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 (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
It is noted that Group II (product claims) in the restriction requirement office action dated November 26, 2025 included claims 16-20 instead of claims 15-20. Group II is updated to now include claims 15-20, since claim 15 is directed to a product. A phone call with Attorney Jeremy Gajewski on March 19, 2026 was conducted to inform Applicant of this update.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II (claims 15-20), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 20, 2026.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case, the phrase “is provided” is recited in line 1 and the phrase “is also disclosed” is recited in 4.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 3, 5, 8, and 9, these claims recite “selected from a group of”. It is suggested that these claims be amended to recite “selected from a group consisting of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 10 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.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what the scope of “x” and “y” are in lines 2-3.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what is meant by “a density equivalent to a range of 15% to 50%”. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is interpretated as requiring the first layer have a porosity of 15% to 50%, pending further clarification from applicant.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yi (US 2021/0151790 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yi teach a method of manufacturing a hybrid bilayer-coated electrode (layers 510, 505, 517 Yi Fig. 6, claims 16 and 19), the method comprising:
providing a current collector (current collector 517, Yi Fig. 5)
forming a first layer on the current collector (second layer, Yi [42]; this layer is formed on the current collector, as shown in Fig. 5)
forming a second layer (first layer, Yi [41]) on top of the first layer by freeze casting a slurry onto the first layer (Yi [41-43], Fig. 6, claims 16 and 19). The first layer of Yi, which corresponds to the second layer of instant claim 1, is formed using freeze casting. Then this layer is formed on the second layer of Yi, which corresponds to the first layer of instant claim 1, via sintering (Yi [42]).
Regarding claim 6, Yi teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Yi further teaches the slurry used to form the second layer being an aqueous slurry (Yi [97]).
Regarding claim 7, Yi teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Yi further teaches the electrode being a cathode (transition metal oxide particles 520, Yi Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Yi teaches all features of claims 1 and 7, as described above. Claim 8 does not affirmatively require an anode. Therefore, Yi reads on claim 8, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Yi.
Regarding claim 14, Yi teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Yi further teaches forming the second layer using a freeze tape caster (freeze tape casting process Yi [41, 97]).
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2019/0013545 A1) in view of Guo (Guo, Y. et al. Directional LiFePO4 cathode structure by freeze tape casting to improve lithium ion diffusion kinetics. Journal of Power Sources. 506, 230052 (2021)).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7, 9, Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a hybrid bilayer-coated electrode, the method comprising:
providing a current collector (aluminum current collector, Kim Example 1) (instant claim 1)
forming a first layer on the current collector (first positive electrode slurry was applied on an aluminum current collector, Kim Example 1) (instant claim 1)
forming a second layer on top of the first layer by casting a slurry onto the first layer (second positive electrode slurry was applied on the first positive electrode mixture layer, Kim Example 1) (instant claim 1)
wherein the first layer is formed by coating a slurry-based composition on the current collector and subsequently calendering the slurry-based composition on the current collector (first positive electrode slurry was applied…then rolled, Kim Example 1) (instant claim 2)
wherein the slurry-based composition includes NMP (Kim Example 1 [80]) (instant claim 3)
wherein the electrode is a cathode (Kim Example 1) and the cathode includes LiNi0.6 Mn0.2 Co0.2O2 as an active material, a binder (PVdF), and a conductive additive (carbon black) (Kim Example 1) (instant claims 7 and 9)
Kim does not teach the second layer being formed onto the first layer by freeze casting.
Guo teaches that electrodes with higher tortuosity result in restricted lithium ion diffusion, which reduces electrode specific capacity (Guo pg. 2 left column paragraph 2). Guo further teaches the formation of a directional cathode structure using freeze casting (freeze tape casting) in order to improve lithium ion diffusion kinetics (Guo abstract) and that freeze casting results in cathodes with a vertically aligned microstructure and lower tortuosity (Guo pg. 2 right column paragraph 2). Guo also teaches the preparation of a cathode slurry (Guo Section 2.1).
Since Kim and Guo both teach cathodes and the preparation of a cathode slurry and Guo teaches that using a freeze casting method to apply a cathode layer improves lithium ion diffusion, 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 method of Kim to use the freeze casting method taught by Guo to form the second layer of Kim in order to obtain a method capable of producing a cathode with improved lithium ion diffusion and specific capacity.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim in view of Guo further teaches the second layer being formed by depositing a coating of the slurry on the first layer (in modified method of Kim described above, the second layer is formed on the first layer using freeze casting), freezing the solvent after depositing the coating (directional freezing of solvent, Guo pg. 3 right column), and subsequently subliming the solvent via controlling the ambient temperature and/or pressure (sublimed through freeze drying at -25°C under 1 Pa, Guo pg. 3 right column).
In order to perform the freeze casting using the method of Guo, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the second layer slurry of Kim to contain water solvent, as taught by Guo (Guo Section 2.1), and adjust the binder used in order to use a binder that is soluble in water (CMC, Guo Section 2.1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claims 1 and 4, as described above. Kim in view of Guo further teaches the solvent being water (Guo Section 2.1, deionized water).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claims 1 and 7, as described above. Claim 8 does not affirmatively require an anode. Therefore, Kim in view of Guo reads on claim 8, as the claim does not further limit the species taught by Kim in view of Guo.
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim further teaches the porosity of the first layer being within the claimed range of 15% to 50% (18% to 34%, Guo [59]).
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim is silent to the tortuosity of the first layer. However, since Guo teaches that freeze casting lowers tortuosity and the modified method of Kim in view of Guo uses freeze casting to form the second layer, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the second layer having a tortuosity less than that of the first layer would obviously flow from the modified method of Kim.
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim and Guo do not explicitly teach tortuosity values. However, Guo teaches that it is desirable to have low tortuosity, as described above. Fig. 1 of Guo depicts pores formed using the freeze casting method that are vertically aligned and straight, thus depicting a tortuosity close to or approximately 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the freeze casting method in modified Kim in view of Guo to obtain a method capable of fabricating cathodes with low tortuosity, including values in the range of 1 to 3, in order to obtain cathodes with improved lithium ion diffusion.
Regarding claim 14, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim in view of Guo further teaches the step of forming the second layer being performed using a freeze tape caster (Guo Fig. 2a).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Guo, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Markevich (Markevich, E. et al. Improved Performance of Li Metal LiNi0.8Co0.1Mn0.1O2 Cells with High Loading Cathodes and Small Amounts of Electrolyte Solutions Containing Fluorinated Carbonates at 30 °C-55°C. Journal of the Electrochemical Society. 167, 7, 070509 (2020)).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Guo teaches all features of claim 1, as described above. Kim and Guo are silent to areal loading (mAh/cm2). Kim teaches the cathode comprising NCM (Kim Example 1).
Markevich teaches a cathode comprising NCM that has an areal capacity of 3.4 mAh/cm2 (Markevich Experimental – Materials Section). Since Markevich teaches that an areal capacity of 3.4 mAh/cm2 is suitable, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to tune the method of Kim in view of Guo to obtain electrodes with an areal loading of 3.4 mAh/cm2 in order to fabricate electrodes with suitable performance for use in batteries.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albano (US 2020/0373552 A1): appears to disclose low tortuosity electrodes formed using freeze casting (abstract, Example 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA S CASERTO whose telephone number is (571)272-5114. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5 pm ET.
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.
/J.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1789
/MARLA D MCCONNELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights