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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on May 6th, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1-3, 9-11, and 16 are amended, claims 1-9 and 17-18 are withdrawn, resulting in claims 10-16 pending for examination.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed May 6th, 2026 have been entered into the file.
The Examiner notes that in the Non-Final Rejection mailed February 9th, 2026, the Examiner noted that the recitation of 30 gf/2cm in claim 14 was interpreted by the examiner as equivalent to 15 gf/cm. The Examiner notes that in the amendments filed May 6th, 2026, applicant changed the recitation to 30 gf/cm2. Per MPEP 714, “(B) Markings to Show the Changes: All claims being currently amended must be presented with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version. The changes in any amended claim must be shown by strike-through (for deleted matter) or underlining (for added matter).” Thus, the Examiner asks that claim 14 is marked to indicate the amendment, i.e.: 30 gf/2.
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.
It is noted that “a binder polymer derived from a particulate binder polymer” is a product by process claim. Particularly, the Examiner notes that the claim language of the binder polymer being “derived from” is directed toward the binder polymer before its final structure in the product of the attachment enhancing layer. Although Madsen does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limited, it is noted that “Even 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-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process”. Further, “the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, See MPEP 2113.
The structure resulting from the aforementioned limitation as claimed is an attachment enhancing layer comprising a binder polymer. As discussed above, Madsen teaches an electrode comprising an attachment enhancing layer comprising a binder polymer and a conductive material on at least one surface of the current collector, which reads on the structural limitations of the claim. Further, Madsen teaches the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride (Paragraph 0025), which appears on the list of suitable binder polymers in the instant disclosure (Page 11, Lines 10-20).
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 polyvinylidene fluoride (Paragraph 0025).
Madsen is silent as to the dry binder including at least one of polytetrafluoroethylene, carboxymethylcellulose or polyvinylidene fluoride.
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 Madsen, 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 Madsen, 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/cm2 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/cm2, 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 polyvinylidene fluoride. 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 Formula 1:
<Formula 1>
Li1+aFe1-xMx(PO4-b)Xb (M includes at least one of Al, Mg, Ni, Co, Mn, Ti, Ga, Cu, V, Nb, Zr, Ce, In, Zn or Y, and X includes at least one of F, S or 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.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks filed May 6th, 2026, applicant argues that Madsen merely discloses PVDF used as a binder but does not disclose or suggest using a particulate binder polymer in the attachment enhancing layer as claimed. Applicant further argues that Wan does not cure the deficiencies of Madsen as it does not teach the use of a particulate binder polymer.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments, the Examiner presents the rejection of claim 10 as being anticipated by Madsen presented above. As claimed, the instant claim recites the binder polymer is “derived from a particulate binder polymer,” which is a product by process claim limitation. Therefore, the patentability is based on the structure of the product, not its method of production. Applicant is arguing in the remarks that Madsen does not use a particulate binder polymer, however the claim language refers to the binder polymer being derived from a particulate binder polymer, which does not require the structure of the resulting product itself to comprise the particulate binder polymer. As stated above, this limitation is directed toward a form of the binder polymer as a particulate binder polymer in an earlier version of the binder polymer. As such, the structure of such an earlier form is directed toward the method of making the product. The product claim requires that a binder polymer be comprised in the attachment enhancing layer. As Madsen teaches a binder polymer in the attachment enhancing layer (and further the binder being polyvinylidene fluoride, a polymer binder appearing in the suitable list of binders in the instant disclosure), the instant claimed limitations are met.
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 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
Prosecution Insights