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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 have been amended.
Claims 18-19 have been newly added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/1/2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This Action has been made final.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 1 June 2026
All rejections from the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new grounds of rejection have been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s argument.
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, 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) 9-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20200083542A1), hereinafter Yushin.
Regarding claim 9, Yushin teaches components for an electrode comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2A, 204, [0074]);
a binder coating layer on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 2A, 202, [0074]),
wherein the binder coating layer comprises a water-soluble binder selected from among a rubber-based binder, a polymer resin binder, and a combination thereof ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber);
and an electrode active material layer on the current collector (Fig. 2A, 201, [0074]),
wherein the electrode active material layer comprises an electrode active material and a polymer binder ([0010] second polymer binder), and
wherein the polymer binder comprises a water-soluble binder and an ionic polymer ([0038] carboxymethyl cellulose). Yushin teaches that the polymer comprises both the water-soluble binder and the ionic polymer as a mixture [0038].
Yushin does not specifically teach the claimed electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery.
However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the claimed electrode because Yushin et al. teaches all of the components.
Regarding claim 10, Yushin teaches the electrode as claimed in claim 9, wherein the water-soluble binder is a rubber-based binder, a polymer resin binder, or a combination thereof ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber).
Regarding claim 11, Yushin teaches the electrode as claimed in claim 10, wherein the rubber-based binder comprises a styrene-butadiene rubber, an acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber, an acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, an acrylic rubber, a butyl rubber, a fluorine rubber, or a combination thereof ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber).
Regarding claim 12, Yushin teaches the electrode as claimed in claim 10, wherein the polymer resin binder comprises polyethylene oxide, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylonitrile, an ethylene propylene diene copolymer, polyvinylpyridine, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, latex, a polyester resin, an acrylic resin, a phenol resin, an epoxy resin, polyvinyl alcohol, or a combination thereof ([0038], polyvinyl alcohol). Yushin teaches that polyvinyl alcohol can be used in combination with other binders [0038].
Regarding claim 13, Yushin teaches the electrode as claimed in claim 9, wherein the ionic polymer comprises carboxylmethyl cellulose, hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, an alkali ([0038] carboxymethyl cellulose).
Regarding claim 17, Yushin teaches a rechargeable lithium battery comprising the electrode manufactured as claimed in claim 9 ([0030] rechargeable Li-ion battery).
Regarding claim 18, Yushin teaches the electrode as claimed in claim 9, wherein the polymer binder comprises a carboxylmethyl cellulose (CMC) ([0038] carboxymethyl cellulose) and styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) binder polymer ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber).
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20200083542A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20230299293 A1), hereinafter Yushin and Kim, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Yushin teaches current collector components comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2A, 204, [0074]); and
a binder coating layer on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 2A, 202, [0074])
wherein the binder coating layer comprises a water-soluble binder ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber),
wherein the water-soluble binder comprises a rubber-based binder ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber).
wherein the rubber-based binder comprises a styrene-butadiene rubber ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber).
Yushin does not teach that the water-soluble binder is coated on the substrate in an amount of greater than or equal to about 5 ug cm-2 and less than about 10 ug cm-2.
Yushin also does not specifically teach the claimed electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery.
However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the claimed electrode because Yushin et al. teaches all of the components.
In addition, Kim teaches of a binder layer coated on a current collector [0016]. Kim also teaches that the binder is coated on the substrate in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0.1 μq cm-2 and less than about 20 μq cm-2 [0039]. This overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 5 ug cm-2 and less than about 10 ug cm-2.
Therefore, it would also be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Yushin battery to include the binder amount range from Kim because if the application amount per unit area of the binder layer is less than the above range, the adhesive force between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector is insufficient, and detachment may occur (Kim [0039]). On the contrary, if the application amount per unit area of the binder layer exceeds the above range, there is a problem that the conductivity is lowered and the initial discharging capacity of the battery is lowered, and as a large shrinkage occurs in the process of drying the binder layer, the adhesive force is deteriorated (Kim [0039])
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, modified Yushin teaches the current collector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the substrate comprises a copper foil, a nickel foil, a stainless steel foil, a titanium foil, a polymer substrate coated with a conductive metal, or an aluminium foil (Yushin [0067]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yushin teaches the current collector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the rubber-based binder further comprises an acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber, an acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, an acrylic rubber, a butyl rubber, a fluorine rubber, or a combination thereof (Yushin [0057] butyl rubber). Yushin teaches that butyl rubber can be used in addition to the conventional styrene butadiene rubber [0057].
Regarding claim 4, modified Yushin teaches the current collector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the water-soluble binder further comprises a polymer resin binder, and wherein the polymer resin binder comprises polyethylene oxide, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyacrylonitrile, an ethylene propylene diene copolymer, polyvinylpyridine, chlorosulfonated polyethylene, latex, a polyester resin, an acrylic resin, a phenol resin, an epoxy resin, polyvinyl alcohol, or a combination thereof (Yushin [0038] carboxymethyl cellulose).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yushin teaches the current collector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the water-soluble binder is coated on the substrate in an amount of about 0.1 μq cm-2 to about 20 μg cm-2 (Kim [0039]). This overlaps with the claimed range of 5 μq cm-2 to about 8 μg cm-2.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yushin teaches the current collector as claimed in claim 1, wherein the binder coating layer is formed by coating a slurry for a current collector in which a water-soluble binder is dispersed in an aqueous solvent. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 19, Yushin teaches a current collector for a rechargeable lithium battery, the current collector comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 2A, 204, [0074]); and
a binder coating layer on a surface of the substrate (Fig. 2A, 202, [0074])
wherein the binder coating layer comprises a water-soluble binder ([0039] styrene butadiene rubber), and
wherein the water-soluble binder is a styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR) binder, and
Yushin does not teach that the water-soluble binder is coated on the substrate in an amount of greater than or equal to about 6 μq cm-2 and less than about 8 μq cm-2.
However, Kim teaches of a binder layer coated on a current collector [0016]. Kim also teaches that the binder is coated on the substrate in an amount of greater than or equal to about 0.1 μq cm-2 and less than about 20 μq cm-2 [0039]. This overlaps with the claimed range of greater than or equal to about 6 μq cm-2 and less than about 8 μq cm-2.
Therefore, it would also be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Yushin battery to include the binder amount range from Kim because if the application amount per unit area of the binder layer is less than the above range, the adhesive force between the positive electrode active material layer and the positive electrode current collector is insufficient, and detachment may occur (Kim [0039]). On the contrary, if the application amount per unit area of the binder layer exceeds the above range, there is a problem that the conductivity is lowered and the initial discharging capacity of the battery is lowered, and as a large shrinkage occurs in the process of drying the binder layer, the adhesive force is deteriorated (Kim [0039]).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20200083542A1) in view of as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Chung et al. (US 20140356710 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yushin teaches the electrode as claimed in claim 9, but does not teach that the polymer binder is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 10 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material layer.
However, Chung teaches an electrode for a rechargeable lithium battery that includes a current collector and an active material layer being held together with a binder [0012]. Chung also teaches that the polymer binder ([0054], epoxy resin]) is included in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 50 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material layer, overlapping with the claimed range [0055].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the amount of polymer binder stated in Chung for the Yushin current collector because the electrode may realize excellent adherence and may control expansion of an active material effectively within the Chung range (Chung [0055]).
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 15, Yushin teaches the electrode as claimed in claim 9, but does not teach that the ionic polymer is included in an amount of about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material layer.
However, Chung teaches that the ionic polymer ([0054], carboxymethyl cellulose) is included in an amount of about 0.5 wt% to about 50 wt% based on 100 wt% of the electrode active material layer [0055].
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the amount of ionic binder stated in Chung for the Yushin current collector because the electrode may realize excellent adherence and may control expansion of an active material effectively within the Chung range (Chung [0055]).
Moreover, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yushin et al. (US 20180151884A1) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Liu et al. (Heterogeneity in MacMullin Number of Li-Ion Battery Electrodes Studied by Means of an Aperture Probe).
Regarding claim 16, Yushin the electrode as claimed in claim 9, but does not teach that the electrode has a MacMullin number (NM) calculated utilizing Equation 1 of less than or equal to about 26.
However, Liu et al. teaches batteries that have electrodes of varying properties (Table II) and that these electrodes have MacMullin numbers that are less than or equal to about 26 (Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the materials of the electrodes in Yushin with the materials from Liu so that the MacMullin number of the electrode is less than or equal to about 26. This is because having a MacMullin number in this range means better electrode performance (Liu Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 9/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-17 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yushin et al. (US 20200083542A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20230299293 A1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
