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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 04/20/26. The applicant has overcome the 35 USC 112 rejection and the 102 rejection as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. Therefore, the present claims (including new claim 17) are now finally rejected over a new ground of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restriction
Claim 16 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/06/25.
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(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 15 and 17 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 to claims 1, 3-4, 15, 17:
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, it is imperative to note that KR’712 shows through-holes regardless of their location, being in contact (thereby, exposing the interlayer) with and/or extension relative to the interlayer. Also, 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
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).
KR’712 discloses an electrode structure as seen and described supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the through-holes of the electrode active layer end at the interlayer; 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).
In view of the above, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan to make the through-holes of the electrode active layer end at the interlayer of KR’712 as instantly claimed because it has been held that re-arrangement, reversal or duplication of parts is prima-facie obvious. Succinctly stated, fact that the claimed through-holes end is structurally re-arranged, reversed or duplicated to end at the interlayer per se and form a similar component having the same functionality is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old feature unless there are new or unexpected results as it is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of such claimed through-holes ending at the interlayer was critical. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7. In re Gazda 104 USPQ 400. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. (Refer to MPEP 2144.04 [R-I] Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: VI. Reversal, Duplication, OR Rearrangement of Parts).
As to claims 5 and 8: 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 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).
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: as to claim 11, refer to the office action dated 02/05/26 for details.
Claims 11-13 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection, and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The only contention of applicant’s arguments is premised on the assertion that the prior art does not teach the limitation “the plurality of through-holes of the electrode active material layer extend to and end at the interlayer”. In reply, applicant’s argument is well-taken but it is deemed insufficient to overcome the main/basic teachings of KR’712. At the outset, it is imperative to note that KR’712 shows through-holes regardless of their location, being in contact (thereby, exposing the interlayer) with and/or extension relative to the interlayer. That being said, the examiner has taken the posture that such limitation (i.e., “through-holes…end at the interlayer”) merely requires re-arranging either the interlayer or through-holes per se. As such, as postulated supra, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan to make the through-holes of the electrode active layer end at the interlayer of KR’712 as instantly claimed because it has been held that re-arrangement, reversal or duplication of parts is prima-facie obvious. Succinctly stated, fact that the claimed through-holes end is structurally re-arranged, reversed or duplicated to end at the interlayer per se and form a similar component having the same functionality is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old feature unless there are new or unexpected results as it is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of such claimed through-holes ending at the interlayer was critical. In re Japikse 86 USPQ 70. In re Kuhle 188 USPQ 7. In re Gazda 104 USPQ 400. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378. (Refer to MPEP 2144.04 [R-I] Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale: VI. Reversal, Duplication, OR Rearrangement of Parts). All in all, applicant fails to clearly explain the criticality, if any, of having the through-holes ending at the interlayer per se, and nothing else on the written record discusses or suggests so. (emphasis added→) Further, applicant is politely reminded that the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is substantially the same, or performs substantially the same functionality, or is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Nothing on the written record suggests that the electrode structure of KR’712 is unambiguously different from that of the applicant, and/or is unable to satisfy the same functionality and/or intended used as applicant’s electrode structure.
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 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
Prosecution Insights