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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 5/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 8 (first listing of claim 8) been renumbered claim 7.
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 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bruckner et al. (US 2015/0061176).
Regarding claim 1, Bruckner et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, an electrode ([0100]-[0106]) for a secondary battery ([0078], [0079]), the electrode ([0100]-[0106] comprising: a dry electrode film ([0100], [0104], [0105]) comprising an active material having an average particle diameter of 0.05 to 3 microns ([0102], “P2, Phostech Lithium Inc, D50 = 0.5 – 1 micron per brochure), an electrically conductive material ([0101]), and a fibrillated binder ([0067], [0072], [0103]); and a current collector ([0053]-[0056], [0076]) on which the dry electrode film is stacked ([0100], [0104], [0105]).
Regarding claim 2, Bruckner et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the fibrillated binder comprises polytetrafluoroethylene ([0067], [0072], [0103]).
Regarding claim 6, Bruckner et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses an average particle diameter of the active material is 0.05 to 2 microns ([0102], “P2, Phostech Lithium Inc, D50 = 0.5 – 1 micron per brochure).
Regarding claim 7, Bruckner et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the dry electrode film comprises fibers fibrillated in multiple directions (depicted in Figs 1-2, [0034]-[0042]) via pulverizing / milling ([0085]). Further, regarding limitations recited in claim 7, which are directed to method of making said dry electrode (e.g. “by the production of the dry dough for the electrode by the primary fibrillation of the fibrillable binder, pulverization by grinding of the dry dough for the electrode, and secondary fibrillation of the fibrillable binder during the forming of the dry electrode film by pressurizing the powder”) it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.). See MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the dry electrode as recited in claim 7 is the same as the dry electrode disclosed by Bruckner et al., as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable even though the dry electrode of Bruckner et al. was made by a different process. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruckner et al. (US 2015/0061176) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ichinose et al. (US 2006/0269842).
Regarding claims 3-5, Bruckner et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the fibrillated binder further comprises acrylic-modified polytetrafluoroethylene, wherein the fibrillated binder comprises polytetrafluoroethylene and the acrylic-modified polytetrafluoroethylene in a weight ratio of 1:9 to 9:1, and the acrylic-modified polytetrafluoroethylene is formed by mixing polytetrafluoroethylene and an acrylic polymer in a weight ratio of 7:3 to 3:7.
Ichinose et al. discloses in Figs 1-7, a secondary battery (Abstract) including an electrode binder comprising PTFE + acrylic polymer mixed at 1:1 weight ratio ([0160]). This configuration enhances the adhesion / cohesion and structural integrity of the electrode, enhancing overall battery performance ([0160]).
Ichinose et al. and Bruckner et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, electrode binders.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the PTFE + acrylic polymer disclosed by Ichinose et al. into the binder of Bruckner et al. to enhance the adhesion / cohesion and structural integrity of the electrode, enhancing overall battery performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yang (US 2020/0280089) discloses in Figs 1-2, a secondary battery (ref 1) including an electrode binder including PTFE and acrylic polymer for flexibility ([0040]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights