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 claims 1-10 & 19-23 in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-8, 10, & 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz et al. (US 2018/0315990 A1), in view of Sato (WO 2019/189332 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Paz teaches a double-sided coating, comprising: a substrate (current collector 80 B) having a first side and an opposing second side (Par. 0040; “double-sided coated current collector foils”); a first coating forming a first electrode (cathode 95 B) arranged on the first side (Par. 0040, there is a coating/slurry formed on each side of the current collector film; “dried electrode slurry layers”); and a second coating forming a second electrode (cathode 95 B) arranged on the second side (Par. 0040, there is a coating/slurry on each side of the current collector film; “dried electrode slurry layers”; Annotated Fig. 2); wherein each of the first and second coating are formed from a slurry (Par. 0040) comprising a liquid carrier suspending solid particles (Par. 0060, the slurry comprises a water or organic solvent, which holds solids), wherein the slurry comprises a binder, an active material, and a conductive material (Par. 0060; “the electrode slurry may comprise…active material(s), conductive agent(s), and/or binder(s)”). Paz fails to teach thickness values of the first and second coating layers.
However, Sato teaches a coating (active material layer 3; Pg. 5, Par. 2, the active material layer may be provided on both sides of a current collector) which forms an electrode (Pg. 5, Par. 3) with a thickness of at least 30 μm (Pg. 5, Par. 2; 50-150 μm, 50-100 μm fit the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the double-sided coating taught by Paz by providing the coatings with a thickness of 30 μm or more, as taught by Sato. One of ordinary skill would have determined that this configuration would yield predictable results of improved energy capacity.
Paz additionally fails to teach surface roughness values for the first and second coatings. Paz does teach a desire for an electrode which is smooth (Par. 0108).
However, Sato teaches the coatings having a surface roughness Ra of less than 10 μm (Pg. 2, Par. 4; surface roughness of the active material layer 3 is from 0.1 to 10 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the double-sided coating taught by Paz by forming the coatings with a surface roughness of less than 10 μm, as taught by Sato. This would be done in order to improve the electrode’s rate characteristics and the permeability of the electrolytic solution, as stated in Sato (Pg. 3, Par. 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
500
639
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding claim 2, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 1, further comprising at least one first film arranged on the first coating (Par. 0007, 0057; each electrode slurry is deposited onto a sacrificial film 90) and at least one second film arranged on the second coating (Par. 0007, 0057; each electrode slurry is deposited onto a sacrificial film 90), wherein at least one of the at least one first film and the at least one second film is porous (Par. 0036; the electrodes formed by the slurry and sacrificial film can be porous).
Regarding claim 3, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 2, wherein an adhesion between the at least one first film and the first coating is less than an adhesion between the first coating and the first side of the substrate and/or an adhesion between the at least one second film and the second coating is less than an adhesion between the second coating and the second side of the substrate (Par. 0064; “coating 92 … may be selected so that the binding strength of electrode 95 to current collector film 80 … is higher than the binding strength of electrode 95 to sacrificial film 90”; thus, the adhesion between the at least one first/second films and the first/second coatings are less than an adhesion between the first/second coatings and the first/second sides of the substrate).
Regarding claim 4, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 1, wherein the active material comprises an electroactive material (Par. 0068. LiCoO2 is electroactive).
Regarding claim 5, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 1, wherein the conductive material comprises conductive carbon (Par. 0068, “carbon black as the conductive additive”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a metal mesh (Par. 0080, the current collector may be mesh-like; Par. 0057, current collector is made of aluminum).
Regarding claim 7, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises pores (As Par. 0080 states that the current collector may be mesh-like, the current collector then must be porous).
Regarding claim 8, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 1, wherein the first electrode and/or the second electrode comprises a cathode (Par. 0068; the electrode slurries form cathodes 95 B).
Regarding claim 10, modified Paz teaches the double-sided coating of claim 1, arranged as a component of a secondary battery (battery cell 109; Par. 0108, “lithium ion batteries”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Paz teaches an electrochemical device comprising the double-sided coating of claim 1 (Par. 0038, the slurries/coatings and current collector are used in an electrochemical cell).
Regarding claim 20, modified Paz teaches the electrochemical device of claim 19, wherein the electrochemical device comprises a battery (Par. 0038, “electrochemical cells”; battery cell 109).
Regarding claim 21, modified Paz teaches the electrochemical device of claim 19, wherein the first coating and the second coating form a first cathode and a second cathode, respectively, of the electrochemical device (Par. 0040, the dried slurry coating layers on both sides of the CC film form a double-sided coated current collector foil, and each double-sided CC foil forms an electrode, so both the first and second coatings thus form a first and second cathode).
Regarding claim 22, modified Paz teaches the electrochemical device of claim 21, further comprising: a first separator (separator 75, Annotated Fig. 2) comprising a first electrolyte (Par. 0053, the separator 75 has interactions with an electrolyte), wherein a first end of the first separator is connected to the first cathode (Annotated Fig. 2, Par. 0052; separators 75 are connected to cathodes 95 B on one side of the separators); a first anode connected to a second end of the first separator (anode 95 A, Annotated Fig. 2, Par. 0052); a second separator (separator 75, Annotated Fig. 2) comprising a second electrolyte (Par. 0053, the separator 75 has interactions with an electrolyte), wherein a first end of the second separator is connected to the second cathode (Annotated Fig. 2, Par. 0052; separators 75 are connected to cathodes 95 B on one side of the separators); and a second anode connected to a second end of the second separator (anode 95 A, Annotated Fig. 2, Par. 0052)
Regarding claim 23, modified Paz teaches the electrochemical device of claim 19, wherein the electrochemical device comprises a secondary battery (Par. 0108; “lithium ion batteries”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paz, in view of Sato, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 114068867 A).
Regarding claim 9, Paz fails to teach the first and/or second coating having a porosity of 20%-90%. Paz rather only teaches that the electrodes formed by the coatings are porous (Par. 0040).
However, Li teaches a first coating for an electrode (Pg. 1, Par. 9; “first coating”) which is disposed on a current collector substrate (Pg. 1, Par. 9) which has a porosity of 20% to 90% (Pg. 1, Par. 12; “the porosity of the first coating is 30% to 50%”; this fits the claimed range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the double-sided coating taught by Paz by providing the first coating with a porosity of 20-90%, as taught by Li. This would be done in order to reserve room for the electrode material to expand and to improve the electrode’s liquid storage capacity, as stated in Li (Pg. 3, Par. 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON M BAIRD whose telephone number is (571)272-9742. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CAMERON M BAIRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights