Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant argues the amendment requiring “wherein a distance of a measurement region from a starting point on the surface of the current collector is set as x-axis of the wave graph, and the binder occupied area ratio is set as y-axis of the wave graph” distinguishes from the prior art of record which varies the binder content in the thickness direction. However, the claim amendments do not preclude the binder distribution of the prior art because the distance being measured into the thickness direction of the electrode plate is considered “a distance of a measurement region from a starting point on the surface of the current collector” (see annotated figure 1 below). The claims do not set forth which direction the measurement must be taken in, i.e. the one direction as claimed may be the thickness direction. Therefore, the rejection is made FINAL. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Relevant MPEP Sections
MPEP 2112.01 relating to Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-6, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1 or 2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kinugawa et al. (US Pub 2015/0303478 which corresponds to USP 9,312,542 cited in the IDS).
In regard to claims 1, 14 and 15, Kinugawa et al. teach a secondary battery (title) including a negative electrode, comprising: a current collector (copper core); and an active material layer both sides of the current collector (paragraph [0051]), wherein the active material layer comprises an electrode active material and a binder intentionally dispersed in a uneven manner such that the amount of binder increases continuously from the portion toward the core and an outer surface of the electrode active material layer (see paragraphs [0018-0031]) creating a wave form of the amount of binder (see figure 1).
While the prior art does not specifically disclose that “wherein, after a standard peel test, a ratio of an area occupied by the binder on a predetermined area of the current collector to the predetermined area along one direction on the current collector shows a wave graph, and wherein the standard peel test: is a process of attaching a tape on the active material layer and then peeling off the tape from the active material layer, which is repeated until no component of the active material layer is observed on the tape”, the prior art is presumed to have the claimed properties when tested in by the standard peel test as required by the claim (see MPEP 2112.01 above) as the distribution of binder in the prior art will result in a wave graph when tape is applied and peeled. The method of testing the electrode does not distinguish from the prior art. In the alternative, the prior art teaches a structure which obviates the claimed properties.
In regard to the amendment, as shown in annotated figure 1 below, a distance of a measurement region from a starting point on the surface of the current collector is set as x-axis of the wave graph, and the binder occupied area ratio is set as y-axis of the wave graph.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 2, 3, 5 and 6, “a ratio is 55% or more at a crest portion of the wave graph and a ratio is 50% or less at a valley portion of the wave graph” is presumed present in the prior art based on the distribution shown in figure 1 and discussed in paragraphs [0023-0032]). Similarly, the prior art product is presumed to have the properties required by claims 5 and 6 when tested (MPEP 2112.01) or properties which overlap the claimed ranges in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). Further the Examiner notes that the particular type of tape used is not specified by the claims as currently written therefore tapes of various strengths may be used.
In regard to claim 4, a wavelength of the wave graph is on the scale of microns as the wave is formed over the thickness of the current collector which may have a thickness such as 10 microns (see paragraph [0051]).
In regard to claims 11 and 12, a ratio of the binder in the active material layer is 1 part by mass to 100 parts by mass graphite active material (paragraph [0048]). Broader ranges for binder content are disclosed in paragraph [0034].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinugawa et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Miyauchi et al. (US Pub 2015/0187516 of record).
In regard to claims 7-10, Kinugawa et al. teach the electrode according to claim 1, but does not describe sizes of the electrode material particles. However, Miyauchi et al. teach a similar secondary battery including a carbon containing negative electrode active material and the desirability for the binder to be a particulate binder with an average size of 50 to 400nm (paragraph [0090]) and the carbon active material particles to be a size such as 1 to 100 microns as such allows for a small binder content relative to the active material which results in a electrode with excellent adhesion, low resistance and excellent charge-discharge characteristics (paragraphs [0119-0122]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to use particulate binder and active materials within the claimed ranges in the electrode of Kinugawa et al. as such results in enhanced properties for the electrode as taught by Miyauchi et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 10,297,815 newly cited, teaches a similar electrode where binder content is varied across a width of the current collector (see figure 5).
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights