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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 06/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office failed to establish the difference between the processes and that they share overlapping steps. This is not found persuasive because the methods do not share all the required steps between each other. Therefore, they are different methods that could be used to form an electrode.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/22/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-5 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it is suggested to amend “coating powder” to - -coating a powder- -.
In claim 2, it is suggested to amend “coating powder” to - -coating the powder- -.
In claim 4, it is suggested to amend “cathode electroactive material…anode electrode active material” to - -a cathode electrode active material….an anode electrode active material- -.
In claim 5, it is suggested to amend “coating powder” to - -coating the powder- -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the powder coated first current collector". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the unbound powder is secured between the patterned areas of bound powder.”. It is not clear how the powder is secured but also unbound. Clarification or amendment to the claim is required.
Claim 2 recited the limitation “with powder”. It is not clear if this powder is the same or a different powder as the one recited in claim 1.
Regarding dependent claims 3-7, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 1 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0104719) and further in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0311091).
Regarding claim 1, Oikawa teaches a method (abstract) (paragraph [0105]), comprising:
coating powder onto a first side of a current collector (paragraph [0105]), wherein the powder includes electroactive material particles (paragraph [0105]); and
forming an electrode including patterned areas of bound powder and unbound powder (i.e., bound powder is at the current collector and unbound powder away from the current collector – see figure below), wherein the unbound powder is secured between patterned areas of bound powder (see figure 2 depicting patterned areas (20, 30)).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Oikawa teaches the controlled pattern (as shown in figure 2) and teaches a binder is applied to the current collector (paragraph [0106]) but does not teach jetting an ink including the binder.
Liu, directed to coated separators (title), teaches ink jet with a binder is a means known in the art to apply in substrates (paragraph [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have considered using ink jetting the binder in the process of Oikawa, as such is a well known and conventional method for applying a binder in a substrate of surface, as suggested by Liu.
Regarding claim 2, Oikawa teaches coating a second side of the current collector with powder, the second side opposite the first side (see figure above) (paragraph [0105]).
Regarding claims 3-4, Oikawa teaches coating powder onto the first side of the current collector includes coating with a first powder of a cathode electrode active material (paragraph [0105]) and coating powder onto the second side of the current collector includes coating with a second powder of an anode electrode active material (paragraph [0105]), wherein a composition of the first powder is different from a composition of the second powder (paragraph [0063], [0088]).
Regarding claim 7, Oikawa teaches the method is performed using a roll-to- roll process (i.e., pair of rolls) (paragraph [0007]) (see figure 2).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0104719) and Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0311091) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0399278).
Regarding claim 5, Oikawa teaches the method as described above in claim 1.
Oikawa does not teach slitting and notching the current collector before coating powder onto the first side of the current collector.
Lee, directed to a battery electrode (abstract), teaches shaping the current collector by slitting and notching is necessary in order to reduce defects during the process of manufacturing (paragraph [0007]-[0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oikawa process and include slitting and notching the current collector, in order to reduce defects during the manufacturing of the electrode, as suggested by Lee.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate either:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 6.
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
The prior art whether alone or in combination do not teach or fairly suggest the limitations “the ink further includes one or more of a conductivity enhancing dopant, or a thermally activated catalyst.” as recited in claim 6 in combination with the features of claim 1.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhamu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0067732). Zhamu teaches coating a powder into a current collector (paragraph [0017]) (see figure 1C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights