The claim is also indefinite because the phrasing is unclear as to whether or not the network region is a region that includes the entirety of the particulate binder in the context of Figure 3 of the instant application showing that the particulate binder 2001 is located both at the current collector surface and also in regions from the current collector surface.
Additionally, the claim is also unclear as to whether the region including the particulate binder and the region having a height of three times or more an average particular diameter of the particulate binder necessarily corresponds to the same region.
To advance prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as "wherein the network region is a region including the particulate binder and having a height of three times or more an average particle diameter of the particulate binder.”
Related, the claim recites “a current collector surface includes a network region” (lines 7-8). This limitation is also indefinite, because the current collector surface is disclosed as an essentially two-dimensional surface (e.g. Figures 1-4); thus, it is unclear how the network region which is included as part of the planar current collector surface could have a height corresponding to an out-of-plane dimension. To advance prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the electrode includes a network region on a current collector surface,” and this interpretation is suggested as a replacement for the presently recited limitation.
Claims 4-5, 7-17, 19 depend on claim 1 and therefore are also indefinite.
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)(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, 4, 7-8, 12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida et al (US 20120115027 A1, published 2012-05-10).
Regarding claim 1, Uchida teaches an electrode (Fig. 5, ¶ 0035-0036), comprising: a current collector 10; and an active material layer 20, the active material layer 20 including an electrode active material 22 and a particulate binder (44 or 54, which can be the same material ¶ 0049; the binder can be dispersed in a solvent such that it maintains granular form [¶ 0061] and thereby reads on a particulate binder) on one side of the current collector (Fig. 5; ¶ 0065).
The active material layer 20 comprises network region including the particulate binder and having a height of three times or more an average particle diameter of the particulate binder. As seen in Fig. 5, the active material layer 20 has a height that extends from the current collector surface and comprises regions including the particulate binder and having a height of three times or more of an average particle diameter of the particulate binder (44, 54).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Uchida teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches that roughly 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector is preferably covered by the binder solution layer to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0065, 0082], thereby teaching a range that overlaps with the claimed range of a ratio of an occupied area by the network region for both claims 4 and 17.
Regarding claim 7, Uchida teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the current collector can be a copper foil [¶ 0087].
Regarding claim 8, Uchida teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the particulate binder can be polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) [¶ 0059, 0086].
Regarding claim 12, Uchida teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the electrode active material is a particulate material (Uchida describes the negative electrode active materials as particles in [¶ 0070]).
Regarding claims 14-15, Uchida teaches the electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode for a secondary battery, which is an electrochemical element [¶ 0073].
Regarding claim 16, Uchida teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the current collector surface further comprising a blank region, wherein the blank region is a region not comprising the particulate binder, as can be seen in an annotated version of Fig. 5 reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 5, 7-12, 14-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (US 20130004843 A1, published 2013-01-03) in view of Uchida et al (US 20120115027 A1, published 2012-05-10) and Tanaka (JP2001216956A, published 2001-08-10).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches an electrode ([¶ 0020, 0029]; Fig. 2), comprising: a current collector 13; and an active material layer 14 (i.e., electrode material layer), the active material layer including an electrode active material 11 and a binder (i.e., first binder), on one side of the current collector (as shown in Fig. 2),
Wherein, a current collector surface includes a network region 12 (“binder-rich layer 12”), wherein the network region is the region including the binder (i.e., second binder 12C; Suzuki further teaches that the binder used in the binder-rich layer 12 or the electrode material layer 14 can be the same binder [¶ 0043]).
Suzuki teaches that the binder-rich layer can be deposited on the current collector by using ink-jet printing [¶ 0042]. In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches a binder dispersed in a solvent such that it maintains granular form [¶ 0061] is suitable as a binder solution applied to a current collector, and which can be applied via an ink jet method [¶ 0064]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a binder solution that is a dispersion that maintains a granular form of the binder to form the binder-rich layer (I.e., network region) of Suzuki, because it is known to be a suitable material. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Accordingly, the binder within the active material layer and the network region corresponds to a particulate binder.
Suzuki does not teach the network region having a height of three times or more of an average particle diameter of the particulate binder.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches the average particle diameter of the binder powder is preferably 0.005 to 5 µm to optimize the time needed to dissolve or swell binder powder in the solvent and for ease in handling binder powder (machine translation [¶ 0014]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Suzuki’s electrode to use an average particle diameter of binder powder (thus also teaching a particulate binder) that is 0.005 to 5 µm to optimize the time needed to dissolve or swell binder powder in the solvent and for ease in handling binder powder, as taught by Tanaka.
Primary reference Suzuki teaches the thickness of the binder-rich layer 12 (i.e., network region) can be 10 µm [¶ 0052]). Accordingly, the network region of the combination of prior art has a height ranging from two to 2000 times more than an average particle diameter of the particulate binder, thus overlapping with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1 but does not teach wherein a ratio of an occupied area by the network region on the current collector.
In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches an electrode comprising of a binder layer confined to the surface of the current collector (i.e., a network region) and a compound material paste layer containing the active material applied over the binder layer, wherein the configuration enhances adhesion between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0008-0011]; Fig. 6. Uchida further teaches that roughly 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector is preferably covered by the binder solution layer to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0065, 0082]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the modified electrode of Suzuki to apply the binder layer solution to the current collector such that roughly 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector is covered by the binder solution layer, as taught by Uchida, to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector, thereby teaching a range that overlaps with the claimed range of a ratio of an occupied area by the network region for both claims 4 and 17. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Furthermore, based on Uchida’s teaching above, a ratio of an occupied area by the network region on the current collector surface is a result-effective variable, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust a ratio of an occupied area by the binder-rich layer 12 (i.e., network region) of modified Suzuki’s electrode based on Uchida’s disclosed conditions to optimize the adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while mitigating increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector, and would have arrived at the claimed ratio as a result.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1. Suzuki further teaches that an optimal composition of the binder in the electrode material layer is 0.8 to 2.0 wt% when an aqueous binder such as a styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) is used in order to optimize the binding force between the active material particles and the resistance between electrodes [¶ 0044], and further teaches that the binder in the electrode material layer (i.e., active material layer) can be the same as the binder in the binder-rich layer (i.e., network region) ([¶ 0043], Example 1 in Table 1). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify modified Suzuki’s electrode to utilize a weight percent content W of the particulate binder in the active material layer of 0.8 to 2.0 wt% to optimize the binding force between the active material particles and the resistance between electrodes when using an aqueous binder such as SBR, which is taught as a suitable option.
In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches an electrode comprising of a binder layer confined to the surface of the current collector (i.e., a network region) and a compound material paste layer containing the active material applied over the binder layer, wherein the configuration enhances adhesion between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0008-0011]; Fig. 6. Uchida further teaches that roughly 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector is preferably covered by the binder solution layer to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0065, 0082]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the modified electrode of Suzuki to apply the binder layer solution to the current collector such that roughly 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector is covered by the binder solution layer, as taught by Uchida, to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector, thereby teaching a ratio A of an occupied area by the network region relative to the total area of the current collector surface would be about 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector.
Furthermore, based on Uchida’s teaching above, a ratio A of an occupied area by the network region on the current collector surface is a result-effective variable, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the coverage area of the binder layer solution (and accordingly, the resulting network region) of modified Suzuki’s electrode based on Uchida’s disclosed conditions to optimize between enhanced adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector and mitigating increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector, and would have arrived at a ratio A of about 60-80%.
Accordingly, the range of A/W taught by the combination of prior art would be (less than or equal to 60-80%)/(0.8 to 2.0 wt%), or A/W ≤ (30 to 100), which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 7, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the current collector can be a copper foil [¶ 0051].
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) can be used [¶ 0043, 0051-52].
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Tanaka of the combination teaches the average particle diameter of the binder powder is preferably 0.005 to 5 µm [¶ 0014], which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the thickness of the binder-rich layer 12 (i.e., network region) can be 10 µm [¶ 0052]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1. Suzuki teaches the binder concentration in the electrode material layer is in a range of 0.8 to 2.0 wt % such that it is not too low such that the binding force between the active material particles is not lowered and adversely affects the electrode manufacturing or that it is too high such that the resistance between the electrodes increases [¶ 0044]. The taught range overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the binder concentration in the electrode material layer as a result-effective variable that affects binding force between the active material particles and also the resistance between the electrodes. Consequently, they would have found it obvious to have utilized routine experimentation within the taught conditions to optimize the binding force between the active material particles to benefit electrode manufacturing and to also optimize the resistance between the electrodes, and would have consequently arrived at the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1. Suzuki teaches the electrode active material is a particulate material (Fig. 2; active material 11 is shown as particulates in [¶ 0036]; Suzuki also describes the thickness of the network region in terms of the average particle diameter D of the active material [¶ 0039] thereby also suggesting the active material is a particulate material.)
Regarding claim 13, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 12. Additionally, Suzuki teaches the average diameter of graphite, an electrode active material, to be 20 µm (Example 1 in [¶ 0052], Examples 4-5 in [¶ 0061-0062]). As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 1, Tanaka of the combination teaches the average particle diameter of the binder powder is preferably 0.005 to 5 µm [¶ 0014].
Thus, the combination of prior art teaches a ratio (D1/D2) of an average particle diameter (D1) of the electrode active material relative to an average particle diameter (D2) of the particulate binder is in a range of 20 µm/(0.005 to 5 µm) or 4 to 4000, which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 14-15, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1, and Suzuki of the combination further teaches it can be used as a negative electrode or positive electrode within a secondary battery [¶ 0017], which is an electrochemical element.
Regarding claim 16, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1. Suzuki shows in Fig. 2 that the current collector surface further comprises regions adjacent to network region 12 wherein there is no particulate binder, and these regions correspond to the blank region.
Claims 1, 7-16, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2001216956A, published 2001-08-10).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches an electrode [machine translation ¶ 0001], comprising: a current collector 2; and an active material layer 4, the active material layer 4 including an electrode active material and a particulate binder (“paste 4 contains activated carbon particles as an active material and methyl cellulose as a binder”; the binder powder can be a polymer that swells in the solvent contained in the paste therefore reading on a particulate binder) [¶ 0024, 0013], on one side of the current collector (Figs. 1a-1b; an annotated version is reproduced below).
Tanaka further teaches binder powder 3 is applied to the current collector 2, that it can be the same material as that of the particulate binder material in the active material layer 4 [¶ 0016, 0024] and that it can penetrate into the recesses of the irregularities 2a of the current collector 2, wherein the recessed regions comprising of binder powder 3 correspond to the network region at the current collector surface. Tanaka shows in Fig. 1a that the particles of binder powder fill the recesses, which allows the consequently applied active material layer 4 to be reliably filled into the recesses [¶ 0031]. Tanaka teaches the recesses can have an average height of 1 to 10 µm [¶ 0012]. Tanaka also teaches the average particle diameter of the binder powder (i.e., binder particulates) is preferably 0.005 to 5 µm (machine translation [¶ 0014]). Accordingly, the network region would have a height corresponding to about (1 to 10 µm)/(0.005 to 5 µm) times an average particle diameter of the particulate binder, which is a range of about 0.2 to 2000 times an average particle diameter of the particulate binder, which overlaps with the claimed range of the network region having a height of three times or more of an average particle diameter of the particulate binder. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Annotated Fig. 1 of Tanaka:
PNG
media_image2.png
202
230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the current collector can be a foil comprising aluminum, nickel, or copper [¶ 0004, 0012].
Regarding claim 8, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the particulate binder can comprise polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) and polytetrafluoroethylene [¶ 0013], which is a claimed species.
Regarding claim 9, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the average particle diameter of the particulate binder is 0.005 to 5 µm (machine translation [¶ 0014]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches in Fig. 1a that the binder powder fills the recesses, which allows the consequently applied active material layer 4 to be reliably filled into the recesses [¶ 0031], and teaches the recesses can have an average height of 1 to 10 µm [¶ 0012]. Accordingly, the height of the network region comprising of binder powder 3 in the recesses 2a of the current collector is also about 1 to 10 µm, which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 11, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches the weight % of the particulate binder in the active material layer 4 is in a range of 0.1 to 5% by weight ([¶ 0017]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 1 and further teaches wherein the electrode active material is a particulate material (an example of activated carbon as particles of active material is provided in [¶ 0024]).
Regarding claim 13, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 12. Tanaka further teaches an average particle diameter of the electrode active material as 6 µm ([¶ 0024]) and the average particle diameter of the particulate binder can range from 0.005 to 5 µm (machine translation [¶ 0014]). Accordingly, the ratio (D1/D2) of an average particle diameter (D1) of the electrode active material relative to an average particle diameter (D2) of the particulate binder is 6 µm/ (0.005 to 5 µm), or 1.2 to 1200, which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Regarding claims 14-15, Tanaka teaches an electrochemical element such as a lithium ion secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode or a positive electrode (¶ 0016 discloses the active material of the active material layer (i.e., paste 4) can be selected based on whether the electrode is positive or negative).
Regarding claim 16, Tanaka teaches the current collector of claim 1 and further teaches the current collector surface further comprises a blank region, wherein the blank region is a region 2a not comprising the particulate binder (Fig. 1a).
Claims 4-5, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (JP2001216956A, published 2001-08-10) in view of Uchida et al (US 20120115027 A1, published 2012-05-10).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Tanaka teaches the electrode of claim 1 but does not teach wherein a ratio of an occupied area by the network region on the current collector.
In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches an electrode comprising of a binder layer confined to the surface of the current collector (i.e., a network region) and a compound material paste layer containing the active material applied over the binder layer, wherein the configuration enhances adhesion between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0008-0011]; Fig. 6. Uchida further teaches that roughly 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector is preferably covered by the binder solution layer to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0065, 0082].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Tanaka’s electrode to apply binder to the current collector as taught by Uchida such that a ratio of an occupied area by the binder powder in the recessed regions of current collector surface (i.e., network region) on the current collector surfaces is about 60-80%, to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector. Accordingly, the taught range overlaps with the claimed range of a ratio of an occupied area by the network region for both claims 4 and 17. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
Furthermore, based on Uchida’s teaching above, a ratio of an occupied area by the network region on the current collector surface is a result-effective variable, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio of an occupied area by the binder powder in the recessed regions of current collector surface (i.e., network region) of Tanaka’s electrode based on Uchida’s disclosed conditions to optimize between enhanced adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector and to mitigate increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector, and would have arrived at the claimed ratio as a result.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the electrode of claim 1. Tanaka teaches a content (weight %) of the particulate binder in the active material layer 4 is in a range of 0.1 to 5% by weight [¶ 0017].
In the same field of endeavor, Uchida teaches an electrode comprising of a binder layer confined to the surface of the current collector (i.e., a network region) and a compound material paste layer containing the active material applied over the binder layer, wherein the configuration enhances adhesion between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0008-0011]; Fig. 6. Uchida further teaches that roughly 60-80% of the region of the surface of the current collector is preferably covered by the binder solution layer to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector [¶ 0065, 0082]. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Tanaka’s electrode to apply binder to the current collector as taught by Uchida such that a ratio A of an occupied area by the binder powder in the recessed regions of current collector surface (i.e., network region) on the current collector surfaces is about 60-80%, to enhance adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector while inhibiting increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector.
Furthermore, based on Uchida’s teaching above, a ratio of an occupied area by the network region on the current collector surface is a result-effective variable, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio of an occupied area by the binder powder in the recessed regions of current collector surface (i.e., network region) of Tanaka’s electrode based on Uchida’s disclosed conditions to optimize between enhanced adhesive strength between the compound material layer and the current collector and mitigating increases in interface resistance between the compound material layer and the current collector, and would have arrived at a ratio A of about 60-80%.
Accordingly, the range of A/W taught by the combination of prior art would be (less than or equal to 60-80%)/(0.1 to 5%), or A/W ≤ (12 to 800), which overlaps with the claimed range. Overlapping ranges provide a prima facie case of obviousness; see 2144.05, I.
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
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 12 February 2026