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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-5 and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20210399278 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches an electrode plate for a secondary battery (0050) which comprises a current collector and an electrode active material where the active material contains a binder (0009). The electrode plate has sections of high binder content and low binder content (0013) where the ratio of high binder content to low binder content is in the range of 1.2:1 to 30:1 (fig. 2, 0016).
PNG
media_image1.png
154
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the range of the ratio of binder content between an interfacial side portion and an interfacial center portion overlap with the instant application, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see 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. Lee further teaches that the top side of the side portion of the electrode in the width direction is flat and therefore the protruding height is 0 microns.
PNG
media_image2.png
152
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches the surface content of a side portion can be low and the interfacial content on the side portion can be high with a range of 1.2:1 to 30:1 (fig. 2, 0016).
PNG
media_image3.png
181
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As the range of the ratio of binder content between an interfacial side portion and a surface side portion overlap with the instant application, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see 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.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that only up to 98.5 wt% of an electrode is the active material, therefore, the other 1.5% must necessarily be a combination of binder and conductive additives which overlaps with range of .1% to 2% of the instant application (0054). Further, Lee teaches 2 parts by weight of a binder is used as an example which is a point within the range of .1% to 2% and the claim is therefore rendered obvious (0078).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that any binder commonly used in the art can be used and lists styrene-butadiene rubber as a binder (0057).
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches claim 1 as described above and further teaches that the electrode can be either positive or negative (0050).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches a secondary battery and an electrode plate for a secondary battery (0050) which comprises a current collector and an electrode active material where the active material contains a binder (0009). The electrode plate has sections of high binder content and low binder content (0013) where the ratio of high binder content to low binder content is in the range of 1.2:1 to 30:1 (fig. 2, 0016).
PNG
media_image1.png
154
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As the range of the ratio of binder content between an interfacial side portion and an interfacial center portion overlap with the instant application, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see 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. Lee further teaches that the top side of the side portion of the electrode in the width direction is flat and therefore the protruding height is 0 microns.
PNG
media_image2.png
152
523
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches claim 13 as described above and further teaches the surface content of a side portion can be low and the interfacial content on the side portion can be high with a high to low binder content range of 1.2:1 to 30:1 (fig. 2, 0016).
PNG
media_image3.png
181
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As the range of the ratio of binder content between an interfacial side portion and a surface side portion overlap with the instant application, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of routine experimentation and the optimization of ranges, see 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.
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches claim 13 as described above and further teaches that only up to 98.5 wt% of an electrode is the active material and the other 1.5% must necessarily be a combination of binder and conductive additives which overlaps with range of .1% to 2% of the instant application (0054). Further, Lee teaches 2 parts by weight of a binder is used as an example which is a point within the range of .1% to 2% and the claim is therefore rendered obvious (0078).
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches claim 13 as described above and further teaches that any binder commonly used in the art can be used and lists styrene-butadiene rubber as a binder (0057).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches claim 13 as described above and further teaches that the electrode can be either positive or negative (0050).
Response to Amendment
The cancellation of claims 6 and 18 make the 112(b) rejections of the prior office action moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 and 13-18 filed 06/19/2026 have been considered but are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument that Lee is silent with respect to the technical problem of side ring formation and does not discuss a manufacturing method discussed in the present disclosure, this argument is not persuasive. The claims are directed towards an electrode product and not a method of manufacturing an electrode. That Lee does not teach the steps of formation taken by applicant is not germane to whether or not the product meets the claim. As discussed in the rejection previously set forth and repeated above, Lee teaches forming a flat electrode as evidenced by the figures. A flat electrode does not have a protruding height.
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 SEAN ROBERT BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571)270-5516. 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.
/SEAN R. BROWN/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights