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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR 10-2021-0017774 and KR 10-2021-0017773, filed on February 8th, 2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 10-16, in the reply filed on December 30th, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-9, 17-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method for manufacturing an electrode for an electrochemical device and an electrochemical device comprising an electrode, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 30th, 2025
Claim Interpretation
For the purposes of examination, the adhesion strength of the free-standing dry electrode film in claim 14 is recited as 30 gf/2cm, which is interpreted by the examiner as equivalent to 15 gf/cm, consistent with the specification considering the width of the electrode sample (2 cm) (Page 25, Line 16).
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Madsen (U.S. Patent Publication No. 20240006592 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Madsen teaches an electrode for an electrochemical device (battery cell), comprising:
a current collector;
a free-standing electrode film;
and an attachment enhancing layer (interlayer) (Paragraph 0005).
Madsen teaches the attachment enhancing layer comprising a binder polymer and a conductive material (Paragraph 0023) on at least one surface of the current collector (Paragraphs 0009, 0016).
Madsen teaches the free-standing electrode film may be a solid-state electrode that is sintered. Madsen further teaches sintering as a method known in the art to form a free-standing electrode (Paragraph 0010). Therefore, Madsen teaches the free-standing electrode film is dry, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Further, Madsen teaches the free-standing dry electrode film (Figure 1, Element 16) adhered to the attachment enhancing layer (Figure 1, Element 14) (Paragraph 0054). Madsen teaches the free-standing dry electrode film comprising active material (lithium metal oxide) (Paragraphs 0011, 0059) and a binder (Paragraph 0060). As Madsen teaches the metal oxide particles and the binder are pressed and sintered (Paragraph 0060), the electrode active material and the binder are both considered to be dry, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Madsen teaches because the electrode is formed from sintered particles, the electrode surface that faces the attachment enhancing layer (Figure 1, Element 17) displays surface porosity (Paragraph 0061). Madsen teaches in the process of forming the electrode structure, the electrode is arranged over the precursor layer and then the layers are pressed together and heated to a temperature above a softening or melting point of the binder. Madsen teaches heating the structure under pressure results in the binder of the attachment enhancing layer infiltrating the surface pores of the electrode, causing the attachment enhancing layer to bind the electrode layer and the current collector layer (Paragraph 0069). Thus, Madsen is considered to teach the instant claimed limitations of the attachment enhancing layer and the free-standing dry electrode film are adhered by the binder polymer permeated into a surface layer of the free-standing dry electrode film.
Regarding claim 12, Madsen teaches the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 10.
In the Examples of the electrode structure of Madsen, the attachment enhancing layer of Sample C was formed by combining 83.3% PVDF (binder polymer) with 16.7% single walled carbon nanotubes (conductive material) (Paragraph 0106). Thus, the amount of conductive material present based on 100 parts by weight of the binder polymer is 67 parts by weight ((16.7 * 100)/83.3).
Further, the attachment enhancing layer of Sample D was formed by combining 60% carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) with 40 % single walled carbon nanotubes (conductive material) (Paragraph 0111). Thus, the amount of conductive material present based on 100 parts by weight of the binder polymer is 20 parts by weight ((40 * 100)/60).
Thus, Madsen teaches the conductive material may be suitably present in the above calculated amounts, both of which lie within the instant disclosed range and therefore meet the claimed limitations.
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.
Claims 11 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Wan (Korean Patent Publication No. 20190051354 A).
Regarding claim 11, Madsen teaches the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 10, wherein the binder polymer includes polyvinylidenefluoride (Paragraph 0025).
Madsen is silent as to the dry binder including at least one selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, carboxymethylcellulose and polyvinylidenefluoride.
However, Wan discloses a dry (without solvent) method of manufacturing an electrode (Paragraph 0010) wherein active material, conductive material, and a binder are dry mixed before being disposed and rolled onto the current collector (Paragraph 0011). Similar to the instant application and Madsen, Wan teaches an attachment enhancing layer (surface modification layer) containing a binder polymer used to increase the adhesion between the current collector and the active material layer (Paragraphs 0042-0043). Wan teaches the binder of the active material layer may include at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer and polytetrafluoroethylene. Wan teaches when the disclosed dry binders is used in the electrode active material, the adhesive force of the positive electrode active material can be improved and the occurrence of cracks in the active material layer can be suppressed (Paragraph 0023).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dry binder of Madsen to incorporate the teachings of Wan in which the dry binder of the free-standing dry electrode film is selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene and polyvinylidene fluoride, in accordance with the claimed limitations. Doing so would advantageously result in improved electrode adhesion and minimize the presence of cracks, as recognized by Wan.
Regarding claim 15, Madsen teaches the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 10.
Madsen teaches the above described electrode structure for use in a battery cell (Paragraph 0005).
Madsen is silent as to the battery cell being a lithium secondary battery.
However, as discussed above, Wan discloses a similar structure for an electrode as Matsen, including an attachment enhancing layer (surface modification layer) comprising a binder polymer and a conductive material (Paragraphs 0042-0043) in addition to a dry electrode film adhered to the attachment enhancing layer comprising a dry electrode active material and a dry binder (Paragraph 0020).
Wan discloses an electrochemical device comprising the electrode of the invention, wherein the electrochemical device may be a lithium secondary battery (Paragraphs 0047, 0049, and 0055). Therefore, Wan teaches an electrode having a structure shared by Madsen is suitable for use in a lithium secondary battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of Madsen to be a lithium secondary battery comprising the electrode. The combination of components would have yielded predictable results as an electrode for a secondary battery, absent a showing of unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. See Section 2143 of the MPEP, rationales (A) and (E).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Tomokazu (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2010109354 A).
Regarding claim 13, Madsen teaches the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 10.
Madsen teaches the thickness of the attachment enhancing layer is 0.1 µm to 2 µm (100 nm to 2000 nm). The thickness of the attachment enhancing layer of Madsen overlaps with the range of the instant claim. Therefore, prima facie obviousness is established and the claimed limitations are met.
Madsen is silent as to the thickness of the free-standing dry electrode film being 100 to 300 µm.
Tomokazu discloses a similar structure for an electrode as Matsen, including an attachment enhancing layer (conductive adhesive layer) comprising a binder and a conductive material (Paragraph 37) in addition to an electrode layer adhered to the attachment enhancing layer (Paragraph 17) comprising a dry electrode active material and a dry binder (Paragraph 110). Tomokazu teaches that the thickness of the electrode active material layer of the electrode for an electrochemical device varies depending on the type of electrochemical device, but lies within the range of 10 to 500 µm in order to balance internal resistance and energy density of the layer (Paragraph 128).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the free-standing dry electrode film of Madsen to incorporate the teachings of Tomokazu so that it lies between 10-500 µm. Doing so would advantageously result in the desired internal resistance and energy density of the layer, as recognized by Tomokazu.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Wan (cited above) and as evidenced by Nam (W.O. 2022260412 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Madsen teaches the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 10.
Madsen is silent as to the free-standing dry electrode film having an adhesion strength of 30 gf/2cm or more.
As discussed above, the teachings of Wan were used to modify the electrode of Madsen, particularly directed toward the dry binder. Further discussed above was the electrode of Wan produced by a dry (without solvent) method of manufacturing an electrode (Paragraph 0010) wherein active material, conductive material, and a binder are dry mixed before being disposed and rolled onto the current collector (Paragraph 0011). Similar to the instant application and Madsen, Wan teaches an attachment enhancing layer (surface modification layer) containing a binder polymer used to increase the adhesion between the current collector and the active material layer (Paragraphs 0042-0043). Wan teaches the binder of the active material layer may include at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride homopolymer and polytetrafluoroethylene.
Additionally taught by Wan is that when the specific binder taught is used in the electrode active material layer, the roll used in the rolling process has a specific temperature. Wan teaches the combination of the specific binder and rolling of the electrode active material in the method of manufacturing the adhesive force of the positive electrode active material is improved (Paragraph 0023). Further, Wan teaches the particle size of the binder as an element in controlling the adhesive force of the active material layer, in order to control the contact after between the binder and the active material in the layer (Paragraph 0035).
Therefore, Wan teaches the adhesion of the electrode active material layer directly impacted by the properties of the binder in the electrode active material layer. As discussed above, the teachings of Wan that informed the modification of Madsen incorporated the binder taught by Wan into the electrode material layer of Madsen in order to improve electrode adhesion and minimize the presence of cracks, as recognized by Wan. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the binder of Wan according to the modification would also include the properties of the binder relating to particle size to obtain the desirable effects disclosed above.
Thus, while Madsen in view of Wan does not explicitly teach the free-standing dry electrode film having an adhesion strength of 30 gf/2cm, it is reasonable to presume this feature is inherent to Madsen in view of Wan. Support for this presumption is found in that Madsen and Wan teaches a structure of the electrode including an attachment enhancing layer comprising a binder polymer and a conductive material, wherein the dry binder is polytetrafluoroethylene and or polyvinylidene fluoride. Therefore, Madsen in view of Wan teaches a similar structure as the instant claim including a dry binder in the electrode active material layer which shares an identity with those suitable in the instant disclosure. Thus, the ordinary artisan would expect the adhesion strength of Madsen in view of Wan to flow naturally therefrom in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
Madsen is silent as to the free-standing dry electrode film having an interfacial resistance of 2 Ωcm2 or less
However, Nam discloses an electrode prepared by mixing a dry electrode active material and dry binder before disposing it on the electrode current collector (Paragraphs 20-25). Nam teaches the electrode current collector including a coating layer disposed on one or both sides of the electrode current collector (Paragraph 72) to improve the binder force between the current collector and the self-standing active material layer (Paragraphs 71 and 75). Thus, Nam teaches a similar structure for the electrode as Madsen and the instant application, comprising a three-layer structure in which an attachment enhancing layer is positioned between the current collector and the free-standing dry electrode film.
Nam provides evidence that interfacial resistance can be controlled by controlling the thickness of the coating layer (attachment enhancing layer) (Paragraph 76). As discussed above, Madsen teaches the thickness of the attachment enhancing layer in a range that overlaps the range of the instant claim.
Therefore, while Madsen doesn’t explicitly teach the interfacial resistance of the free-standing dry electrode film is 2 Ωcm2 or less, it is reasonable to presume this feature is inherent to Madsen. Support for this presumption is found in that Madsen teaches a structure of the electrode including an attachment enhancing layer comprising a binder polymer and a conductive material, wherein the binder polymer includes polyvinylidenefluoride. Therefore, Madsen teaches the attachment enhancing layer located in the same position with the same constituents as the prior art. Further, as evidenced by Nam, the thickness of the attachment enhancing layer of Madsen overlaps with that of the instant claim which is related to the interfacial resistance between the attachment enhancing layer and the neighboring layers. Thus, the ordinary artisan would expect the interfacial resistance of Madsen to flow naturally therefrom in accordance with the instant claimed limitations.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen as applied to claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Choy (Japanese Patent Publication No. 2016128371 A).
Regarding claim 16, Madsen teaches the electrode for an electrochemical device according to claim 10, wherein the current collector is made of aluminum (Paragraph 0042).
Madsen is silent as to the dry electrode active material being a dry positive electrode active material represented by the following Formula 1:
<Formula 1>
Li1+aFe1-xMx(PO4-b)Xb (M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Ga, Cu, V, Nb, Zr, Ce, In, Zn and Y, and X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of F, S and N, -0.5 ≤ a ≤ +0.5, 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1).
However, Choy discloses an olivine-type lithium iron phosphate of the formula (I):
Li1+aFe1-xMx(PO4-b)Xb (Paragraph 23) wherein
−0.5 ≤ a ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5, and 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1
M is Selected from Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Ga, Cu, V, Nb, Zr, Ce, In, Zn, Y and combinations thereof,
and X is selected from F, S, N and combinations thereof
Choy teaches the lithium iron phosphate of the disclosure is employed in an electrode of a battery having improved capacity and energy density (Paragraph 28).
The following equivalences of the elements and their subscript variables between the instant formula and that of Choy is denoted in the table below, where the underline denotes an inclusive boundary of a range:
Element in Formula of Choy
Subscript of Element in Formula of Choy
Subscript Range of Formula of Choy
Element of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript of Instant Compositional Formula
Subscript Range of Instant Compositional Formula
Li
1+a
0.5 – 1.5
Li
1+a
0.5 – 1.5
Fe
1-x
0.5 – 1
Fe
1-x
0.5 – 1
M
x
0 – 0.5
M
x
0 – 0.5
PO
4-b
3.9 – 4
PO
4-b
3.9 – 4
X
b
0 – 0.1
X
b
0 – 0.1
Choy teaches the variable M as a placeholder for atoms including Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Ga, Cu, V, Nb, Zr, Ce, In, Zn, and Y, which correspond to the possible elements that may be substituted into M in Formula 1 of the instant claim. Choy teaches the variable X as a placeholder for atoms including F, S, and N, which correspond to the possible elements that may be substituted into X in Formula 1 of the instant claim.
As illustrated in the table above, the subscripts of the elements of the formula of Choy lie within the range of the subscripts of the elements in the instant compositional formula, meeting the instant claimed limitations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dry electrode active material of Madsen to incorporate the teachings of Choy in which it is a lithium iron phosphate represented by Li1+aFe1-xMx(PO4-b)Xb (M includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Ga, Cu, V, Nb, Zr, Ce, In, Zn and Y, and X includes at least one selected from the group consisting of F, S and N, -0.5 ≤ a ≤ +0.5, 0 ≤ x ≤ 0.5, 0 ≤ b ≤ 0.1). Doing so would advantageously result in improved capacity and energy density of the battery, as recognized by Choy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA A JONES whose telephone number is (571)272-1718. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 4:30 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at (571) 270-7692. 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.
/O.A.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789