DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 09/04/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-24 remain pending.
The previous objections to claims 2 and 9 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been fully considered but they are persuasive in-part. See Response to Arguments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10-13, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Nakano (JP 2017-27849), machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Nakano discloses manufacturing method of electrode
plate comprising:
suppling a current collector foil 110 (metal layer) at a first speed (para 0049);
supplying an active material layer 120 (dry electrode film) at a second speed (para 0029),
while intermittently supplying the dry electrode film at a third speed less than the second
speed (Table 1); and
forming a dry electrode active material layer by intermittently disposing the dry electrode
film on at least one side of the metal layer (abstract; Table 1; Fig. 2),
wherein the dry electrode film is on the metal layer while the dry electrode film is being
supplied at the second speed (abstract; Table 1; Fig. 2), and
the dry electrode film is not on the metal layer while the dry electrode film is being
supplied at the third speed (abstract; Table 1; Fig. 2).
Figure 2 to Nakano is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
1036
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Nakano discloses the electrode plate 100 having a uniform quality
(para 0036).
Regarding claim 13, Nakano discloses pressing the active material layer onto the current
collector foil (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, instant claims are regarded as a product by process.
Product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[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). See MPEP 2113. In this case, Nakano teaches a dry electrode and lithium battery (para 0012).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taniguchi et al. (US 2025/0222501).
Regarding claim 21, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2114.
In this case, Taniguchi discloses a roll press comprising:
upper roll 12a (first laminator roll) and lower roll 12b (second laminator roll);
second feed apparatus 21 (a first winding roll) and third fee apparatus 31 (a second winding roll);
second feed apparatus 21 supplies upper roll 12a and third feed apparatus 31 supplies glower roll 12b;
a servo motor adapted to control the rotation speed and rotation torque of the rolls (para 0022); and
the laminator rolls have opposite rotational direction from each other (Fig. 1).
Figure 1 to Taniguchi provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
612
848
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Taniguchi further discloses first feed apparatus 11 (winding roll).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 4-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakano (JP 2017-27849) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0209220).
Regarding claim 4, Nakano does not teach an interlayer.
Lee, directed to an electrode, teaches an interlayer 250 disposed on an electrode current
collector 200 (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date to include an interlayer because when the electrode includes the interlayer, the force
between the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector is further
improved, and the internal resistance of the electrode is reduced. Accordingly, the cycle life
characteristics of a lithium battery utilizing such an electrode may be improved (para 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Nakano teaches formation region M (a plurality of first regions) and
non-formation region N (one or more second regions) (Fig. 2). Lee teaches the interlayer 250
(Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date to include the interlayer on the formation region and maintain the non-formation region in
order to produce the electrode with exposed surface 111.
Regarding claim 6, Nakano in view of Lee teaches while the dry electrode film is being
supplied at the second speed, the dry electrode film is applied on the interlayer that is selectively
disposed on the plurality of first regions, and while the dry electrode film is being supplying at
the third speed, the dry electrode film is not on the second regions of the metal layer (abstract;
Table 1; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakano teaches active material layer formed on the current collector
foil with non-formation region N (Fig. 2). This is interpreted as 99% or less coverage since there
is region N.
Regarding claim 8, Nakano teaches wherein the dry electrode active material layer
comprises a plurality of dry electrode active material layers spaced from each other by a first
distance at a substantially uniform interval along a length direction of the dry electrode, the dry
electrode film comprises a plurality of cutting lines introduced along a direction perpendicular to
a length direction of the dry electrode film (Fig. 2). Moreover, given the speed of the 3rd roller is
60 m/min (para 0041) and the speed of the second roller is 25 m/min (Table 1), the second
distance would be between 10-100% relative the first distance.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the interlayer includes a binder (para 0067) including a
conductive binder such as PVdF (para 0069) and the thickness (e.g., total thickness) of the
interlayer may be, for example, 0.01% to 30%, 0.1% to 30%, 0.5% to 30%, 1% to 25%, 1% to
20%, 1% to 15%, 1% to 10%, 1% to 5%, or 1 to 3% of the total thickness of the electrode current
collector (para 0066).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the interlayer may include, for example, a carbon-based
conductive material (para 0071).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches a residual processing solvent may not be included (e.g.,
processing solvents may be excluded) (para 0064); the dry binder may be or include, for
example, a fibrillized (e.g., fibrillated) binder (para 0059); further include a fluorinated binder
(para 0060) and a carbon-based conductive material (para 0071).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP
2017-27849).
Regarding claim 9, Nakano teaches wherein the dry electrode active material layer
comprises a plurality of dry electrode active material layers s spaced from each other along a
length direction of the dry electrode and an interval therebetween (Fig. 2).
Nakano does not teach an interval between two adjacent dry electrode active material
layers among the dry electrode active material layers spaced from each other is less than a width
of the dry electrode. However, the space is viewed as a design choice. The distance between
layers may be determined by one skilled in the art.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP
2017-27849) in view of Nishida (JP 4026183), machine translation.
Regarding claim 14, Nakano teaches wherein the forming of the dry electrode active
material layer comprises concurrently introducing, between a first laminator roll and a second
laminator roll, the dry electrode film and the metal layer, wherein the dry electrode film, while
attached to the at least one of the first laminator roll or the second laminator roll, further
comprises one or more cutting lines formed along a machine direction, and the at least one of the
first laminator roll or the second laminator roll is free of an opening having a length formed
along a transverse direction (TD) of the dry electrode film (Fig. 2).
Nakano does not further teach wherein at least one of the first laminator roll or the second
laminator roll further comprises a suction hole for mechanically attaching the dry electrode film
to the at least one of the first laminator roll or the second laminator roll.
Nishida, directed to a method of manufacturing, teaches a plurality of suction holes are
provided over the entire peripheral surface of the transfer roller (para 0014; Figs. 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date to further comprise suction holes so that the lithium foil can be reliably attached to the
peripheral surface of the transfer roller (para 0014).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP
2017-27849) in view of Nishida (JP 4026183) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in
view of Kwak et al. (US 2026/0112607).
Regarding claim 15, Nakano does not teach wherein the first laminator roll and the
second laminator roll each have a first rotation speed while the first region of the metal layer and
the dry electrode film are concurrently introduced between the first laminator roll and the second
laminator roll, and while the second region of the metal layer is introduced between the first
laminator roll and the second laminator roll and the dry electrode film is not supplied between
the first laminator roll and the second laminator roll, the first laminator roll and the second
laminator roll both have the first rotation speed or at least one of the first laminator roll or the
second laminator roll has a second rotation speed less than the first rotation speed.
Kwak teaches two rollers 210 (Fig. 3) and both rollers may have the same rotation speed
(para 0141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date to have two rollers in order to apply the electrode film to both sides concurrently saving
time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 19, 20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues Nakano does not appear to disclose supplying a preformed dry electrode film at either the claimed speeds. In response, the first speed corresponds to the third roll 30 set to 60 m/min (para 0041). The second speed and third speed correspond to the second roll 20 set to 25 m/min and 0.96 peripheral speed ratio during non-formation periods, respectively (Table 1). In other words, the third speed is less than the second speed. Per claim 1, the dry electrode need not be “self-standing” as such a limitation is not recited.
With respect to claim 9, Applicant argues Nakano does not disclose that the interval between adjacent active-material layers is less than the width of the dry electrode. The Office characterizes this relationship as a design choice, but does not identify evidence that the interval-to-width relationship was a known result-effective variable or that changing the relationship would have been functionally immaterial. The claimed relationship affects the geometry and utilization of the current collector; it is not supplied merely by the general ability to choose a spacing. In response, the Office agrees claimed relationship may affect the geometry and utilization of the current collector, however, within the skill of the trained artisan. For example, if a large non-formation region N is formed, then a large amount of current collector is not being used. Ideally, the entire width would be used with only minimal N-region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Taniguchi et al. (US 2025/0205808; Fig. 2).
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 CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights