DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 4/14/26, the following has occurred: Claim 1 has been amended; Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 1-2 and 4-10 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 4 are examined in this office action. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and "Remarks" filed on 4/14/26.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012094342 A (JP'342) in view of WO 2011/114473 A1 (WO'473).
As to Claim 1:
JP'342 discloses a negative electrode for a lithium secondary battery (see Abstract and Background Art disclosing an electrode plate for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, and explicitly describing a negative electrode plate configuration) (JP'342, pp. 1–2); a negative electrode current collector (see Claims and Abstract detailing a current collector substrate made of aluminum) (JP'342, pp. 1–3); a negative electrode mixture layer on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector wherein the negative electrode mixture layer comprises a negative electrode active material (see Abstract and Claims describing a step of forming a precursor layer containing electrode active material particles fixed directly to the current collector surface) (JP'342, pp. 1–3 and 6–7); and wherein the surface of the negative electrode current collector on which the negative electrode mixture layer is provided has a static water contact angle of 60° to 100° (see Abstract, Claims, and Description teaching an adjusting step where the current collector surface is modified to have a water contact angle of 3° to less than 115°, and explicitly disclosing working examples where the current collector surface exhibits measured contact angles of 62°, 95°, and 100° utilizing a static still-liquid droplet verification method) (JP'342, pp. 1, 3, 8–10).
However, JP'342 does not explicitly disclose the structural limitation wherein an angle formed by an end portion of the negative electrode mixture layer and the negative electrode current collector is 60° or more.
WO'473 discloses a method for manufacturing battery electrodes where an active layer is supported by a current collector substrate, and teaches a specialized coating layout wherein a composite paste mixture layer is applied and deposited such that a coating end (end portion) of the composite paste layer intentionally protrudes outward from a coating end of an underlying binder solution layer. This specific layout structurally patterns, shapes, and dictates the cross-sectional geometric boundary profile angle at the termination point where the end portion of the active material mixture layer meets the surface of the current collector foil (WO'473, pp. 2–6).
JP'342 and WO'473 are analogous arts because both references are directed to the identical field of secondary battery electrode manufacturing and are fundamentally concerned with optimizing the mechanical adhesion, layer smoothness, and structural integration of active material slurries applied onto metallic current collector sheets to eliminate processing delamination defects (JP'342, pp. 1–3; WO'473, pp. 2–3).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the features of JP'342 and WO'473, and specifically to incorporate the boundary edge-protrusion layout method of WO'473 when depositing the active material slurry layer onto the contact-angle-adjusted current collector substrate of JP'342. JP'342 demonstrates that pre-adjusting the wetting contact angle of the current collector surface within the claimed 60° to 100° window (specifically disclosing 62°, 95°, and 100°) provides excellent baseline interfacial adhesion and prevents internal void formation (JP'342, pp. 3, 8–10). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine this with the edge-protrusion layout of WO'473 because WO'473 explicitly teaches that configuring the coating end of the composite material layer to intentionally protrude outwardly beyond its underlying substrate boundary layer structurally stabilizes the edge zones of the active material layer, preventing local layer delamination or edge peeling during subsequent drying and compression cycles. Incorporating this protrusion method successfully patterns the edge geometry to secure the claimed end portion angle of 60° or more, directly preventing marginal unrolling and structural edge peeling defects while fully maintaining the high capacity retention and long-term storage characteristics of the completed electrode (WO'473, pp. 5–8).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012094342 A (JP'342) in view of WO 2011/114473 A1 (WO'473), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 20180036249 A (KR'249).
As to Claim 2:
JP'342 discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) (JP'342, pp. 1–3 and 8–10; WO'473, pp. 2–6).
However, JP'342 does not explicitly disclose the limitation of claim 2 wherein the at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector is surface-treated with an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms, and as noted in the rejection of claim 1, JP'342 does not explicitly disclose that an angle formed by an end portion of the negative electrode mixture layer and the negative electrode current collector is 60° or more.
WO'473 and KR'249 disclose the missing limitations of the primary reference. Specifically, WO'473 discloses an electrode manufacturing configuration where a composite paste mixture layer is applied and deposited in a specialized layout such that a coating end (end portion) of the mixture layer intentionally protrudes outwardly beyond the coating margin of an underlying binder solution layer, which structurally shapes, patterns, and dictates a cross-sectional geometric boundary profile angle where the end portion of the active material mixture layer terminates against the current collector foil substrate (WO'473, pp. 5–6). Furthermore, KR'249 discloses a method for processing current collectors where an atmospheric pressure plasma treatment is executed using methane (CH₄) gas to attach and bond a hydrophobic methyl group (CH₃–) functional chain to the surface of the current collector. Since a methyl group is a single-carbon organic chain, it satisfies the broad range limitation of an alkyl group containing 1 to 6 carbon atoms (KR'249, p. 5).
JP'342, WO'473, and KR'249 are analogous arts because all three references operate within the identical field of secondary battery electrode engineering and are fundamentally directed to optimizing the mechanical bonding force, interfacial layer integrity, and chemical wetting behavior of active material components coated onto metallic current collector foils (JP'342, pp. 1–3; WO'473, pp. 2–6; KR'249, pp. 1–5).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the features of JP'342 and WO'473, and further in view of KR'249, and specifically to incorporate the methane (CH₄) plasma processing method of KR'249 onto the current collector substrate of JP'342 prior to implementing the edge-protrusion active layer coating layout taught by WO'473. JP'342 establishes that pre-adjusting the wetting contact angle of the current collector surface within an overlapping range of 60° to 100° (specifically exemplifying working examples at 62°, 95°, and 100°) prevents internal void defects and optimizes baseline active layer adhesion (JP'342, pp. 3, 8–10). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine this with the plasma chemistry of KR'249 because KR'249 explicitly details that utilizing methane gas during atmospheric pressure plasma treatment grafts a hydrophobic methyl group (CH₃–) to the substrate surface, which provides a routine and predictable chemical modification to stably tune the surface energy and hit the target contact angle profile needed by JP'342 (KR'249, p. 5). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to integrate the edge-protrusion layout method of WO'473 because WO'473 explicitly teaches that configuring the coating end of an active layer to intentionally protrude outwardly beyond its underlying boundary layer structurally reinforces the edge zones, securing the claimed cross-sectional end portion angle of 60° or more to cleanly suppress marginal unrolling and delamination defects during roll-pressing (WO'473, pp. 5–6).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012094342 A (JP'342) in view of WO 2011/114473 A1 (WO'473), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2014/0150947 A1 (US'947).
As to Claim 4:
JP'342 discloses the negative electrode of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) (JP'342, pp. 1–3, 8–10; WO'473, pp. 2–6).
However, JP'342 does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 4 wherein a peel strength of the negative electrode mixture layer with respect to the negative electrode current collector according to ASTM D903 is in a range of 10 gf/cm to 50 gf/cm, and as noted in the rejection of claim 1, JP'342 does not explicitly disclose that an angle formed by an end portion of the negative electrode mixture layer and the negative electrode current collector is 60° or more.
WO'473 and US'947 disclose the missing limitations of the primary reference. Specifically, WO'473 discloses an electrode manufacturing configuration where a composite paste mixture layer is applied and deposited in a specialized layout such that a coating end (end portion) of the mixture layer intentionally protrudes outwardly beyond the coating margin of an underlying binder solution layer, which structurally shapes, patterns, and dictates a cross-sectional geometric boundary profile angle where the end portion of the active material mixture layer terminates against the current collector foil substrate (WO'473, pp. 5–6). Furthermore, US'947 discloses a testing protocol for accurately determining and quantifying interlayer bond durability, explicitly teaching on Page 27, paragraph [0172] that peel strength is evaluated according to the standard ASTM D903 protocol, and tabulating corresponding peel strength values in Table 3 on Pages 28–29 to verify robust layer adhesion and peeling resistance (US'947, [0172], [0175]–[0176]).
JP'342, WO'473, and US'947 are analogous arts because they are all directed to the field of material layer processing and composite layouts, and are fundamentally concerned with evaluating, verifying, and optimizing the structural interface adhesion, layer durability, and physical peel resistance of a coated layer applied to an underlying substrate layer to eliminate processing failures and delamination defects (JP'342, pp. 1–3; WO'473, pp. 2–6; US'947, [0004]–[0007], [0172], [0175]–[0176]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the features of JP'342 and WO'473, and further in view of US'947, and specifically to evaluate the interface adhesion properties of the contact-angle-adjusted current collector substrate of JP'342 and the edge-protrusion active layer coating layout of WO'473 using the standardized ASTM D903 testing protocol taught by US'947. JP'342 demonstrates that pre-adjusting the wetting contact angle of a current collector surface to a range within 60° to 100° (specifically exemplifying working examples at 62°, 95°, and 100°) prevents internal void generation and establishes strong baseline active layer adhesion (JP'342, pp. 8–10). WO'473 teaches that configuring the coating end of the mixture layer to intentionally protrude outwardly beyond its underlying substrate boundary layer structurally stabilizes the edges, natively structuring the claimed end portion angle of 60° or more to cleanly suppress marginal peeling defects during roll-pressing (WO'473, pp. 5–6). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the testing protocol of US'947 because US'947 explicitly details that checking and measuring layer adhesion under the standard ASTM D903 peel strength protocol provides a reliable, industry-standardized metric to monitor quality control and verify that the layers maintain adequate peel resistance. Implementing this standard test confirms that the resulting layers sit safely within a target functional threshold range, such as the claimed 10 gf/cm to 50 gf/cm, to withstand winding stresses without inducing microstructural layer failures or affecting the capacity characteristics of the electrode (US'947, [0172], [0175]–[0176]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP 2012-094342 A ("JP'342") fails to disclose the structural limitation wherein an angle formed by an end portion of the negative electrode mixture layer and the negative electrode current collector is 60° or more. Applicant further asserts that WO 2011/114473 A1 ("WO'473") teaches away from the present application because WO'473 relies on hydrophilizing the current collector surface to lower the contact angle 73° or less) to improve slurry smoothness, whereas the present application seeks to lower water affinity to maintain a higher contact angle range. These arguments are unpersuasive.
First, the Examiner agrees that JP'342 does not explicitly disclose the cross-sectional boundary edge profile or sliding angle configuration of the finalized mixture layer. This deficiency forms the exact basis for the current obviousness combination under 35 U.S.C. § 103, rather than an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Second, the applicant's "teaching away" characterization of WO'473 is misplaced. In a proper 35 U.S.C. § 103 framework, the primary reference (JP'342) establishes the fundamental structural environment and specific current collector surface characteristics, explicitly setting forth working examples with verified static water contact angles of 62°, 95°, and 100° to stabilize active material adhesion.
The secondary reference (WO'473) is not combined to alter or modify the baseline surface energy or fluid affinities of JP'342. Rather, WO'473 is introduced strictly for its mechanical and structural layout principle: an edge-protrusion deposition method where the coating end of the active material mixture layer intentionally extends outwardly beyond the boundary margin of an underlying layer.
A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to prevent the universal manufacturing defect of boundary layer delamination or edge peeling during high-speed roll-pressing would readily adopt WO'473's physical layout geometry without needing to replicate its specific chemical affinities.
Because implementing this mechanical edge-protrusion layout inherently structures and patterns a repeatable cross-sectional edge profile at the termination point of the slurry, it satisfies the applicant's broad structural limitation of an end portion angle of "60° or more" (noting that WO'473’s sliding angle of 73° or less directly encompasses the claimed range).
Accordingly, Claim 1 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over JP'342 in view of WO'473.
Applicant then argues that JP'342 executes plasma treatment exclusively under mixed gas conditions of hydrogen and nitrogen, rendering it incapable of modifying the current collector surface with organic C1-6 alkyl groups. Furthermore, Applicant argues that KR 2018-0036249 A ("KR'249") is patentably distinct because it applies plasma treatment solely to a narrow, marginal border track to form a highly hydrophobic containment barrier (water contact angle of 100°–130°) to stop slurry overflow. Applicant notes that the active material layer in KR'249 is explicitly not coated over this treated area, which differs from the role and configuration of the present application. These arguments are unpersuasive.
The Examiner does not contest that JP'342 lacks an organic alkyl group surface treatment, which is precisely why KR'249 has been made part of the obviousness rejection.
With respect to KR'249, the applicant’s argument incorrectly attacks the reference based on physical layout constraints rather than the underlying technical solution it teaches. The 103 rejection does not rely on KR'249 for its specific pattern masking or layout tracks. Rather, KR'249 is integrated for its explicit plasma processing chemistry.
On Page 5, KR'249 explicitly discloses that conducting atmospheric pressure plasma treatment in the presence of methane (CH4) gas splits the gas into reactive radicals that successfully bond a hydrophobic methyl group (CH3-) directly to the current collector surface.
It would have been entirely obvious to a PHOSITA to deploy the methane plasma treatment chemistry taught by KR'249 across the coating area of JP'342's current collector substrate. Doing so provides a predictable and routine processing mechanism to stably tune the substrate surface energy and cleanly hit the target water contact angle properties required by JP'342 to eliminate internal void defects.
Because a methyl group represents a single-carbon organic functional chain, grafting it to the substrate surface literally satisfies the applicant's requirement of a current collector surface-treated with an alkyl group having 1 to 6 carbon atoms.
Accordingly, the combination of JP'342, WO'473, and KR'249 renders Claim 2 obvious.
Applicant argues that US 2014/0150947 A1 ("US'947") belongs to the completely separate and non-analogous field of vulcanized thermoplastic elastomer laminates for vehicle tires and industrial rubber products. Applicant asserts that because US'947 merely checks the interlayer bond strength of an elastomer composition, it bears little correlation or relevance to the structural or electrical objectives of an electrochemical secondary battery cell. These arguments are unpersuasive.
A reference is analogous art under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if it either sits within the same field of endeavor OR is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.
While the core electrochemical functions of JP'342 and WO'473 operate within battery manufacturing, both references are heavily preoccupied with solving the universal mechanical problem of interfacial layer adhesion and peeling durability when coating wet slurries onto smooth metal foils. However, neither reference sets forth a specific testing methodology or standardized protocol within their descriptions to measure and quantify this physical bond resistance.
US'947 is highly pertinent to this exact problem because it explicitly discloses a standard quality-control testing mechanism, teaching on Page 27, paragraph [0172] that interlayer bond integrity and peel resistance are accurately determined according to the standard ASTM D-903 testing protocol.
It would require no more than ordinary skill for a PHOSITA to implement the standard ASTM D903 peel protocol of US'947 on the battery electrode sheets of JP'342 and WO'473 to quantify and verify that the active material layer remains properly anchored during manufacturing and handling. Running this routine testing standard confirms that the resulting layers sit within an acceptable, functional threshold range (such as the claimed 10 gf/cm to 50 gf/cm) without changing or affecting the capacity characteristics of the electrode cell.
Accordingly, the combination of JP'342, WO'473, and US'947 renders Claim 4 obvious.
For the reasons above, applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 JIMMY K VO whose telephone number is (571)272-3242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 am to 6 pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JIMMY VO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/JIMMY VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights