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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to arguments/amendments filed 04/27/2026. Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-17 stand as originally or as previously presented. Claim 12 is amended, and Claim(s) 18 is new. The amendments are supported by the specification, no new matter has been added. claim(s) 1-18 are examined in this office action.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida (US 20120115027 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Uchida discloses an electrode (title) comprising:
a current collector (abstract); and
an active material layer [0037], the active material layer including an electrode active material and a binder [0037], on one side of the current collector ([0037], [0065] also discloses that the layer can be applied to either one or both sides of the current collector, in either case the claimed limitation is met, as at least one side of the current collector includes the claimed limitation),
wherein the electrode satisfies an equation 1,
17 ≤ A/W
Wherein A is a percentage (100xA2/A1) of an area (A2) occupied by a binder on a surface of the current collector relative to the total area (A1) of the surface of the current collector, W is a content ratio (weight %) of the binder in the active material layer, and a unit of A/W is wt-1 (abstract discloses a binder solution layer 56 that is applied to the current collector, and a compound material paste layer 46 that is deposited on the collector by applying it over the binder solution layer. In this case, the binder solution layer and the compound material paste layer together can be considered the claimed active material layer, as [0008] and [0016] discloses that active material and binder is present in the compound material paste, with [0048] additionally disclosing that the binder in the binder solution layer diffuses into the compound material paste layer. Therefore, rather than two distinct layers, the binder and the active material layers can reasonably be thought of as two portions or gradients of one layer. As far as the claimed formula goes, [0081] discloses an embodiment wherein the binder solution layer is formed continuously over the entire range of the collector, rather than sporadically or in dots, see fig. 4. [0061] discloses that the binder solution is prepared by dispersing binder in solvent, and [0062] discloses no particular limitation of the concentration of the binder in the binder solution (solid concentration), but that it is, for example, more preferably 15-25% by weight.
At a later step, the binder solution layer is dried [0084], and the solvent contained therein volatized [0076]. [0062] discloses that concentration of binder in the binder solution is called the solid concentration, and [0065] discloses that the coated amount of binder as the solid content is the same as the weight of the binder after drying, seeming to imply that all of the solvent is removed from the binder solution layer after drying. However, [0040] discloses when discussing the compound material paste that a dry material has had, for example, 50% of the solvent volatized and removed. Even assuming that the solvent of the binder solution layer is not entirely volatized, and taking even a minimum value of 15% by weight for the preferable initial binder concentration in the binder solution, gives an initial ratio of 15% binder to 85% solvent. Removing half the solvent to account for a dry material gives a ratio of, for example, 15 parts binder to 42.5 parts solvent, or 26% binder. As a result, because the binder solution layer covers the entirety of the collector, and is composed of 26% binder, an A value of 26 can be calculated even for a case where the minimum preferable value of 15 weight % is used for initial binder concentration in the binder solution and assuming some solvent still remains.
Overall, the amount of material used for the binder solution layer compared to the amount of material used for the active material layer is quite low (see for example [0050], which discloses that the content of the first binder in the binder solution layer is, for example, 95% by weight based on the combined total of the content of the first binder in the binder solution layer and the second binder in the compound material paste layer. As a result, even though the binder in the binder solution layer makes up a substantial amount of the material that is in contact with the collector, it makes up a much less substantial amount of the active material layer, which is almost all comprised of the compound material paste layer. This can be seen in [0065], which discloses that the total binder included in the binder solution layer is normally 0.02-0.03 mg/cm2 -([0087] discloses an example wherein an amount of 0.025 mg/cm2 is used, other examples use a similar amount) and [0099], which provides the only example of compound material paste coating amount present in the disclosure and uses an amount of 5.0 mg/cm2. Comparing an embodied amount of binder solution layer (0.025 mg/cm2) to an embodied amount of compound material paste (5.0 mg/cm2), it can be seen that the binder solution layer only makes up about 0.5% of the total active material layer ((0.025/5.025)*100). Further, as discussed above, the majority of the binder is included in active material layer is in the binder solution layer, see text example 3 [0095] and table 3, which discloses the concept of a binder division rate, wherein, a binder division rate of 80% (Sample 11), for example, means that 80% of the entire amount of binder coated, when expressed as a weight ratio, is introduced into the binder solution layer, while the remaining 20% is introduced into the compound material paste layer.
Thus, to determine a “W” value for the instant formula, a binder content for the binder solution layer (the example binder content of 0.025 mg/cm2 disclosed by [0087] is used) and using a binder division rate of 80% as disclosed by test example 3 [0095] provides a total binder content of 0.03 mg/cm2 in the active material layer. Taking 5.025 mg/cm2 as the total active material layer coating amount (0.025 mg/cm2 binder solution coating and 5.0 mg/cm2 compound material paste coating), it can be seen that a content ratio W of the binder in the active material layer in weight % is:(0.03 mg/cm2/5.025 mg/cm2)*100 = 0.597%.
Using the calculated A value of 26, and the calculated W value of 0.597, it can be seen that A/W is at least 43.5%, even when using conservative estimates (using binder to solvent content on the minimum end of Uchida’s preferred range, assuming no more than 50% of the solvent volatizes), thus meeting the claimed formula.
Regarding claim 2, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the current collector is a film, sheet, or foil comprising one or more of copper ([0087] discloses a copper foil).
Regarding claim 3, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the binder comprises one or more of, for example, PVDF (poly(vinylidene fluoride)) [0059].
Regarding claim 4, Uchida discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein the binder is a particulate binder ([0070] discloses that the binder fulfils the role of binding the particles of active material together, and therefore can be considered a particulate binder).
Regarding claim 7, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the content ratio of the binder in the active material layer is in a range from 0.5 weight % to 10 weight % (See claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 8, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the electrode active material is a positive active material ([0105] discloses that the electrode production method can be applied to the production of either the positive or the negative electrode) comprising one or more selected from the group of LiCoO2 ([0107] discloses a list of preferable active materials including, for example, LiCoO2).
Regarding claim 9, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the electrode active material is comprised in an amount of 1,000 to 10,000 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the binder (see claim 1 rejection above, see also [0044] which discloses a thickener, which reasonably can also be considered as performing the function of a binder. [0086] discloses an embodiment wherein the thickener in the active material is 1% by weight, which in addition to the 0.025 mg/cm2 binder used in the binder solution would result in an active material to binder weight ratio according to the claimed amount).
Regarding claim 13, Uchida discloses an electrochemical element (abstract discloses, for example, a battery), comprising:
an electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode or a positive electrode [0105].
Regarding claim 14, Uchida discloses a secondary battery [0021], comprising:
the electrode of claim 1 as a negative electrode or a positive electrode [0105].
Regarding claim 15, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, wherein the electrode active material is a negative active material ([0105] discloses that the electrode production method can be applied to the production of either the positive or the negative electrode), wherein the negative electrode active material is one or more of lithium-containing composite oxides ([0068] discloses that the active material can be typical materials such as, for example, lithium titanium composite oxides).
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US 20120115027 A1) in view of Kinoshita (US 20160293940 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 4, but does not disclose a ratio (D1/D2) of an average particle diameter of the electrode active material relative to an average particle diameter (D2) of the binder. However, such a feature was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Kinoshita discloses a similar battery in which an electrode contains an active material, a conductive material (which Uchida also includes, see [0070]), and a binder (abstract). Kinoshita further discloses that the size of the binder is, for example, controlled to be less than that of the conductive material [0031] and is, for example, controlled to be in a range of 60-70 nm or greater and preferably 90 nm or smaller [0039]. Kinoshita discloses that when particle size is not too low, coagulation of the binder can be appropriately suppressed, and the ease of manufacturing and handling properties can be increased. Likewise, when particle size is not too high, specific area per unit mass increases, and the surface of the conductive addition is more reliably covered, and adhesion between the electrode active materials is also increased, enhancing mechanical strength [0039].
For the active material, [0035] discloses that the particle size is greater than that of the binder, and typically is about 1 to 20 µm, or for example 5 to 15 µm. Kinoshita discloses that when within this range, resistance is more reliably reduced, and better input and output characteristics can be realized, for example, among other benefits [0035]. Selecting an active material particle in this range, as well as a binder within the previously discussed range of 60-70 nm or greater and 90 nm or smaller, results in a ratio D1/D2 of the average particle diameter of the active material to that of the binder falling within the claimed range of 10 to 1000. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to, lacking specific instruction and guidance as to the particle sizes of the used materials from Uchida, turn toward teachings known in the art (such as those of Kinoshita) to determine beneficial particle sizes for the electrode materials, including the binder and active material, resulting in a ratio D1/D2 according to the instant claim. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the benefits disclosed by Kinoshita, including increased adhesion between the electrode active material, enhancing mechanical strength, as well as increasing the ease of manufacturing and the handing properties of the binder, among others.
Regarding claim 6, modified Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 5, wherein the binder has the average particle diameter (D2) in a range from 50 nm to 500 nm (see claim 5 rejection above).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US 20120115027 A1) in view of Ohara (US 20130071741 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the active material layer thickness. However, selecting active material layer thickness is well known in the art, and it is common practice to select a thickness for active layers based on the type of battery and the desired output by the creator. For example, a manufacturer seeking to create a smaller batter which needs to provide a smaller capacity would select a smaller active material layer than they would when creating a larger battery needing a larger capacity. To this end, Ohara discloses a lithium secondary battery, and discloses no particular limitation on the thickness of the negative electrode active material layer, but that such thickness can be determined as appropriate in the light of the common knowledge about lithium secondary batteries (which is the type of battery Uchida discloses) and is, for example, of the order of 2-100 µm, overlapping the claimed range.
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select a thickness for the active material layer of Uchida within this range, and they would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain a thickness which is known in the art as a common and acceptable range for lithium secondary batteries, and could select from within this range based on the needs and desires of the manufacturer. Further, it would have been obvious to select a thickness within the portion of this range which overlaps the claimed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US 20120115027 A1) in view of Rayner (US 20140170303 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, but does not disclose a porosity of the active material layer. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to turn toward what was known in the art in order to determine an appropriate porosity.
For example, Rayner discloses a similar battery to Uchida, namely a lithium ion battery [0134] including a current collector and an active material layer formed by depositing a slurry on the collector [0169]. Rayner discloses a negative electrode which uses, for example, both silicon and graphite, which can provide both the larger numbers of charge/discharge cycles without significant capacity loss of graphite as well as the higher capacity of silicon [0235]. Uchida discloses graphite, and while Uchida does not disclose silicon, Uchida teaches that there is no particular limitations on the negative electrode active material, and the same materials that are typically used in lithium ion secondary batteries may be used [0068]. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use silicon and graphite as the negative electrode active material of Uchida. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain both the larger numbers of charge/discharge cycles without significant capacity loss of graphite as well as the higher capacity of silicon, as disclosed Rayner.
Regarding porosity, Rayner discloses that for such an electrode, porosity is preferably controlled to be at least 5% and less than 75%, overlapping the claimed range, as it allows space for expansion of the active material during charging and discharging and promotes contact of the electrolyte with the active material, while preserving structural integrity and not reducing the overall capacity of the electrode [0244]. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to select a porosity from the disclosed range of 5-75% when creating the electrode of Uchida. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do this to obtain the benefits disclosed by Rayner, including allowing space for the expansion of the active material during charging and discharging and promoting contact of the electrolyte with the active material, while preserving structural integrity and not reducing the overall capacity of the electrode. Further, after having done this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely select a porosity from amongst the overlapping portions of the ranges disclosed by Rayner and the instant application because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)).
Regarding claim 16, modified Uchida discloses the electrode of claim 11, wherein the active material has a porosity of 5% to 35% (the range disclosed by Rayner overlaps the range of the instant claim, see claim 11 above).
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US 20120115027 A1) in view of Matsushima (US 20140170489 A1), and further in view of Hyun (KR 20080015160 A, a machine translation from Espacenet is used as an English equivalent).
Regarding claim 12, Uchida discloses the electrode according to claim 1, but does not disclose an intermediate layer comprising a compound of formula 1 is present between the active material layer and the current collector:
PNG
media_image1.png
188
188
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein, R1 is an alkyl group with 6 or less carbon atoms or an alkenyl group with 6 or less carbon atoms, wherein the alkyl group of R1 is optionally substituted with one or more amino groups, and R2 to R4 are each independently an alkyl group with 1 to 4 carbon atoms. However, this feature was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in include in the electrode of Uchida.
For example, Matsushima discloses a similar lithium secondary battery (title), wherein a negative electrode mixture layer including active material is provided on the surface of a negative collector (abstract), a copper foil Is used as the collector (the same collector as used by Uchida), and a silane coupling agent treatment layer is provided on the surface of the copper collector foil between the collector and the active layer (abstract), with [0034] disclosing, for example, amino-silane coupling agents as the coupling agent, and [0041] using 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (which matches the claimed formula 1) as the silane coupling agent in an embodiment. [0020] discloses that the effect of the silane coupling agent enables design of a high-quality negative electrode current collector for a lithium ion secondary battery, with [0033] disclosing that the silane coupling agent treatment layer improved adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active substance, which is a goal that Uchida also shares. As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the silane coupling agent layer of Matsushima in the invention of Uchida.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Matsushima, namely enabling the design of a high-quality negative electrode current collector for a lithium ion secondary battery, and offering improved adhesion between the negative electrode current collector and the active substance, and doing so would result in an electrode meeting the limitations of the instant claim.
Matsushima does not disclose a thickness for the silane coupling agent layer. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to turn to known silane coupling agent layers in the art in order to obtain a suitable thickness. For example, Hyun discloses a Silane-based compound coated to improve the bonding strength between a current collector and electrode mixture (pg. 3, lines 1-3), wherein the Silane-based compound can be an amino group silane, including 3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane (pg. 10, paragraph 1), which is the same silane used by Matsushima. Further, Hyun discloses that the silane layer increases bonding strength between the collector and the electrode mixture (pg. 3, lines 1-9), which is the same function as the silane layer in Matsushima and corresponds to the goals of Uchida. Finally, Hyun discloses that the thickness of the silane layer is 0.1-100 µm (pg. 11, lines 14-20), overlapping and encompassing the claimed range. Hyun discloses that when too thin, desired bonding strength cannot be obtained, and when too thick, the electrode assembly may become excessively thick or battery performance may decrease (pg. 11, lines 14-20).
As a result of the disclosure of Hyun, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to select a thickness for the silane coupling agent layer within the range of 0.1-100 µm, and would have been motivated to do so to obtain the benefits disclosed by Hyun. After having done so, it would have been obvious to select a thickness from amongst the portions of the range that overlap with the instantly claimed range because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05(1)), resulting in the limitations of the instant claim being met.
Regarding claim 17, modified Uchida discloses the electrode of claim 12, wherein the alkyl group of R1 is substituted with one or more amino groups (3-aminopropyltrimethoxysilane matches the formula of claim 1, wherein the alkyl group of R1 is substituted with one or more amino groups).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (US 20120115027 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Uchida discloses the electrode of claim 1, wherein A is in a range of 59 to 86% (as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above, even when considering a minimum value for Uchida’s preferred range for the solvent in the binder solution layer, “A” in equation 1 can be determined to be at least 26%. However, [0062] discloses that the binder concentration in the binder solution can be as high as 50% before drying [0062]. Taking a solvent volatization rate of 50% during drying (see claim 1 rejection above), this would result in 50 parts binder to 25 parts solvent by weight, or in a binder solution layer that is 66.6% by weight binder, resulting in an “A” value of 66.6, falling within the claimed range. Uchida does not explicitly disclose that “A” is determined after a standard peel test, however the method by which or order in which “A” is measured is not given patentable weight in a product claim, as a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that how the measurement is performed does not impact the product itself or alter its properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, regarding claim 1, applicant argues that the office action of 01/27/2026 fails to establish a prima facie case (pg. 7 of remarks). Applicant argues that paragraph 17 of Uchida, does not disclose what percent of the current collector is covered by the binder solution layer. After reviewing the language, examiner agrees, however Uchida discloses an embodiment wherein the binder layer is provided not as dots that cover only a portion of the layer, but as a uniform layer provided between the compound material paste and the collector (See claim 1 rejection above and fig. 4), which results in a collector coverage larger than in a case where only 60-80% of the current collector was covered by binder solution, and as a result the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant further argues against examiner’s calculations/estimations in determining a “W” value for the active material layer of Uchida for use in the instantly claimed equation 1, alleging an exact binder content ratio when considering both the binder solution layer and the active material layer together has not been determined, and that the binder content of the electrode disclosed but Uchida, when taking into account the binder solution layer as well as the compound paste layer would be significantly greater than 1% (see pg. 8 of remarks). However, upon review of the disclosure of Uchida, more exact calculations of W based on embodied examples were performed which confirmed examiner’s assertion in the prior office action that even though the binder solution layer uses an increased concentration of binder, the total amount of binder solution layer is small in comparison to the compound material paste layer, resulting in a binder content of less than 1%, if not considering the thickener of the compound material paste as a binder (See claim 1 rejection above). As a result, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 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.
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 ZACKARY R COCHENOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1480. The examiner can normally be reached 1-9:00PM ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZACKARY RICHARD COCHENOUR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752 /Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights