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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently pending;
Claims 1-6 are amended.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 12/17/2025
The claims objections of claims 1 and 3-6 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The rejections of claims 1-6 are maintained in view of Applicant’s argument.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments labelled “1.” starting at the bottom of Remarks, page 6, the examiner agrees that Fig. 3A of Jo that was cited in the original office action does not show measured adhesion or cohesion forces. Instead fig. 3A shows a normalized binder content. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that this does not indicate the claimed B/A ratio. Jo does teach that the content of the rubber-based binder increases adhesion between the active material and current collector ([0034]). Interpreting this adhesion as the claimed binding force, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the increased content of the rubber-based binder in the range of 20 to 60 as compared to 70-90 would correlate to an increase in this binding force/adhesion between the active material and the current collector. At the very least, this adhesion would be greater in the range of 20 to 60 as compared to 70-90, meaning that the ratio B/A would be less than 1.0.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments labelled “2.” starting on page 8, the examiner recognizes that the adhesion varies based on the drying conditions. However, the drying conditions exemplified in comparative example 3 results in poor adhesion due to the difference in binder distribution as compared to the examples 1-5 with binder distributions displayed in figs. 3A-3B corresponding to example 1. Given that the prior office action read on the specific binder distribution shown in figure 3A corresponding to example 1, the drying conditions of the comparative examples are moot.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments labelled “3.” starting on page 9, while the examiner recognizes that the binder distribution varies based on the drying conditions, the examiner did not read on the different drying conditions or binder distribution in general, but specifically the binder distribution of example 1 in fig. 3A under the drying conditions of example 1. The binder distribution of example 1 in fig. 3A shows increased rubber-based binder content in the range of 20-60 as compared to 70-90, and Jo discloses that this increased content of rubber-based binder leads to an increase in adhesion between the current collector and the anode active material layer ([0034]).
In regards to Applicant’s arguments labelled “4.” starting on the bottom of page 9, the examiner recognizes that the binder distribution of Jo is achieved in a different manner than the instant application. However, the method of the instant application is not claimed in claim 1. Claim 1 is instead directed to a negative electrode, and the method does not impart any structural different on the claimed invention. As long as the prior art teaches or suggests the overlapping range for B/A, it would support a prima facie case of obviousness absent evidence of criticality of the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (US-20210167391-A1), hereinafter Jo, as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches a negative electrode, comprising: a negative electrode current collector; and a negative electrode active material layer disposed on at least one surface of the negative electrode current collector (fig. 1; [0017]; [0036]), wherein the negative electrode satisfies the following formula: B/A ≤ 1.2, wherein, in a graph having: a normalized thickness of the active material layer in an x axis; and a binding force of the active material layer measured based on a normalized thickness of the active material layer in a y-axis, A is defined as a maximum value of the binding force in the normalized thickness of 20- 60, and B is defined as a maximum value of the binding force in the normalized thickness of 70-90, and the normalized thickness of the active material layer is a converted value of the thickness of the active material layer based on a measurement of the binding force with respect to 100 of an the initial thickness of the active material layer ([0034];[0044] content of the rubber-based binder increases adhesion between the active material and current collector; decreased binder content is known in the art to reduce binding force (instant specification pg. 2, lines 10-11); figs. 3A and 3B shows that the maximum ratio of the rubber based binder in the normalized thickness of 20-60 is larger than the maximum ratio of the rubber based binder in the normalized thickness of 70-90; given the teaching that the amount of rubber based binder increases the adhesion, interpreted as the binding force, and that the amount of rubber based binder is greater nearer the current collector, as evidenced by fig. 3A and 3B, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that A would be greater than B in terms of the binding force between the anode active material and the anode current collector, meaning that B/A must be less than 1.2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 2, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches that wherein the B/A is 0.3-1.2 (fig. 3A shows that the maximum ratio of the rubber based binder in the normalized thickness of 20-60 is larger than the maximum ratio of the rubber based binder in the normalized thickness of 70-90; given the teaching that the amount of rubber based binder increases the adhesion, interpreted as the binding force, and that the amount of rubber based binder is greater nearer the current collector, as evidenced by fig. 3A and 3B, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that A would be greater than B in terms of the binding force between the anode active material and the anode current collector, meaning that B/A must be less than 1.2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Regarding claim 3, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches that wherein, in the graph measuring the binding force according to the normalized thickness of the active material layer, the maximum value of the binding force of the active material layer is at 15-85 when the thickness of the active material layer is converted into 100 (fig. 3A the maximum value of the rubber-based binder, correlated to the binding force, appears between 30 and 40).
Regarding claim 4, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Jo also teaches that the maximum value of the binding force of the active material layer is positioned at 25-75 when the thickness of the active material layer is converted into 100 (fig. 3A the maximum value of the rubber-based binder, correlated to the binding force, appears between 30 and 40).
Regarding claim 5, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 is being interpreted as a product-by process claim. "[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). Jo teaches the product of the negative electrode of claim 1 and a binding force according to the normalized thickness of the negative electrode active material layer (see claim 1 rejection above). Jo also teaches a method measuring the thickness of the active material layer including an active material, conductive material, and a binder formed on the current collector (step 1) ([0022]); a fixing the active material layer on a substrate so that the active material layer is in contact with the substrate (step 2) ([0022]; fig. 1); after attaching a removal tape to the current collector, measuring the binding force and the thickness of the active material layer after removal while removing the removal tape and the current collector together (step 3); after attaching a second removal tape on the active material layer from which the current collector has been removed, measuring the binding force and the thickness of the active material layer while removing a portion of the second removal tape and the active material layer together, and repeating this measuring process to a measurement limit (step 4) (steps 3-4 peel test [0114]-[0116]); and checking a change in the binding force according to the thickness of the active material layer through the measurement values measured in steps 3 and 4, the thickness of the active material layer is converted into the normalized thickness (step 5) (seen in fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Jo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Jo also teaches that the active material includes artificial graphite, natural graphite, hard carbon, soft carbon, graphitized carbon fiber, graphitized mesocarbon microbead, petroleum cokes, resin fired body, carbon fiber, pyrolysis carbon, Si, silicon oxide represented by SiOx (0 < x ≤ 2), lithium titanium oxide (LTO), lithium metal, or two or more thereof ([0013]; [0029] anode active material natural graphite, artificial graphite, soft carbon, hard carbon, silicon oxide).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights