ANODE MANUFACTURING METHOD, ANODE, AND SECONDARY BATTERY COMPRISING SAME

DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment Amendments to the specification and claims, filed on November 14, 2023, have been entered in the above-identified application. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Examiner’s Comments The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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. Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”. Election/Restrictions Claims 11 – 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 28, 2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 10) in the reply filed on July 28, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner did not properly show a prima facie case of burden or that the alleged special technical feature was not a special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because an art rejection over the common subject matter in the claims is a prima facie showing that the alleged special technical feature is not a special technical feature since it does not make a contribution over the art (which is a requirement to be deemed a ‘special technical feature’). Regarding the undue burden, the Examiner notes that the acting of an international examiner operating has no bearing on the acting of the present examiner and the specific method steps; pH, etc. is sufficient evidence that the method steps are not nominal and that restriction is proper. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. 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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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. Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience. Claims 1 and 3, 4 and 6 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over IDS reference Matsuno et al. (JP 2021-093239 A). See provided Machine Translation of JP ‘239 A for citations. Regarding claim 1, Matsuno et al. disclose a manufacturing method of a negative electrode (at least Paragraphs 0143 – 0150 and see claims 8 - 12) comprising steps of: preparing a preliminary negative electrode slurry comprising a negative electrode active material (ibid; see claim 9 and Paragraphs 0108 and 0145 - 0147) and a conductive material (ibid: see Paragraphs 0108, 0148 and 0149), wherein said negative electrode active material comprises silicon-containing particles comprising silicon and a Li compound (ibid and see Paragraphs 0080 – 0081 and 0104); adding an acid to the preliminary negative electrode slurry and mixing to form a negative electrode slurry (e.g. Paragraph 0030 – 0031 and 0059, the additive is added as part of an acid dispersion with a pH < 7); applying the negative electrode slurry on at least one surface of a current collector (Paragraph 0150) and performing a first drying and rolling the slurry to form a negative electrode active material layer (Paragraph 0110 and 0142); wherein a pH of the negative electrode slurry at 25°C is 10 or more and less than 12.5 (at least Paragraphs 0036 – 0037)1. Matsuno et al. fails to explicitly teach performing a second drying of the current collector on which the negative electrode active material layer is formed. However, performing only a single drying/rolling or multiple drying and/or rolling steps is taken as conventional in the electrode manufacturing arts. Evidence supporting this is in Matsuno et al., talking about the positive electrode, though a skilled artisan would recognize that both electrodes are made in substantially identical manners, other than specific additives and active materials used (see at least Paragraph 0136 and note both electrodes are subject to drying/heating, followed by compression as per citations above). Substitution of functional equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the functional equivalency. In the instant case, using a single heating and compression cycle versus “heating or compression can be repeated a plurality of times” are functional equivalents in the field of known finishing steps for forming electrodes in the battery arts. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950). Regarding claim 3, Matsuno et al. teach adding known thickeners (see Paragraph 0149: CMC). Regarding claim 4, Matsuno et al. teach adding SBR as a binder (see Paragraph 0149) as well as mixing these all together (ibid). While Matsuno et al. is not explicit on the exact sequencing, the Examiner deems that variations on the order of adding these items listed in Paragraph 0149 would have been within the knowledge level of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 6, Matsuno et al. disclose acid (additive solution) pH values meeting the claimed limitations (see at least Paragraph 0059) and eaches controlling a pH of the final slurry to insure a stable aqueous slurry dispersion (at least Paragraphs 0030 – 0031). Regarding claim 7, Matsuno et al. teaches the importance of controlling the amount of the acid (additive solution) (at least Paragraph 0066). The Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the amount of the acid through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Matsuno et al. regarding the desire to the amount of the additive solution (acidic) to similar ranges. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 8, Matsuno et al. teaches the known importance of the viscosity in these types of mixtures, but does not give a range (at least Paragraph 0061). The Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the viscosity of the negative electrode slurry through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Matsuno et al. regarding the fact that viscosity is an art recognized critical property. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 9, Matsuno et al. disclose lithium silicates meeting the claimed requirements (at least Paragraphs 0080 – 0081). Regarding claim 10, the BET surface area is a known, critical parameter for electrode active material layers (see various art cited herewith or on Applicants’ filed PTO-1449s for support of this position). The Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the desired amount of change in BET surface area after drying to warrant having a second drying step through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Matsuno et al. that second drying steps are optional, so there must be a valid, property-based reason to include a second drying step (and its added cost/time). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Claims 1 - 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuno et al. as applied above, and further in view of Luo et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2015/0107093 A1) as further evidenced by Shen et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2017/0207443 A1). Matsuno et al. is relied upon as described above. Regarding claims 1 and 5, Matsuno et al. is relied upon as describe above, but fails to explicitly disclose adding an acid meeting the limitations of claim 5 as part of the ‘additive’ solution, instead only teaching that the additive solution is acidic, in nature. While the Examiner maintains that this reads on the limitation of claim 1 of “adding an acid to the preliminary negative electrode slurry”, the Examiner acknowledges that it is not exactly what Applicants’ disclosure is doing, per se. However, Luo et al. teach that it is known to adjust the pH, including to values up to 11 or 12, of the negative electrode slurry, especially before mixing with any viscosity enhancers (thickeners, as in claim 3) to ensure good coating characteristics and durability (see at least Figure 3 and Paragraphs 0027, 0041, 0042, 0050 - 0052). This includes acids meeting the limitations of claim 5 (ibid). This is further supported by Shen et al., which teaches that it is known to add various acids, including acids meeting the limitations of claim 5, to adjust the pH of an electrode slurry to the desired pH levels (see at least Paragraphs 0109 – 0114), including an explicit teaching that high pH values in the ranges claimed are known to ensure good dispersibility and properties of the conductive aid (see at least Paragraphs 0131 – 0132). It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Matsuno et al. to add a separate acid after the preliminary negative electrode slurry is formed, but before adding any viscosity enhancer/thickener, as taught by Luo et al., since such an additive allows controlling the pH to desired values, including up to 11 or 12, to ensure good dispersibility and properties of the conductive aid and/or good coating characteristics and durability of the final negative electrode slurry mixture. Regarding claim 2, the Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the pH of the preliminary negative electrode slurry (before adding the pH adjustor) through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Matsuno et al. regarding the desire to for the final pH to be in a range of 10 – 12.5 (Paragraph 0036) or between 11 – 12 as taught by Luo et al. (Paragraph 0050), while Luo et al. also notes that high (presumably higher than 12) pH values are not desired (ibid). In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claims 3 and 8, Luo et al. further supports CMC as a viscosity enhancer/thickener added to adjust the viscosity to a desired range (Paragraphs 0047 – 0048). The Examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as the viscosity of the negative electrode slurry meeting the claimed range through routine experimentation, especially given the teaching in Luo et al. regarding acceptable viscosity values. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Aller, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding claim 4, these limitations are met as described above by the Matsuno et al. reference. Regarding claim 6, Luo et al. disclose acid pKa values meeting the claimed limitations (Paragraph 0051). Regarding claim 7, Luo et al. disclose acid amounts meeting the claimed limitations (Paragraph 0052). Regarding claims 9 and 10, these limitations are met for the reasons set forth above by the Matsuno et al. reference. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET). 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. /KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785 September 23, 2026 1 While the reference does not specify this as at 25 C, since no temperature is listed this can be taken as room temperature which is generally taken as 20-25 C. As such, the pH at room temperature is taken as equivalent to the pH at 25 C.