DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a method if manufacturing a free-standing electrode film, Species A2, drawn to a method wherein the shredded at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film is 5% to 25% by of the second mixture, and Species B1, drawn to a method wherein the second mixture comprises at least one electrode active material and a shredded at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film, encompassing claims 1-9, 11, 16-18, and 21, in the reply filed on 27 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10, 12-15, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species A1, A3-A6, and/or B2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 27 May 2026.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-8, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (US 20130157141 A1), hereinafter Zhong.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Zhong teaches a method of manufacturing a free-standing electrode film for an energy storage device [0016], the method comprising:
preparing a first mixture 18 (Fig. 7) including at least one electrode active material, in this case a lithium metal oxide [0138] or a carbon-based material, like activated carbon 12 [0021], as required by claim 4, and at least one fibrillizable binder 16, in this case a fibrillizable fluoropolymer [0023];
fibrillizing the at least one fibrillizable binder in the first mixture by subjecting the first mixture to a shear force, in this case fibrillizing the fibrillizable binder 16 in a dry fibrillizing step 20 using a dry solventless and liquidless high shear technique [0086];
pressing the first mixture into a first free-standing electrode film, in this case forming the dry film 34 in dry compacting/calendaring step 24 [0113];
shredding at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film, in this case slicing, chopping, or otherwise reducing the size of dry film 34 for reuse[0133];
preparing a second mixture 18 including at least one electrode active material, at least one fibrillizable binder, and the shredded at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film, in this case recycling the size-reduced dry film 34 in step 25 by adding it to fresh new active material particles 12, in this case a lithium metal oxide [0138] or a carbon-based material, like activated carbon 12 [0021], as required by claim 5, and fibrillizable binder particles 16, in this case a fibrillizable fluoropolymer [0023], in the blending step 18 [0133] (Fig. 7);
fibrillizing the at least one fibrillizable binder in the second mixture by subjecting the second mixture to a shear force, in this case fibrillizing the fibrillizable binder 16 in a dry fibrillizing step 20 using a dry solventless and liquidless high shear technique [0086]; and
pressing the second mixture into a second free-standing electrode film, in this case forming the dry film 34 in dry compacting/calendaring step 24 [0113].
Zhong is silent as to the first mixture having a total solids content greater than 95% by weight. However, Zhong teaches the particles of step 18 being dry blended together to form a dry mixture [0085] comprising 80% to 90% activated carbon, 0% to 15% conductive carbon, and 3% to 15% binder by weight, which is equivalent to the first mixture having a total solids content of 83% to 100%. This overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to select a solids content within 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).
Regarding claim 2, Zhong teaches the method of claim 1. Zhong further teaches step 25 creating a perpetual loop where a part of each dry film 34 that is created in step 24 gets reprocessed and mixed with fresh new active material particles 12 and fibrillizable binder particles 16 before again continuing to step 24 and again having a portion get reprocessed [0133, 0135]. This is considered to read on the limitation of the first mixture including at least a portion of a previously manufactured free-standing electrode film.
Regarding claim 3, Zhong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein said preparing the second mixture 18 includes mixing the second mixture, in this case dry blending the particles together to form a dry mixture [0085]. Zhong is silent as to how the shear force magnitude used in the high shear technique compares to the shear force magnitude used in preparing the mixture. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a step involving a high shear technique, capable of fibrillizing a fibrillizable binder [0086], to include mixing the mixture with a greater shear force than during a dry blending step that is silent as to an involved shear force and is not taught to fibrillize the fibrillizable binder [0085]. Therefore, the limitation is considered to be met.
Examiner notes that Zhong teaches the dry film formation of step 24 including both shear force and pressure [0104]. Therefore, steps 20 and 24 would also be considered to be equivalent to the claimed mixture preparation and mixture shear force subjection, respectively. Zhong further teaches the amount of shear applied in step 24 to at least some of the dry particles being higher than during step 20 [0123], which would also be considered to meet the claimed limitation of the subjected shear force being greater than a shear force involved during mixture preparation.
Regarding claim 6, Zhong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein either or both of the first and second mixtures further includes a conductive material, in this case both including conductive particles [0017].
Regarding claim 7, Zhong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein either or both of the first and second mixtures further includes a solvent [0083].
Regarding claim 8, Zhong teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the solvent has a boiling point of less than 180 °C, in this case water [0083], which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize has a boiling point of 100 °C.
Regarding claim 16, Zhong teaches a method of manufacturing an energy storage device, the method comprising:
the method of claim 1; and
laminating the second free-standing electrode film on a current collector, in this case the dry film 34, formed in dry compacting/calendaring step 24 [0113], being bonded to a current collector 50 in step 28 [0126].
Regarding claim 17, Zhong teaches a method of manufacturing a free-standing electrode film for an energy storage device [0016], the method comprising:
preparing a first mixture 18 (Fig. 7) including at least one electrode active material, in this case a lithium metal oxide [0138] or a carbon-based material, like activated carbon 12 [0021], and at least one fibrillizable binder 16, in this case a fibrillizable fluoropolymer [0023];
fibrillizing the at least one fibrillizable binder in the first mixture by subjecting the first mixture to a shear force, in this case fibrillizing the fibrillizable binder 16 in a dry fibrillizing step 20 using a dry solventless and liquidless high shear technique [0086];
pressing the first mixture into a first free-standing electrode film, in this case forming the dry film 34 in dry compacting/calendaring step 24 [0113];
shredding at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film, in this case slicing, chopping, or otherwise reducing the size of dry film 34 for reuse[0133];
preparing a second mixture 18 including the shredded at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film, in this case recycling the size-reduced dry film 34 in step 25 by adding it to fresh new active material particles 12, in this case a lithium metal oxide [0138] or a carbon-based material, like activated carbon 12 [0021], and fibrillizable binder particles 16, in this case a fibrillizable fluoropolymer [0023], in the blending step 18 [0133] (Fig. 7);
subjecting the second mixture to a shear force, in this case in a dry fibrillizing step 20 using a dry solventless and liquidless high shear technique [0086]; and
pressing the second mixture into a second free-standing electrode film, in this case forming the dry film 34 in dry compacting/calendaring step 24 [0113].
Zhong is silent as to the first mixture having a total solids content greater than 95% by weight. However, Zhong teaches the particles of step 18 being dry blended together to form a dry mixture [0085] comprising 80% to 90% activated carbon, 0% to 15% conductive carbon, and 3% to 15% binder by weight, which is equivalent to the first mixture having a total solids content of 83% to 100%. This overlaps with the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to select a solids content within 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).
Regarding claim 18, Zhong teaches the method of claim 17. Zhong further teaches step 25 creating a perpetual loop where a part of each dry film 34 that is created in step 24 gets reprocessed and mixed with fresh new active material particles 12 and fibrillizable binder particles 16 before again continuing to step 24 and again having a portion get reprocessed [0133, 0135]. This is considered to read on the limitation of the first mixture including at least a portion of a previously manufactured free-standing electrode film.
Regarding claim 21, Zhong teaches a method of manufacturing an energy storage device, the method comprising:
the method of claim 17; and
laminating the second free-standing electrode film on a current collector, in this case the dry film 34, formed in dry compacting/calendaring step 24 [0113], being bonded to a current collector 50 in step 28 [0126].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Yoon et al. (US 20180114979 A1), hereinafter Yoon.
Zhong teaches the method of claim 1. Zhong is silent as to either or both of the first and second mixtures further including a solid electrolyte powder. However, Yoon teaches an electrode active material composite particle mixture comprising a solid electrolyte powder 12a, in this case a fine-grained solid electrolyte, a binder, such as PTFE, and a bare electrode active material 11 or 21 [0044], the bare electrode active material comprising lithium metal oxides or carbon-based materials [0042].
Zhong and Yoon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode active material mixtures. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode active material mixtures of Zhong to include the fine-grained solid electrolyte of Yoon. Doing so would have allowed for stable contact between the electrolyte and the active material even upon expansion of the electrode active material [Yoon 0114] and enhanced the initial discharge capacity of the battery [Yoon 0112].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Dufour et al. (FR 3114690 A1, using US 20230361371 A1 as the English equivalent), hereinafter Dufour.
Zhong teaches the method of claim 1. Zhong is silent as to the shredded at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film being 5% to 25% of the second mixture. However, Dufour teaches a method for recycling a first electrode to be used in another functional electrode [0001], the electrode comprising a lithium metal oxide active material [0077], a thermoplastic polymer binder [0072], and a conductive additive [0082], wherein the recycled first coating is dry mixed [0027] into the second mixture according to a mass ratio [(first coating / (first coating + second active material)] higher than 0% and lower than or equal to 70%, which overlaps with the claimed range. Examiner acknowledges that this ratio does not account for the additional additives present in the second mixture. However, Dufour further teaches an example mixture composition comprising 42.19 g of a mixture of 25% recycled first coating and 75% second active material in addition to 23.87 g of additional additives (Table 1), which is equivalent to the portion of the first free-standing electrode film being 15.97% of the second mixture, which also falls within the claimed range.
Zhong and Dufour are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of recycling first electrodes for use in new second electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second mixture of Zhong to include the shredded at least a portion of the first free-standing electrode film in a mass ratio higher than 0% and lower than or equal to 70%, or specifically 15.97%, as taught by Dufour. Doing so would have helped to prevent degradation of the electrochemical performance [Dufour 0169] and rapid degradation of the electrode capacity [Dufour 0170].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220200075 A1 teaches a reuse method of electrode scrap and a method of fabricating a recycled electrode comprising the reusable particles in combination with a new active material at a ratio of 0 to 99/100 to 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, 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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights