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 1-17 are currently pending.
Claim 1 has been amended
Claims 10-16 has withdrawn
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/18/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance. This action is made final.
Status of Rejections Pending
since The Office Action of 03/19/2026
All the rejections are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-9, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (PG pub 20190305316), and further in view of Takahashi et al (PG pub 20120107689) and support evidence provided by KR10-0270136, hereinafter as ‘136.
Regarding claim 1, Wang et al teaches an electrode comprising:
an electrode current collector [para 44 fig 1]; and an electrode layer located on the electrode current collector [para 44 fig 1],
wherein the electrode layer comprises an electrode composition in which an active material [para 44], a conductive material (conductive carbon) [para 58], a first binder and a second binder are dry-mixed (admixture) [para 7 64].
Wang et al teaches one binder being PTFE which is fiberized ( or fibrillization) [para 10] and the other binder including other material and PTFE particles [para 66], but Wang et al does not teach other binder being fiberized as well.
Takhashi et al teaches PTFE particles being fiberized (or fibrillated) [para 40].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the PTFE particles being fiberized as taught by Takahashi et al since the claimed subject matter merely combines familiar elements according to known methods and does no more than yield predictable results. See MPEP 2141 (III) Rationale A,KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Since Wang et al teaches the binder including first and second binder having different material (one binder is PTFE and the other binder is the other material) [para 64], the molecular weight of one binder is different than that of the other binder. Thus, it is considered that the molecular weight of first binder is larger than that of the second binder calculated from SSG value.
Regarding claim 2, modified Wang et al teaches the first and second binder comprising PTFE as set forth claim 6 above and as claimed, thus it is considered first and second binder having ssg as claimed. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Or alternatively,
Modified Wang et al teaches the first and second binder comprising PTFE as set forth claim 6 above, but Wang et al does not teach the first and second binder having ssg as claimed.
Takahashi et al teaches Filbril forming PTFE being 2.230 or lower and modified PTFE being 2.189 which withing claimed range [para 45 225] or the ssg PTFE values is 2.13 to 2.23 which is overlapped the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the ssg of first binder and second binder of Wang et al to be the same of Takahashi for excellent flowability (claim 1 lines 15-17 page 4 evidence provided by ‘136). According to MPEP 2144.05, 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 4, modified Wang et al teaches a content ratio of the first binder and the second binder being within the claimed range [para 65]
Regarding claim 5, since modified Wang et al teaches the claimed structure, modified Wang et al teaches he electrode for secondary battery has a contact angle deviation of 0.01 degrees or more and 5.0 degrees or less. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 6, modified Wang et al teaches one binder being PTFE and the other binder including other material and PTFE particles [para 66] or the mixtures of PTFE and other materials. Thus, the first binder and the second binder comprise polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), respectively.
Regarding claim 7, modified Wang et al teaches the active material being LiCoO2 [para 57].
Regarding claim 8, modified Wang et al teaches the electrode composition is in the form a freestanding film being attached onto the electrode current collector [para 67]
Regarding claim 9, since modified Wang et al teaches the claimed structure, Wang et al teaches the freestanding film has a tensile strength of 8kgf/cm² or more and 40kgf/cm² or less. It is noted that "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Regarding claim 17, modified Wang et al teaches a second battery having electrode and an electrolyte [fig 1 para 41].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (PG pub 20190305316) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 10-20180121411, hereinafter as ‘411.
Regarding claim 3, modified Wang et al teaches the claimed limitation, but modified Wang et al does not teach total content of first binder and second binder.
‘411 teaches electrode having first binder and second binder where the total content of first binder and second binder includes 2% by weight to 10% by weight based on the total weight of the cathode active material layer [para 37]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the total content of first and second binder of modified Wang et al to be the same of ‘411 since it has been held that discovering a optimum value of a result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art. In re boesch, 617 F.2d272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. the applicant argues in substance:
None of references teaches the claim amendment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Modified Wang teaches the claimed amendment as set forth above.
Takahashi teaches away and there is no motivation to combine Wang and Takahashi,
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Takahashi teaches the binder being fibrillated PTFE particles [para 40]. Takahashi is only applied to teach PTFE particles being fiberized and ssg value.
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 UYEN M TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
/UYEN M TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights