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 .
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges canceled Claims 1-8 and 10, amended Claim 9, and new Claims 11-20 in the response filed on 7/7/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 9 and 11-20 have been considered but are moot 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.
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 11-13 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.
Claims 11-13 reciting “the compounding” is indefinite because it is unclear which compounding step the instant claims are referring to (i.e. to the first composite body and/or to the second composite body).
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 9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20240204179 (“Matsui et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20180151884 (“Yushi et al.”).
Matsui et al. teaches a dry method for producing an electrode to be used for a battery, the method comprising forming a first layer (36) on a current collector (32), wherein forming the first layer comprises: producing a first composite body by compounding a first binder are adhered to a surface of a first active material, by compounding the first active material, the first binder, and the first conductive material, wherein the compounding is performed by a dry method, and applying the first composite body on a surface of the current collector by a dry coating method (Fig. 2, [0018], [0019], [0021], and [0030]-[0035]).
Matsui et al. teaches forming a second layer (38) on a surface of the first layer that is opposite to a current collector side of the first layer, wherein forming the second layer comprises producing a second composite body, in which a second conductive material and a second binder are adhered to a surface of a second active material, by compounding the second active material, the second binder, and the second conductive material, wherein the compounding is performed by the dry method, and applying the second composite body on the surface of the first layer by the dry coating method ([0021] and [0030]-[0035]).
Matsui et al. teaches the binder contained in its first and second layers include fluororesins such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyimide resins, acrylic resins, and polyolefin resin. These may be used alone or by combining two or more thereof ([0024] and [0025]). Therefore, it is within the purview of Matsui that each of its first and second layers can comprise two binder materials, such as PTFE and PVdF.
The claimed swelling property is associated to the binder material itself and how it behaves to a liquid electrolyte, not necessarily directed to the overall swelling of the layer, etc.
Yushin et al. recognizes that PTFE exhibit no-to-small swelling (e.g. 0-3 vol. %), and PVDF swells substantially (e.g. 5-100 vol. %) ([0060], [0070], and [0071]). Considering that Matsui et al.’s first and second layers may each comprise of PTFE and PVdF, the PTFE in Matsui et al.’s first layer corresponds to the claimed first binder, and the PVdF in Matsui et al.’s second layer corresponds to the claimed second binder. Thus, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in Matsui et al. that a degree of swelling of the first binder (PTFE) to a liquid electrolyte is lower than a degree of selling of the second binder (PVdF) to the liquid electrolyte.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20240204179 (“Matsui et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20180151884 (“Yushi et al.”) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of CN 112635701 (“Mao et al.”).
Matsui et al. teaches dry mixing its raw materials (active material, binder, and conductive material) for its respective first and second layers in a mixer ([0031], [0032], and [0042]).
Matsui et al. does teach the claimed specifics of the compounding step.
However, Mao et al. teaches producing a composite body by dry compounding an active material, binder, and conductive material. Mao et al. further teaches its dry compounding is performed by using a mixer, a revolving speed of the mixer is 100 rpm to 2000 rpm, and a treatment time for the compounding is 0.5 to 4 hours (Page 2: Lines 1-10 and Page 3: Line 32 in the provided English translated document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Matsui et al.’s dry compounding performed using the compounding method disclosed by Mao et al. in order to uniformly dry mix the active material, binder, and conductive material together.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20240204179 (“Matsui et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20180151884 (“Yushi et al.”) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Abe et al. “Electrostatic Dry Coating of Cathode Materials for Li Ion Battery.” Additional Conferences (Device Packaging, HiTEC, HiTEN, and CICMT), vol. 2013, no. CICMT, 1 Sept. 2013, pp. 000193–000196 (“Abe et al.”).
Matsui et al. teaches its first and second layers comprising granular materials ([0021]-[0024], and [0034]). Matsui et al. teaches the first and second active materials are in a granular shape with an average particle size overlapping the claimed range of 1 μm or more and 50 μm or less [0022].
Matsui et al. does not teach the particle sizes for its first and second binders.
However, Abe et al. teaches a dry method for producing an electrode via electrostatic dry coating, wherein its binder is in a granular shape with an average particle size of about 100 nm and its active material is in a granular shape with an average particle size of about 2.5 μm (Abstract, 4th ¶ under 1. Introduction, and 1st ¶ under 2. Experimental Procedures). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Matsui et al.’s first and second binders having a granular shape with an average particle size of about 100 nm in order to facilitate dry mixing to produce uniform distribution in the compounding step, and be appropriate size for a dry coating method, such as electrostatic dry coating.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20240204179 (“Matsui et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20180151884 (“Yushi et al.”) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20210367265 (“Sugiyo”).
Matsui et al. teaches its first and second layers are affixed to the current collector by a dry coating method ([0035], [0042], and [0043]).
Matsui et al. does not teach its first and second layers are formed by an electrostatic method using an electrostatic screen.
However, Sugiyo teaches a dry method for producing an electrode using an electrostatic method using an electrostatic screen ([0099], [0100], [0123], and [0124]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have Matsui et al. use a electrostatic method using an electrostatic screen to form the first and second layers. This would avoid additional steps of joining the first and second layers to the current collector (i.e. separately forming and joining the layers on the current collector vs. depositing the layers directly on the current collector) in Matsui et al. The electrostatic method thereby provides a continuous approach without requiring a transfer, lamination, or separate handing operation.
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 LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
