DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 10/11/2023 has been entered and received.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-12, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0285680), hereinafter LEE, in view of YONEMARU (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0166020), and Yoon et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0279407), hereinafter YOON.
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches: A method of preparing a dry electrode (KWAK teaches preparing a dry electrode [Abstract; 0023-0024].), the method comprising: arranging at least one interlayer on at least one surface of an electrode current collector to prepare a first stack (LEE teaches arranging at least one interlayer (250) on at least one surface of an electrode current collector (200) [0108; Fig. 3].); arranging a dry electrode film (LEE teaches a dry electrode layer (100) [Fig. 3; 0108].), which has an area larger than an area of the at least one interlayer, on the first stack to prepare a second stack, wherein the dry electrode film comprises a first region on the at least one interlayer and a second region extending from the first region beyond an outer periphery of the at least one interlayer; and pulling at least a portion of the second region of the dry electrode film to separate the second region from the first region and provide the dry electrode, wherein the dry electrode film has anisotropic tensile strength, and wherein the dry electrode comprises a dry electrode active material layer on the at least one interlayer (LEE teaches an electrode active material layer (100) on at least one interlayer (250) [Figs. 1-4; 0106].), and in the dry electrode, the dry electrode active material layer directly on the electrode current collector is absent (LEE teaches the electrode active material layer (100) is not directly on the current collector (200) [Figs. 1-4; 106].).
LEE is silent as to: wherein the dry electrode film comprises a first region on the at least one interlayer and a second region extending from the first region beyond an outer periphery of the at least one interlayer; and pulling at least a portion of the second region of the dry electrode film to separate the second region from the first region and provide the dry electrode, wherein the dry electrode film has anisotropic tensile strength.
In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, YONEMARU teaches aluminum foil (current collector) with a width of 10 cm and a conductive carbon layer (interlayer) with a width of 6 cm [0237]. YONEMARU teaches the shaping material for an electrode is peeled from an edge thereof using a plastic spatula and was pulled using tweezers, the shaping material for an electrode was smoothly peeled up to the boundary of the conductive carbon coating [0237], indicating that there is a first region of the shaping material of the electrode on the interlayer (carbon coating) and a second region of the shaping material of the electrode extending beyond from the first region beyond an outer periphery [0237]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE, by having two regions in the electrode layer and peeling away part of the electrode layer, as suggested by YONEMARU, in order to for the shaping material of the electrode to be easily reused [0154].
LEE and YONEMARU are silent as to: wherein the dry electrode film has anisotropic tensile strength.
In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, YOON teaches the electrode has anisotropic tensile strength [0070]. Anisotropic tensile strength is defined as tensile strength that varies in tensioning directions, according to the applicant’s specification [0046]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE and YONEMARU, by having the electrode have anisotropic tensile strength, as suggested by YOON, in order for the mechanical properties of the electrode film may be uniformly improved in an arbitrary direction [0071].
Regarding claim 2, YONEMARU further teaches: wherein the second region abuts the first region in a machine direction (MD) of the dry electrode film (YONEMARU teaches the shaping material for an electrode is peeled from an edge thereof using a plastic spatula and was pulled using tweezers, the shaping material for an electrode was smoothly peeled up to the boundary of the conductive carbon coating [0237], indicating that there is a first region of the shaping material of the electrode on the interlayer (carbon coating) and a second region of the shaping material of the electrode extending beyond from the first region beyond an outer periphery and the second region abuts the first region [0237]).
Regarding claim 3, YOON further teaches: wherein MD tensile strength (MDS) of the dry electrode film is different from transverse direction (TD) tensile strength (TDS) of the dry electrode film (YOON teaches the MD tensile strength is different from the transverse direction tensile strength [0073].), and a ratio (MDS/TDS) of the MD tensile strength (MDS) to the TD strength (TDS) of the dry electrode film is 2 or more (YOON teaches the ratio of the tensile strength of electrode to be TSTD/TSMD being a ratio of 0.3 or more, 0.4 or more, 0.5 or more, 0.6 or more [0071]. In example 2, using the tensile strength, the ratio would be TSTD/TSMD = 0.4/0.7 = 0.6, which reverses to TSMD/TSTD = 0.7/0.4 = 1.75, indicating that the ratio would be 1.75 or more, overlapping the claimed range or “2 or more”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE and YONEMARU, by having the ratio be 1.75 or more and the tensile strength being in different directions, as suggested by YOON, in order for the mechanical properties of the electrode film may be uniformly improved in an arbitrary direction [0071].
Regarding claim 4, YONEMARU further teaches: wherein the second region abuts the first region along the outer periphery of the at least one interlayer (YONEMARU teaches the shaping material for an electrode is peeled from an edge thereof using a plastic spatula and was pulled using tweezers, the shaping material for an electrode was smoothly peeled up to the boundary of the conductive carbon coating [0237], indicating that there is a first region of the shaping material of the electrode on the interlayer (carbon coating) and a second region of the shaping material of the electrode extending beyond from the first region beyond an outer periphery and the second region abuts the first region along the outer periphery of the interlayer [0237].).
Regarding claim 5, YOON further teaches: wherein machine direction (MD) tensile strength (MDS) of the dry electrode film is different from transverse direction (TD) tensile strength (TDS) of the dry electrode film, and a ratio (MDS/TDS) of the MD tensile strength (MDS) to the TD tensile strength (TDS) of the dry electrode film is in a range of about 5 to about 20 (YOON teaches the ratio of the tensile strength of electrode to be TSTD/TSMD being a ratio of 0.3 or more, 0.4 or more, 0.5 or more, 0.6 or more [0071]. In example 2, using the tensile strength, the ratio would be TSTD/TSMD = 0.4/0.7 = 0.6, which reverses to TSMD/TSTD = 0.7/0.4 = 1.75, indicating that the ratio would be 1.75 or more, encompassing the claimed range “about 5 to about 20”.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE and YONEMARU, by having the ratio be 1.75 or more and the tensile strength being in different directions, as suggested by YOON, in order for the mechanical properties of the electrode film may be uniformly improved in an arbitrary direction [0071].
Regarding claim 9, LEE teaches: wherein the dry electrode film has a first area (S1) (LEE teaches the electrode film (100) has a first area (the top portion in FIG. 3) [Fig. 3; 0110].), and the at least one interlayer has a second area (S2) (LEE teaches the interlayer (250) has a second area (the top portion of the interlayer 250 in FIG. 3) [Fig. 3; 0110].), wherein a ratio (S2/S1) of the second area (S2) to the first area (S1) is about 0.5 to about 0.99 (The interlayer is provided on one surface or two surfaces of the electrode current collector [0141; 0144]. LEE teaches the second area of the electrode current collector is less than 100% of the first area of the electrode layer (100) [0110], which includes the interlayer [Fig. 1-4]. LEE teaches the second area may be about 60%, indicating that the ratio can be 60/100=0.6 [0110], which would meet the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio of the second area to the first area about 0.5 to about 0.99, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to adjust the area for the purpose of improving the energy density of the battery [0111].); and the electrode current collector has a third area (S3) (LEE teaches the electrode current collector (200) has a third area [Fig. 6; 0110].), and the at least one interlayer has the second area (S2) (LEE teaches the interlayer has the second area [Figs. 3, 6].), wherein a ratio (S2/S3) of the second area (S2) to the third area (S3) is in a range of about 0.5 to about 0.99 (The interlayer is provided on one surface or two surfaces of the electrode current collector [0141; 0144]. LEE teaches the second area of the electrode current collector is less than 100% of the first area of the electrode layer (100) [0110], which includes the interlayer [Figs. 1-4]. LEE teaches the second area may be about 60%, indicating that the ratio can be 60/100=0.6 [0110], which would meet the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a ratio of the second area to the first area about 0.5 to about 0.99, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to adjust the area for the purpose of improving the energy density of the battery [0111].).
Regarding claim 10, LEE teaches: wherein: the dry electrode comprises a plurality of dry electrode active material layers which are identical to the dry electrode active material layer (LEE teaches the dry electrode (100) comprises a plurality of dry electrode active material layers (100a, 100b, 100c) that are identical [Figs. 1-4; 0059].) and are on the at least one surface of the electrode current collector to be spaced apart from each other in a transverse direction (TD) of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches the electrode active material layers are on at least one surface of the electrode current collector (200) to be spaced apart from each other in a transverse direction [Fig. 3].); each of the plurality of dry electrode active material layers has a first machine direction (MD) length (MDL1) and a first TD length (TDL1) (LEE teaches each of the plurality of electrode active material layers have a first machine direction length and a first transverse direction length [Figs. 1-4].), and the electrode current collector has a second MD length (MDL2) and a second TD length (TDL2) (LEE teaches the electrode current collector (200) has a second MD length and a second TD length [Figs. 1-4].); a ratio (MDL1/TDL1) of the first MD length (MDL1) of the dry electrode active material layer to the first TD length (TDL1) of the dry electrode active material layer is 20 or more; a ratio (TDL1/TDL2) of the first TD length (TLD1) of the dry electrode active material layer to the second TD length (TDL2) of the electrode current collector is 0.3 or less (LEE teaches length of the electrode current collect may be about 10% to about 20% of the length of the electrode active material layer (100) [0112], indicating that the ratio would be 0.1-0.2, meeting the claimed range.); each of the plurality of dry electrode active material layers has first MD tensile strength (MDS1) and first TD tensile strength (TDS1) (); and a ratio (MDS1/TDS1) of the first MD tensile strength (MDS1) to the first TD tensile strength (TDS1) is 2 or more.
LEE is silent as to: each of the plurality of dry electrode active material layers has first MD tensile strength (MDS1) and first TD tensile strength (TDS1); and a ratio (MDS1/TDS1) of the first MD tensile strength (MDS1) to the first TD tensile strength (TDS1) is 2 or more. In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, YOON teaches the ratio of the tensile strength of electrode to be TSTD/TSMD being a ratio of 0.3 or more, 0.4 or more, 0.5 or more, 0.6 or more [0071]. In example 2, using the tensile strength, the ratio would be TSTD/TSMD = 0.4/0.7 = 0.6, which reverses to TSMD/TSTD = 0.7/0.4 = 1.75, indicating that the ratio would be 1.75 or more, overlapping the claimed range or “2 or more”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE and YONEMARU, by having the ratio be 1.75 or more and the tensile strength being in different directions, as suggested by YOON, in order for the mechanical properties of the electrode film may be uniformly improved in an arbitrary direction [0071].
Regarding claim 11, LEE teaches: wherein the dry electrode comprises the dry electrode active material layer on the at least one surface of the electrode current collector along a machine direction (MD) of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches the dry electrode comprises the dry electrode active material layer (100a) on the at least one surface of the electrode current collector (200) along a machine direction of the electrode current collector [Figs. 1-4; also Fig. 3 below illustrates the directions].), the dry electrode active material layer has a third MD length (MDL3) and a third transverse direction (TD) length (TDL3) (LEE teaches the dry electrode active material layer has a third length and a third transverse direction [Figs. 1-4, 6-10]), the electrode current collector has a fourth MD length (MDL4) and a fourth TD length (TDL4) (LEE teaches the electrode current collector (200, 200a, 200b) have a fourth MD length and a fourth TD length [Figs. 1-4, 6-10), both ends of the dry electrode active material layer in a transverse direction (TD) are spaced apart from both ends of the electrode current collector in the TD (LEE shows both ends of the dry electrode active material layer in a TD direction are spaced apart from both ends of the electrode current collector [Figs. 3, 9-10].), respectively, the third TD length (TDL3) of the dry electrode active material layer is in a range of about 60 % to about 99 % of the fourth TD length (TDL4) of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches a length of the electrode current collector may be about 10% to about 90% of the length of the electrode active material [0112]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.), and . . . .
LEE is silent as to: the dry electrode active material layer has first MD tensile strength (MDS1) and first TD tensile strength (TDS1), wherein a ratio (MDS1/TDS1) of the first MD tensile strength (MDS1) to the first tensile TD strength (TDS1) is 2 or more. In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, YOON teaches the ratio of the tensile strength of electrode to be TSTD/TSMD being a ratio of 0.3 or more, 0.4 or more, 0.5 or more, 0.6 or more [0071]. In example 2, using the tensile strength, the ratio would be TSTD/TSMD = 0.4/0.7 = 0.6, which reverses to TSMD/TSTD = 0.7/0.4 = 1.75, indicating that the ratio would be 1.75 or more, overlapping the claimed range or “2 or more”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE and YONEMARU, by having the ratio be 1.75 or more and the tensile strength being in different directions, as suggested by YOON, in order for the mechanical properties of the electrode film may be uniformly improved in an arbitrary direction [0071].
PNG
media_image1.png
355
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, LEE teaches: wherein the dry electrode comprises the dry electrode active material layer on the at least one surface of the electrode current collector in a machine direction (MD) of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches the electrode active material layer on the surface of the electrode current collector is in a machine direction [Figs. 1-4, 6-10].), the dry electrode active material layer has a fifth MD length (MDL5) and a fifth transverse direction (TD) length (TDL5) (LEE teaches the dry electrode active material has a fifth MD length and a fifth TD length [Figs. 1-4, 6-10].), the electrode current collector has a sixth MD length (MDL6) and a sixth TD length (TDL6) (LEE teaches the electrode current collector has a sixth MD length and a sixth TD length [Figs. 1-4, 6-10].), the fifth TD length (TDL5) of the dry electrode active material layer is in a range of about 99 % to about 101 % of the sixth TD length (TDL6) of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches the length of the electrode current collector may be less than 100% of the length of the electrode active material [0112], which encompasses the claimed range.), and . . . .
LEE is silent as to: the dry electrode active material layer has first MD tensile strength (MDS1) and first TD tensile strength (TDS1), wherein a ratio (MDS1/TDS1) of the first MD tensile strength (MDS1) to the first tensile TD strength (TDS1) is 2 or more. In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, YOON teaches the ratio of the tensile strength of electrode to be TSTD/TSMD being a ratio of 0.3 or more, 0.4 or more, 0.5 or more, 0.6 or more [0071]. In example 2, using the tensile strength, the ratio would be TSTD/TSMD = 0.4/0.7 = 0.6, which reverses to TSMD/TSTD = 0.7/0.4 = 1.75, indicating that the ratio would be 1.75 or more, overlapping the claimed range or “2 or more”. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE and YONEMARU, by having the ratio be 1.75 or more and the tensile strength being in different directions, as suggested by YOON, in order for the mechanical properties of the electrode film may be uniformly improved in an arbitrary direction [0071].
Regarding claim 15, LEE teaches: wherein the dry electrode film is a self-standing film, is free of a residual process solvent (LEE teaches the electrode is free of a residual process solvent [claim 8]), and comprises a dry electrode active material and a dry binder (LEE teaches a dry electrode material [0023-0024] and a dry binder [claim 8].), the dry binder comprises a fibrillized binder and comprises a fluorine-based binder (LEE teaches a fibrillized binder [claim 8].), the dry electrode film further comprises a dry conductive material (LEE teaches the electrode film comprise a dry conductive material [claim 9].), and the dry conductive material comprises a carbon-based conductive material (LEE teaches the dry conductive material comprises a carbonaceous conductive material [claim 9].).
Regarding claim 16, LEE teaches: wherein a thickness of the at least one interlayer is 30 % or less of a thickness of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches the thickness of the at least one interlayer is 30% or less of the thickness of the electrode current collector [claim 10].), the interlayer comprises a binder, and the binder comprises at least one selected from a conductive binder and a non-conductive binder and comprises a fluorine-based binder (LEE teaches the interlayer comprises a binder and the binder is a fluorine-based binder [claim 10].).
Regarding claim 17, LEE teaches: wherein the at least one interlayer further comprises a carbon-based conductive material (LEE teaches the at least one interlayer comprises a carbonaceous conductive material [0084].).
Regarding claim 19, LEE teaches: wherein, when the dry electrode active material layer is measured utilizing a surface and interfacial measuring analysis system (SICAS), a change ratio of a vertical relative binding force (FVR) according to a depth from a first point spaced apart from a surface of the dry electrode active material layer by about 5 % of a total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer in a direction of the electrode current collector to a second point spaced apart from a surface of the electrode current collector by about 5 % of the total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer is 300 % or less (LEE teaches the electrode active material layer is measured utilizing a surface and interfacial cutting analysis system (SAICAS) and a change ratio of a vertical relative binding force (FVR) according to a depth from a first point spaced apart from a surface of the dry electrode active material layer by about 5 % of a total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer in a direction of the electrode current collector to a second point spaced apart from a surface of the electrode current collector by about 5 % of the total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer is 300 % or less [0016-0018].).
Regarding claim 20, LEE teaches: wherein, when the dry electrode active material layer is measured utilizing a surface and interfacial measuring analysis system (SICAS), a horizontal binding force ratio of a first horizontal binding force (FHA1) at a first point spaced apart from a surface of the dry electrode active material layer by about 10 % of a total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer in a direction of the electrode current collector to a second horizontal binding force (FHA2) at a second point spaced apart from a surface of the electrode current collector by about 10 % of the total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer is 50 % or more (LEE teaches the dry electrode active material layer is measured utilizing a surface and interfacial cutting analysis system (SAICAS) and a horizontal binding force ratio of a first horizontal binding force (FHA1) at a first point spaced apart from a surface of the dry electrode active material layer by about 10 % of a total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer in a direction of the electrode current collector to a second horizontal binding force (FHA2) at a second point spaced apart from a surface of the electrode current collector by about 10 % of the total thickness of the dry electrode active material layer is 50 % or more [0055].).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0285680), hereinafter LEE, YONEMARU (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0166020), and Yoon et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0279407), hereinafter YOON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janusauskas (U.S. 5,976,613), hereinafter JANUSAUSKAS.
Regarding claim 6, LEE, YONEMARU and YOON teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the dry electrode film further comprises a cut line along at least a portion of a boundary between the first region and the second region. In the same field of endeavor, JANUSAUSKAS teaches an electrode (56) comprises a cut line (60) along at least a portion of a boundary between a first region and a second region [Fig. 5; Col. 5, lines 44-49]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE, YONEMARU and YOON, by having a cut line, as suggested by JANUSAUSKAS, in order to further process the electrode and separate any appropriate portion [Col. 5, lines 53-54].
Regarding claim 7, JANUSAUSKAS further teaches: wherein, in the dry electrode film, the cut line is along a portion or an entirety of the outer periphery of the interlayer (JANUSAUSKAS teaches a cut line (60) along a portion of an outer periphery of a layer [Fig. 5; Col. 5, lines 44-49].).
Regarding claim 8, JANUSAUSKAS further teaches: wherein a length of the cut line is 5 % or less of a total length of the boundary between the first region and the second region (JANUSAUSKAS teaches the cut line (60) may be positioned so as to separate any portion, and is not limited to the embodiment shown [Fig. 5; Col. 5, lines 53-54].). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a cut line 5% less of a total length of the boundary between a first and second region, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have the cut line 5% less than a total length of the boundary for the purpose of separating a portion of the electrode Col. 5, lines 53-54.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0285680), hereinafter LEE, YONEMARU (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0166020), and Yoon et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0279407), hereinafter YOON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0176255), hereinafter SASAKI.
Regarding claim 13, LEE teaches: wherein: the dry electrode comprises a plurality of dry electrode active material layers which are identical to the dry electrode active material layer and are on the at least one surface of the electrode current collector to be spaced apart from each other in a machine direction (MD) of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches a plurality of electrode active material layers which are the same and are on at least one surface of the electrode current collector to be spaced apart from each other in the machine direction [Figs. 1-4, 6-10; 0059].); the plurality of dry electrode active material layers have a patterned arrangement (LEE teaches the electrode active material layers have a patterned arrangement [Figs. 6, 9-10].), and each of the plurality of dry electrode active material layers is spaced apart from each of both ends of the electrode current collector in the MD and both ends of the electrode current collector in a transverse direction (TD) (LEE teaches each of the electrode active material layers are spaced apart from each both ends of the electrode current collector (200, 200a, 200c) [Figs. 1-4, 6-10].); each of the plurality of dry electrode active material layers has a seventh MD length (MDL7) and a seventh TD length (TDL7) (each of the electrode active material layers have a seventh MD length and a seventh TD length [Figs. 1-4, 6-10].), and the electrode current collector has an eighth MD length (MDL8) and an eighth TD length (TDL8) (LEE teaches the electrode current collector has an eighth MD length and an eight TD length [Figs. 9-10].); . . . , and the seventh TD length (TDL7) of the dry electrode active material layer is in a range of about 60 % to about 99 % of the eighth TD length (TDL8) of the electrode current collector (LEE teaches the length of the electrode current collector may be about 10% to about 90% [0112], which overlaps the claimed range. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.); and . . . .
LEE is silent as to: a ratio (MDL7/TDL7) of the seventh MD length (MDL7) of the dry electrode active material layer to the seventh TD length (TDL7) of the dry electrode active material layer is 5 or less and the dry electrode active material layer has first MD tensile strength (MDS1) and first TD tensile strength (TDS1), wherein a ratio (MDS1/TDS1) of the first MD tensile strength (MDS1) to the first tensile TD strength (TDS1) is in a range of about 5 to about 20.
In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, SASAKI teaches a first MD length of 5 cm and a first TD length of 2cm [0128; 0145], which the ratio would be 5/2 = 2.5, meeting the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE, YONEMARU and YOON, to have a length ratio of 5 or less, as suggested by SASKI, in order to be mutually arranged and form stacked electrodes [0145].
LEE is silent as to: the dry electrode active material layer has first MD tensile strength (MDS1) and first TD tensile strength (TDS1), wherein a ratio (MDS1/TDS1) of the first MD tensile strength (MDS1) to the first tensile TD strength (TDS1) is in a range of about 5 to about 20. In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, YOON teaches the ratio of the tensile strength of electrode to be TSTD/TSMD being a ratio of 0.3 or more, 0.4 or more, 0.5 or more, 0.6 or more [0071]. In example 2, using the tensile strength, the ratio would be TSTD/TSMD = 0.4/0.7 = 0.6, which reverses to TSMD/TSTD = 0.7/0.4 = 1.75, indicating that the ratio would be 1.75 or more, encompassing the claimed range or “about 5 to about 20”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE and YONEMARU, by having the ratio be 1.75 or more and the tensile strength being in different directions, as suggested by YOON, in order for the mechanical properties of the electrode film may be uniformly improved in an arbitrary direction [0071].
Regarding claim 14, LEE teaches: wherein the patterned arrangement comprises a box pattern arrangement, an annular pattern arrangement, a serpentine pattern arrangement, or a combination thereof (LEE teaches the patterned arrangement comprises a box pattern arrangement [Fig. 6].).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0285680), hereinafter LEE, YONEMARU (U.S. PGPUB 2022/0166020), and Yoon et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2025/0279407), hereinafter YOON, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Georgopoulos (U.S. 5,422,201), hereinafter GEORGOPOULOS.
Regarding claim 18, LEE, YONEMARU and YOON teaches of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein one surface of the electrode current collector adjacent to one side surface of the dry electrode active material layer and not covered by the at least one interlayer is free of burrs and/or depressions. In the same field of endeavor, electrodes, GEORGOPOULOS teaches the concept of the current collector is free of burrs [Col. 4, lines 34-39]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify LEE, YONEMARU and YOON, by having the current collector free of burrs, as suggested by GEORGOPOULOS, in order to be free of imperfections [Col. 4, lines 38-39].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748