CTNF 18/237,010 CTNF 85234 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 A restriction requirement between product and process claims has not been made at this time because the method claims do not include any substantive method steps distinguishing them from the product claims. If substantive method limitations are added at a later date, restriction by original presentation may become necessary. Examiner’s Comment The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. Regarding the limitation(s) “dry method” and “pasted on” in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the term “dry method” refers to a method for forming a layer without using a dispersion medium such as an organic solvent (please see [0076] in the as-filed Specification). According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the term “pasted” (verb) is 1) to cause to adhere by or as if by paste: STICK or 2) to cover with something pasted on. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 9 recites the limitation " the current collector side " in Lines 8-9 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites that in the first layer forming step and second layer forming step, materials are pasted on a surface by a dry method (emphasis added). However, applying a material by “pasting” on a surface does not appear to be a dry method, because a paste, in and of themselves , requires a presence of a liquid component (solvent or binder), albeit a small amount. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner how a substance that is pasting on a surface be considered a dry method. For the purpose of evaluating prior art, the first and second layers do not use a solvent. Clarification and/or correction is required in the next response. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by CN 112563453 (“Chen et al.”). The Examiner notes that US Pub. No. 20230129049 is the English language equivalent of CN ‘453 and all citations will refer to the US Publication. See provided Derwent Abstract translation illustrating the equivalency of these two references . With regards to Claim 1, Chen et al. teaches an electrode to be used for a battery, the electrode comprising a current collector (21) and an electrode layer, wherein the electrode layer includes layers in the order of a first layer (11) and a second layer (12) from the current collector side. Chen et al. teaches the first layer contains a first binder and the second layer contains a second binder, wherein a degree of swelling of the first binder to a liquid electrolyte is lower than a degree of swelling of the second binder to the liquid electrolyte (Abstract and Fig. 1). With regards to Claim 4, Chen et al. teaches a main constituting unit of the first binder and the second binder is the same ([0025]-[0028]). With regards to Claims 5 and 6, Chen et al. teaches each of the first layer and the second layer contains an active material and a conductive material, the first layer contains a first composite body in which the conductive material and the first binder are adhered to a surface of the active material, and the second layer contains a second composite body in which the conductive material and the second binder are adhered to a surface of the active material (Fig. 1, [0025]-[0028], [0034]-[0036], [0041], and [0042]). With regards to Claims 7 and 8, Chen et al. teaches a lithium ion battery including a cathode, an anode and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode and the anode is the electrode ([0047] and [0048]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20200136167 (“Park et al.”) in view of Toigo et al. “A Method to Measure the Swelling of Water-Soluble PVDF Binder System and Its Electrochemical Performance for Lithium Ion Batteries.” Journal of The Electrochemical Society , vol. 167, no. 2, 2 Jan. 2020, p. 020514 (“Toigo et al.”) . With regards to Claim 1, Park et al. teaches an electrode to be used for a battery, the electrode comprising a current collector and an electrode layer, wherein the electrode layer includes layers in the order of a first layer and a second layer from the current collector side. Park et al. teaches the first layer contains a first binder and the second layer contains a second binder, wherein the first binder has a crystallinity of 58 or greater and the second binder has a crystallinity of less than 58 ([0015]-[0019]). Park et al. does not explicitly teach a degree of swelling of the first binder to a liquid electrolyte is lower than a degree of swelling of the second binder to the liquid electrolyte. However, Toigo et al. recognized that a binder with low crystallinity has a high swelling degree and a binder with a high crystallinity has a low swelling degree (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 5- 8 under Results and Discussion). Considering that Park et al. teaches the first binder has a crystallinity of 58 or greater and the second binder has a crystallinity of less than 58, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a degree of swelling of the first binder is lower than a degree of swelling of the second binder in Park et al. Therefore, 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 Park et al.’s first and second binders have the claimed degree of swelling relationship in order to achieve desirable mechanical strength and achieve desirable output characteristics (3 rd paragraph under Results and Discussion under Toigo et al., and paragraph [0024] under Park et al.). With regards to Claim 2, Park et al. teaches the first layer contains a first binder and the second layer contains a second binder, wherein the first binder has a crystallinity of 58 or greater and the second binder has a crystallinity of less than 58 ([0015]-[0019]). Park et al. does not teach the degree of swelling of the first binder to the liquid electrolyte is 25% or less, and the degree of swelling of the second binder to the liquid electrolyte is larger than 25%. However, Toigo et al. recognizes that binder crystallinity directly correlates with its swelling (8 th paragraph under Results and Discussion). Due to Park et al.’s binders having respective ranges for its crystallinity, Examiner deems that Park et al.’s first binder having a crystallinity of 58 or greater overlaps in scope with a swelling degree of 25% or less, and a crystallinity of less than 58 overlaps in scope with a swelling degree of larger than 25%. Therefore, 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 Park et al.’s first and second binders have the claimed degree of swelling in order to achieve desirable mechanical strength and achieve desirable output characteristics (3 rd paragraph under Results and Discussion under Toigo et al., and paragraph [0024] under Park et al.). With regards to Claim 3, Park et al. teaches each of the first and second binders include a fluorine-containing binder ([0023] and [0033]). With regards to Claim 4, Park et al. teaches a main constituting unit of the first binder and the second binder is the same ([0016], [0019], and [0033]). With regards to Claims 7 and 8, Park et al. teaches a lithium ion battery including a cathode, an anode, and an electrolyte layer arranged between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode and anode is the electrode ([0003], [0015], and [0061]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20200136167 (“Park et al.”), in view of Toigo et al. “A Method to Measure the Swelling of Water-Soluble PVDF Binder System and Its Electrochemical Performance for Lithium Ion Batteries.” Journal of The Electrochemical Society , vol. 167, no. 2, 2 Jan. 2020, p. 020514 (“Toigo et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20200266415 (“Lee et al.”) . Park et al. teaches a method for producing an electrode to be used for a battery, the method comprising a first layer forming step of forming a first layer containing a first binder on a current collector and a second layer forming step of forming a second layer containing a second binder on a surface of the first layer that is opposite to the current collector side, and forming an electrode layer including the first layer and the second layer. Park et al. teaches the first layer contains a first binder and the second layer contains a second binder, wherein the first binder has a crystallinity of 58 or greater and the second binder has a crystallinity of less than 58 ([0015]-[0019] and Example 1). Park et al. does not teach the first layer and second layer are formed by a dry method via pasting. Park et al. does not explicitly teach a degree of swelling of the first binder to a liquid electrolyte is lower than a degree of swelling of the second binder to the liquid electrolyte. Toigo et al. recognized that a binder with low crystallinity has a high swelling degree and a binder with a high crystallinity has a low swelling degree (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 5-8 under Results and Discussion). Considering that Park et al. teaches the first binder has a crystallinity of 58 or greater and the second binder has a crystallinity of less than 58, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a degree of swelling of the first binder is lower than a degree of swelling of the second binder in Park et al. Therefore, 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 Park et al.’s first and second binders have the claimed degree of swelling relationship in order to achieve desirable mechanical strength and achieve desirable output characteristics (3 rd paragraph under Results and Discussion under Toigo et al., and paragraph [0024] under Park et al.). Lee et al. teaches forming electrodes, wherein the electrodes include a composite body comprising an active material, a conducting agent, and a binder ([0057] and [0069]). Lee et al. further teaches that the solvent may be omitted according to the use and the structure of the lithium battery ([0067] and [0077]). Therefore, Lee et al. teaches an electrode formed by a dry method, and considering there is no solvent, the composite body will naturally be in a “paste” form during application. 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 Park et al.’s electrode(s) be formed by a dry method in view of using simpler manufacturing (e.g. eliminating certain steps and/or equipment) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20200136167 (“Park et al.”) in view of Toigo et al . as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 112563453 (“Chen et al.”). The Examiner notes that US Pub. No. 20230129049 is the English language equivalent of CN ‘453 and all citations will refer to the US Publication. See provided Derwent Abstract translation illustrating the equivalency of these two references . - AND - 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20200136167 (“Park et al.”), in view of Toigo et al., in view of US Pub. No. 20200266415 (“Lee et al.”), and in view of CN 112563453 (“Chen et al.”). The Examiner notes that US Pub. No. 20230129049 is the English language equivalent of CN ‘453 and all citations will refer to the US Publication. See provided Derwent Abstract translation illustrating the equivalency of these two references . Park et al. teaches the first layer contains a first composite body containing a conductive material and the first binder, and the second layer contains a second composite body containing an active material, a conductive material, and the second binder ([0016], [0017], and [0036]). Park et al. does not teach the first layer contains an active material. However, Chen et al. teaches an electrode to be used for a battery, the electrode comprising a current collector (21) and an electrode layer, wherein the electrode layer includes layers in the order of a first layer (11) and a second layer (12) from the current collector side. Chen et al. teaches the first layer contains a first binder and the second layer contains a second binder, wherein a degree of swelling of the first binder to a liquid electrolyte is lower than a degree of swelling of the second binder to the liquid electrolyte (Abstract and Fig. 1). Chen et al. teaches each of the first layer and the second layer contains an active material and a conductive material, the first layer contains a first composite body in which the conductive material and the first binder are adhered to a surface of the active material, and the second layer contains a second composite body in which the conductive material and the second binder are adhered to a surface of the active material (Fig. 1, [0025]-[0028], [0034]- [0036], [0041], and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an active material in Park et al.’s first layer to increase energy capacity of the battery. Conclusion 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 Application/Control Number: 18/237,010 Page 2 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/237,010 Page 3 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/237,010 Page 4 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/237,010 Page 5 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/237,010 Page 6 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/237,010 Page 7 Art Unit: 1785 Application/Control Number: 18/237,010 Page 8 Art Unit: 1785
Prosecution Insights