DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 11/06/25 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/22/23, 05/29/24, 04/18/25 and 07/11/25 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/02/23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the binder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the electrode current collectors" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Since independent claim 1 contains an earlier recitation of “an electrode current collector” (i.e., one singular electrode current collector per se, not plural electrode current collectors), it is immediately unclear whether applicant refers to “the electrode current collector” recited therein, or to another different plural electrode current collectors. Applicant is requisitioned to employ consistent terminology and/or nomenclature throughout the present claims for clarity and precision.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3-4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication KR 10-2013-0055712 (hereinafter referred to as KR’712).
As to claims 1, 3-4, 15:
KR’712 discloses that it is known in the art to make a perforated electrode structure for a lithium-based battery comprising an anode, a cathode and an electrolyte interposed therebetween (Abstract; 0014-0020; 0002-0004; Figures 6-7). Figures 3a-b and 4-7, infra, illustrate the electrode comprising a self-standing electrode material layer including a plurality of through-holes formed on a current collector including a plurality of through-holes, and interlayer SEI (0016) formed between the electrode material layer and the current collector so that the plurality of through-holes extend through the electrode structure (see Figures 3a-b & 4-7). Examiner’s note: in this case, since the present claims fail to define the specific structure and material composition of the claimed interlayer, it is deemed that the SEI film is sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and materially/structurally undefined interlayer; in addition, it is apparent from viewing Figures 4-7, infra, the electrode is free of burr/detent (i.e., rough edge/ridge).
PNG
media_image1.png
314
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
938
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
622
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
216
566
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
204
500
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR 10-2013-0055712 (hereinafter referred to as KR’712) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the publication KR 10-2348796 (hereinafter referred to as KR’796).
KR’712 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed hereinabove. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the current collector blocking one end of the through-holes.
As to claim 2:
In this respect, KR’796 discloses that it is known in the art to make a perforated electrode comprising an electrode active material including through-holes and wherein the electrode active material layer is formed on a current collector which at least blocks one of the through-holes (Abstract; see Figure 1C). Figure 1C, infra, depicts the structure of the perforated electrode.
PNG
media_image6.png
232
354
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the current collector of KR’796 to block one end of the through-holes of KR’712 as KR’796 teaches that the specifically disclosed perforated electrode structure and its associated current collector assists in improving output characteristics, reducing inner resistance and enhancing conductivity. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR 10-2013-0055712 (hereinafter referred to as KR’712) as applied to claim 1 above.
KR’712 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed hereinabove. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific diameter relationship of the though-holes (as recited in claim 5) and the specific ratio d1/T1 of the average diameter of the through-holes to thickness of the electrode active material layer (as recited in claim 8).
As to claims 5, 8:
In this respect, Figures 3a-b & 4-7, supra, of KR’712 depict the electrode structure including the electrode active material layer having certain thickness and including a plurality of through-holes having certain diameter (see Figures 3a-b & 4-7).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make through-holes of the electrode components and the electrode active material layer of KR’712 by having the specific diameter and thickness as instantly claimed because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions (changes in size/proportion) of the claimed feature/element and a feature having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art feature or element, the claimed feature/element is not patentably distinct from the prior art element/feature (i.e., through-hole diameter and thickness of the electrode active material layer). That is, limitations relating to the size of the element or feature are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as it is noted that changes in size is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size of the claimed through-hole diameter and thickness of the electrode active material layer is critical. In re Rose 105 USPQ 237; In re Rinehart 189 USPQ 143; In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 & 225 USPQ 232 (See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale).
Claim 6-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR 10-2013-0055712 (hereinafter referred to as KR’712) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yushin et al 2020/0091517 and Tanaka 2017/0110734.
KR’712 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed hereinabove. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific interlayer binder and the specific interlayer/electrode conductive material.
As to claims 6-7 and 9-10:
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Yushin et al disclose that it is known in the art to make an electrode comprising an electrode active material formed on a current collector and having conductive particles attached to the surface of the electrode particles using an organic polymer binder and by carbonizing the binder to form a conductive carbon interlayer which effectively acts as a conductive glue between the conductive additive(s) and the electrode material (Abstract; 0105). Examiner’s note: in this case, Yushin et al readily envision using an organic polymer binder in the disclosed conductive carbon interlayer.
Further, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Tanaka disclose that it is known in the art to make an electrode comprising an electrode active material formed on a current collector and a binding material such as a fluorine-containing polymer to hold components contained in the positive electrode mixed material layer such that those components do not become detached from the positive electrode mixed material layer (Abstract; 0001; 0053-0054). Examiner’s note: in this case, Tanaka readily envisions using an organic fluorine-polymer as a binder in an electrode component. Thus, the teachings of Tanaka are pertinent to both KR’712 and Yushin et al as they all address the same problem of providing suitable electrode structures for lithium-based batteries.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific interlayer binder and the specific interlayer/electrode conductive material of Yushin et al and Tanaka as the binder and conductive material of KR’712 because Yushin et al teach that the specifically disclosed conductive carbon interlayer containing the binder effectively acts as a conductive glue between the conductive additive(s) and the electrode material, and Tanaka teaches the specifically disclosed binding material including a fluorine-containing polymer serves to hold components contained in the positive electrode mixed material layer such that those components do not become detached from the positive electrode mixed material layer. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication KR 10-2013-0055712 (hereinafter referred to as KR’712) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al 2022/0093930.
KR’712 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons expressed hereinabove. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific current collector base film and metal layer.
As to claim 14:
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Kim et al discloses that it is known in the art to make an electrode comprising an electrode active material formed on a current collector wherein the current collector comprises a polymer base film and a metal layer formed thereon, wherein the polymer base film is made of an insulator material such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polybutylene terephthalate, polyimide or polyethylene terephthalate (0001; 0021; 0045-0049; 0080; 0010-0012).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific current collector base film and metal layer of Kim et al as the current collector of KR’712 as Kim et al teach that the specifically disclosed current collector structure functions as an electrochemical fuse that prevents overheating of a battery during a short circuit or blocks a short-circuit current pass by plating a metal on a polymer film. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the electrode comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claim 11.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note that claims 12-13 are also allowable by virtue of their dependency on allowable claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752