DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the January 2nd, 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on January 2nd, 2026:
Claims 1-12 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-2 and the specification are amended. Claim 12 is newly added.
Claims 1 and 2 are amended to replace “adhesive” with “cohesive” in which the specification is also amended for consistency. The amendment overcomes the objection to Figures 1-4.
Claim 1 is amended to replace “breaking stress” with “breaking force.” The amendment overcomes the rejection of Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 12 is newly added to specify a continuous cohesive force in a range of 100 gf/20 mm to 225 gf/20 mm.
[0067] of the specification is amended to clarify that DHR stands for Discovery Hybrid Rheometer. The amendment overcomes the objection to pg. 14 of the specification.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the disclosure as originally filed including Figs. 1-2 and the specification (para. 15, 17, 112).
Applicant’s amendments have changed the scope of the invention and the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ide et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120319038 A1) in view of Hong et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200403230 A1) and 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)) as further evidenced by Chan Sueng et al. (J.P. Pat. No. 2006519883 A). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment to Claims 1 and 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 in which are based on the claims as amended. Applicant argues that a cohesive force is not taught by applied prior art references Ide and Hong (pg. 9 of the “Remarks”). Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 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.
Further, applicant argues that applied reference Seoungwoo is directed to a distinct technology and suggests that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to combine Ide with Seoungwoo. Seoungwoo is used in the rejection below as an evidentiary reference rather than for modification.
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 , the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)).
“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 this case, Seoungwoo is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor in which is improving the cohesive strength within an electrode layer, although related to electrodes for a fuel cell rather than a lithium battery. Although electrodes for fuel cells and lithium batteries may comprise differing chemical compositions, Seoungwoo is within the field of endeavor of the claimed invention in which encompasses electrodes with improved cohesive/adhesive strengths for use in energy storage devices. Further, the prior art has established that the cohesive strength can be improved by utilizing a binder composition that can be used for both lithium batteries and fuel cells (Takei et al., para. 108); therefore, the prior art establishes a connection between electrodes for lithium batteries and fuel cells. Therefore, narrowing the field of endeavor to exclude art related to fuel cells would exclude highly relevant prior art and improperly limit the scope of the claimed invention. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment.
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.”)
Takei et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200119356 A1) (“Takei et al.”)
Bizet et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230078004 A1) (“Bizet et al.”)
Aita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210090818 A1) (“Aita 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).
Regarding Claim 2, 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 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 be 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 be 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, 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 Aita et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210090818 A1).
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.
Aita et al. teaches a negative electrode comprising a breaking strength or force greater than 10 N (samples of the electrode were pulled at a force of 10 N and rated as “A” if they did not break (Table 1, para. 233)); therefore, for those negative electrodes that did not break with a force of 10N and rated “A” (Table 1), a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the breaking force to exceed 10N in which is within the claimed range of 3.6N or more.
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 satisfy Condition 2 in which the breaking force is greater than 10 N, within the claimed range of 3.6N or more as taught by Aita et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide sufficient electrode strength and inhibit breaking of the electrode and the cell during the manufacturing (para. 77).
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
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 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