DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the May 27th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The
text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior
Office 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on May 27th, 2026:
Claims 1 and 3-12 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 6 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended to include limitations from original Claim 2; and further describes that Condition 1 is not satisfied if the cohesive force is less than 30 gf/20 mm in any section.
Claim 6 is amended to further limit the breaking force to 3.6N to 5N.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure as originally filed including original Claim 2 and the specification.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-3 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) and further in view of Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al. (Unraveling the cohesive and interfacial adhesive strengths of electrodes for automotive fuel cells, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 455, 2020, 227928, ISSN 0378-7753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.227928 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775320302317)). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) and Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200403230 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) and view of Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Aita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210090818 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 27th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claims 1 and 6 as amended. Regarding Claim 1, applicant argues that the continuous cohesive force is not inherent and would not be reasonably expected throughout the electrode as modified by Ide as it is process dependent and because the chemical arts are highly predictable; applicant cites Example 1 and Comparative Example 1 of the present application to show that minor deviations in the binder content, rolled thickness and the porosity result in a change in a continuous cohesive force (see pgs. 7-8 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ" Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. (see MPEP 2141.03.I).
In the proposed modification, the negative electrode of Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. to comprise a cohesive strength of 9.8 gf/mm equal to 196 gf/20 mm as taught by Takei et al. to provide improved charge-discharge characteristics (Takei et al., para. 172), within the claimed range of 30 gf/20 mm or more; and further modified by Bizet et al. to include a homogeneous electrode composition across a thickness and width to prevent cracking or splitting within the electrode coating (Bizet et al., para. 112). Further, Seoungwoo is cited as an evidentiary reference to show that a continuous cohesive strength is expected within a depth or thickness of the electrode layer when the binder is evenly distributed. Therefore, for any given thickness of the negative electrode active material layer, a continuous or uniform cohesive force would be expected to be observed based on the modification of Ide et al. Therefore, a skilled artisan would not expect the continuous cohesive force to substantially deviate from 196 gf/20 mm (as disclosed by Takei et al.) in any section when measured continuously, satisfying Condition 1 as amended. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 6 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.
The applicant has broadly claimed the negative electrode for the secondary battery by its properties rather than its composition; an electrode comprising the claimed properties (i.e., breaking force, continuous cohesive force) is known in the prior art in which the prior art can be reasonably combined to arrive at the claimed invention. Examiner recommends further limiting the claim language to include the structural features of the negative electrode that are inventive and distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) (“Ide et al.”)
Previously cited Seoungwoo et al. (Unraveling the cohesive and interfacial adhesive strengths of electrodes for automotive fuel cells, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 455, 2020, 227928, ISSN 0378-7753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.227928 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775320302317)) (“Seoungwoo et al.”)
Previously Cited Hong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200403230 A1) (“Hong et al.”)
Previously Cited Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) (“Takei et al.”)
Previously Cited Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) (“Bizet et al.”)
Fukahori et al. (KR Pat. No. 20160079632 A) (“Fukahori et al.”)
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) and further in view of Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al. (Unraveling the cohesive and interfacial adhesive strengths of electrodes for automotive fuel cells, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 455, 2020, 227928, ISSN 0378-7753, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.227928 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775320302317)).
Regarding Claim 1, Ide et al. teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery in which a negative electrode active material layer is formed on at least one surface of a current collector (electrolytic copper foil) (para. 63).
Ide et al. does not teach a continuous cohesive force in a thickness direction of the negative electrode for a secondary battery of 30 gf/20 mm or more.
Takei et al. teaches a negative electrode for a secondary battery comprising a cohesive strength of 9.8 gf/mm (Table 4, Example 9) equal to 196 gf/20 mm, within the claimed range of 30 gf/20 mm or more. Takei et al. teaches a binder composition in which improves the cohesive strength of a negative electrode active material layer (para. 49); the binder can be used in an electrochemical battery such as a lithium battery or a fuel cell (para. 108). Takei et al. provides a negative electrode with improved cohesive strength resulting in improved charge-discharge characteristics (para. 172).
Further, it is well established in the field of endeavor that a continuous cohesive force can be observed in an active material layer when the binder is uniformly distributed within the electrode layer as further evident by Seoungwoo et al. Seoungwoo et al. teaches a continuous cohesive force in a thickness direction of an electrode for automotive fuel cells (Seoungwoo et al. teaches that the cohesive strengths within an active material layer were very similar regardless of the depth, implying a uniform distribution of the binder within the electrode layer (para. 2 of “Conclusions”); the cohesive strengths were tested at depths of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 μm providing an average cohesive force of 32.9 N/m in which is equal to 67 gf/20 mm (para. 3 of “Results and discussion)).
Further, prior art recognizes the problems solved by the claimed invention; Bizet et al. teaches a technology in which makes it possible to control the distribution of the binder and a conductive additive; ensure the cohesion and mechanical integrity of the electrode; ensure the homogeneity of the electrode composition across the thickness and width of the electrode; and control the porosity (para. 23). The binder exists in an amount of 0.5 to 25% (para. 63) in which the active material, binder, and conductive material, are mixed homogeneously (para. 73). Further, Bizet et al. teaches an electrode coating having sufficient cohesion to allow manipulation without cracking or splitting (para. 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Ide et al. to comprise a cohesive strength of 9.8 gf/mm equal to 196 gf/20 mm as taught by Takei et al., within the claimed range of 30 gf/20 mm or more; and to further modify the negative electrode to include a homogeneous electrode composition across a thickness and width as taught by Bizet et al. in which the binder is evenly distributed providing a continuous cohesive strength within a depth or thickness of the electrode layer as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al. Therefore, when performing the modification, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a continuous cohesive strength or force of 196 gf/20 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide a negative electrode with improved cohesive strength resulting in improved charge-discharge characteristics (Takei et al., para. 172); and prevent cracking or splitting within the electrode coating (Bizet et al., para. 112).
As applied above, the negative electrode of Ide et al. is modified by Bizet et al. to include a homogeneous electrode composition across a thickness and width in which the binder is evenly distributed providing continuous cohesive strengths within a depth or thickness of the electrode layer as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al; and therefore provide a cohesive strength or force of 196 gf/20 mm as taught by Takei et al. in which can be measured continuously. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent cracking or splitting within the electrode coating (Bizet et al., para. 112). Further, Ide et al. teaches a thickness of the active material layer of 15 µm (para. 68). When performing the described modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a uniform or continuous cohesive force at any interval within the thickness of the active material layer of 15 µm as disclosed by Ide et al. (para. 68) in which includes an interval of 10 µm in the thickness direction as claimed.
For any given thickness of the negative electrode active material layer, a continuous or uniform cohesive force would be expected to be observed based on the modification of Ide et al. to include a homogeneous composition across a thickness and width to provide a continuous cohesive force and preventing cracking or splitting within the electrode coating as described above. Therefore, a skilled artisan would not expect the continuous cohesive force to substantially deviate from 196 gf/20 mm in any section when measured continuously, satisfying Condition 1. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 3, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Ide et al. teaches that the negative electrode active material layer comprises a negative electrode active material, an electroconductive material, and a binder (para. 63). Ide et al. further teaches a binder content in the active material layer of the negative electrode in an amount of 10 wt. % based on the total weight of the active material layer (para. 63), within the claimed range of 2% or more. Ide et al. further teaches a thickness of the active material layer of 15 µm (para. 68). As applied to Claim 1, the negative electrode of Ide et al. is modified by Bizet et al. to include a homogeneous electrode composition across a thickness and width in which the binder is evenly distributed providing continuous cohesive strengths within a depth or thickness of the electrode layer as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al.
When performing the described modification, the binder would be evenly distributed within the active material layer providing a binder content at any thickness or width of the active material layer (15 µm or less, including 10 µm as claimed) of 10%. A uniform binder content would imply a binder content of 10 wt.% at any interval in a thickness direction of the active material within the total thickness of the active material which can include 10 micrometers. For any given thickness of the negative electrode active material layer, the content of the binder at any cut section of the negative electrode would be uniform based on the homogeneous composition across a thickness and width as modified by Bizet et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to prevent cracking or splitting within the electrode coating (Bizet et al., para. 112). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 7, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Ide et al. teaches a method (procedure) for manufacturing the negative electrode for a secondary battery wherein the method comprises a step of applying a negative electrode active material mixture (slurry) onto at least one surface of a current collector (electrolytic copper foil) (Step (a)) (para. 63), drying the negative electrode active material mixture (slurry) (Step (b)), and rolling the formed negative active material layer (para. 63) (Step (c)) to manufacture the negative electrode for the secondary battery. As applied to Claim 1, the negative electrode of Ide et al. is modified to satisfy condition 1; the negative electrode is modified to include a cohesive strength of 9.8 gf/mm equal to 196 gf/20 mm as taught by Takei et al., within the claimed range of 30 gf/20 mm or more; and is further modified to include a homogeneous electrode composition across a thickness and width as taught by Bizet et al. in which the binder is evenly distributed providing a continuous cohesive strength within a depth or thickness of the electrode layer as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al.
Regarding Claim 8, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. The equation for obtaining the drying stress is considered an abstract idea and is not given patentable weight. “The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, Claim 8 does not require a drying stress to be taught by the prior art based on Claim 7 optionally requiring the negative electrode to satisfy Condition 1, Condition 2, Condition 3, or Condition 4. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Equation 1 of Claim 7 comprising a rolling stress equivalent to a rolling load acting per unit area is not given patentable weight. “The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, Claim 9 does not require a rolling stress to be taught by the prior art based on Claim 7 optionally requiring the negative electrode to satisfy Condition 1, Condition 2, Condition 3, or Condition 4. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 10, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. The equation for obtaining the negative electrode elastic modulus is not given patentable weight. “The Court’s rationale for identifying these "mathematical concepts" as judicial exceptions is that a ‘‘mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,’’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191, 209 USPQ at 15 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673), and thus ‘‘the discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further, Claim 10 does not require a negative electrode elastic modulus to be taught by the prior art based on Claim 7 optionally requiring the negative electrode to satisfy Condition 1, Condition 2, Condition 3, or Condition 4. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 11, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Ide et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising the negative electrode for a secondary battery (para. 63) and a positive electrode (para. 55). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 12, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the negative electrode of Ide et al. is modified to satisfy condition 1; the negative electrode is modified to include a cohesive strength of 9.8 gf/mm equal to 196 gf/20 mm as taught by Takei et al., within the claimed range of 100 gf/20 mm to 225 gf/20 mm; and is further modified to include a homogeneous electrode composition across a thickness and width as taught by Bizet et al. in which the binder is evenly distributed providing a continuous cohesive strength within a depth or thickness of the electrode layer as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) and Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200403230 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Ide et al. does not teach the negative electrode having a porosity of 28% or less.
Hong et al. teaches a negative electrode active material layer with a porosity of 10 to 60%, within and overlapping the claimed range of 28% or less.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode of Ide et al. to include a porosity of 10 to 60% as taught by Hong et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of 28% or less. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2144.05, I). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification by Hong et al. to provide a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery capable of achieving more effective pre-lithiation (para. 9).
Regarding Claim 5, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al., Bizet et al., and Hong et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. As applied to Claim 4, the negative electrode of Ide et al. is further modified by Hong et al. to include a porosity of 10 to 60% as taught by Hong et al., within and overlapping the claimed range of 5% to 28%. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification by Hong et al. to provide a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery capable of achieving more effective pre-lithiation (para. 9).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) in view of Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) and view of Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Fukahori et al. (KR Pat. No. 20160079632 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Ide et al. is modified by Takei et al. and Bizet et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the negative electrode of Ide et al. is modified to satisfy condition 1; the negative electrode is modified to include a cohesive strength of 9.8 gf/mm equal to 196 gf/20 mm as taught by Takei et al, within the claimed range of 30 gf/20 mm or more; and is further modified to include a homogeneous electrode composition across a thickness and width as taught by Bizet et al. in which the binder is evenly distributed providing a continuous cohesive strength within a depth or thickness of the electrode layer as further evidenced by Seoungwoo et al.
Ide et al. does not teach a negative electrode satisfying condition 2: a breaking stress of 3.6N or more, wherein the breaking stress is a value measured by pressing the negative electrode active material layer with a linear tip having a width of 2.5 mm and a sharp end at a speed of 10 micrometer/s.
Fukahori et al. teaches an electrode comprising a breaking force (breaking load after a bending test) of 4N or greater to prevent fracturing during the winding process at the time of manufacturing the battery ([0209], [0211], [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the negative electrode of Fukahori et al. to satisfy Condition 2 in which the breaking force is 4N or more, within the claimed range of 3.6N to 5N as taught by Fukahori et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide sufficient electrode strength and inhibit breaking of the electrode and the cell during the manufacturing as described above.
The method of measuring the breaking force (measured by pressing the negative electrode active material layer with a linear tip having a width of 2.5 mm and a sharp end at a speed of 10 micrometer/s) is deemed a product by process limitation and is not given patentable weight. "[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) (see MPEP § 2113). The method of measuring the breaking force does not impart structural limitations in which differ the product from the prior art and therefore does not limit the scope of the claim; as described, the claimed negative electrode is obvious in view of the applied prior art. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights