DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are pending, wherein claims 1-4, 7 and 9 are amended. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are being examined on the merits in this office action.
Remarks
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been entered. A reply to the Applicant’s remarks/arguments is presented after addressing the claims.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous Office Action and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments or/and arguments.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. References cited in the current Office action can be found in a prior Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 27, 2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2), as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Suzuki et al. (US 20170256781 A1, hereafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches an apparatus (See, e.g., Fig. 1) for manufacturing a positive electrode for a lithium secondary, the apparatus comprising:
a feeding part (“F” in Fig. 1);
a conveying means (implicitly disclosed, see Fig. 1) moving in one direction (Fig. 1);
a shaping part (e.g., R1+R21+R22, Fig. 1), wherein the shaping part comprises a pre-shaping roll (e.g., R1), a press roll (e.g., R21), and a bonding roll (e.g., R22 when a “heat-rolling” is performed, see [0101]) arranged in a row (See Fig. 1), and each of the pre-shaping roll, the press roll, and the bonding roll comprises a pair of rolls symmetrical to each other.
The instant claim includes intended-use recitations or functional languages, such as:
“configured to provide a positive electrode material in the form of a powder not containing a binder directly onto one surface of the positive electrode current collector having a primer coating layer comprising a binder thereon” for the feeding part,
“configured to convey the positive electrode current collector” for the conveying means,
“configured to pre-shape, roll press and bond the positive electrode material in the form of a powder fed onto the one surface of the positive electrode current collector to form a positive electrode material layer” for the shaping part,
“configured to bond the positive electrode material layer and the positive electrode current collector by heating” for the bonding roll, and
“configured to convey in the one direction between the pair of rolls” for the conveying means.
However, claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). See MPEP §2114.
While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended-use recitations must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In the instant case, all the claimed structural parts are taught by Suzuki, as addressed above, and all the structural parts of Suzuki mentioned above are fully capable of performing the intended use or functions as claimed in claim 1 (See, e.g., the rejection in the last office action, and the rejection of claim 7, below). For example, the feed part of Suzuki is fully capable of providing a positive electrode material in the form of a powder either containing or not containing a binder therein.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
1280
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2-4, Suzuki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1. Similarly, claims 2-4 includes intended-use recitations or functional languages. However, while intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended-use recitations must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). In the instant case, all the claimed structural parts are taught by Suzuki, as addressed above, and all the structural parts of Suzuki mentioned above are fully capable of performing the intended use or functions as claimed in claims 2-4. For example:
According to Suzuki’s teachings (See, “predetermined distance (gap) therebetween”, “relatively lightly pressed by this rolling”, [0087]), one would have readily arrived at the claimed ratio in claim 2 through pre-determining a size of the gap;
According to Suzuki’s teachings (See, “predetermined distance (gap) therebetween”, [0092]), one would have readily arrived at the claimed ratio in claim 3 through pre-determining a size of the gap; and
Suzuki does teach the bonding roll is capable of bonding the positive electrode current collector and the positive electrode material layer under a temperature of about 60 [Symbol font/0xB0]C to about 180 [Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0102]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hirokawa et al. (US 20100015328 A1, hereafter Hirokawa).
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent on the feeding part comprising an ultrasonic sieve machine, a vibratory feeder, or a rotary feeder.
However, these types of feeding are well known in the art of manufacturing electrode. For instance, Hirokawa discloses a rotary feeder or a vibrating feeder is used to supply an electrode material powder onto the current collector ([0067]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have used a rotary feeder or a vibrating feeder as a replacement to the feeding part of Suzuki since the result of this replacement is predicable. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20200136167 A1, hereafter Park).
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, but is silent on a primer coating layer comprising a binder is formed on one surface of the positive electrode current collector.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Park discloses that disposing a primer coating layer on a positive electrode current collector and then forming an electrode active material layer on the primer coating layer can reduce an elongation percentage of the electrode, cause little deterioration of output characteristics, and enhance safety of needle-shaped penetration (See, e.g., abstract, [0014], [0024]-[0025], [0072], [0073]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Park into Suzuki such that a primer coating layer is disposed on one surface of the positive electrode current collector in order to achieve the desired effects stated above. Suzuki in view of Park teaches the primer coating layer comprises a binder, such as PVDF ([0072]).
Note that this rejection of claim 7 is optional, because the limitation recited in claim 7 is further limited from intended-use recitation or functional languages recited in claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20210057735 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches the apparatus according to claim1, but is silent on the claimed positive electrode material comprising a sulfur-carbon.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Kim discloses a positive electrode material comprising a sulfur-carbon composite can improve the wettability of the positive electrode and thereby improve the lifetime of the battery (See, e.g., abstract and [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have incorporated the teachings of Kim into Suzuki such that a sulfur-carbon composite taught by Kim is used an alternative to the positive electrode material of Suzuki in order to achieve the benefits stated above. Suzuki in view of Kim further teaches the sulfur-carbon composite comprises 50 wt% to 90 wt% of sulfur and 9 wt% to 49 wt% of porous carbon (See, at least, claim 2). The claimed ranges overlap the above ranges, respectively. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 (I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 would be allowable because the prior arts do not teach or reasonably suggest a battery manufacturing method comprising feeding a positive electrode material in the form of a powder not containing a binder directly onto a surface of a positive electrode current collector having a primer coating layer comprising a binder thereon.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the new rejections above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZHONGQING WEI whose telephone number is (571)272-4809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 - 6:00.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights