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 Invention I and silicon (Species A) in the reply filed on September 25, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions II-IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 25, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “drying the wet multilayer stack to form a dried multilayer stack” in order to improve the grammar of the claim.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: L3 of the claim should recite “the first coated electrode layer” in order to have correct antecedent basis.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: L4 of the claim should recite “to form a wet multilayer stack” in order to be grammatically correct.
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 1-12 are 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 second coated layer" in L5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “coating a second wet slurry on top of the first coated layer while the first coated layer is still wet to form a second coated layer, thereby forming a wet multilayer stack, resulting in an initial wet-on-wet contact between the first coated layer and the second coated layer forming an interface to define a portion of an electrochemical cell”.
Claims 2-12 are dependent on Claim 1 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
The term “complete” in Claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “complete” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In other words, the Examiner notes that it is unclear what must be included in the electrochemical cell for it to be considered a complete electrochemical cell.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “to form an electrochemical cell”.
Claims 11-12 are dependent on Claim 10 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US PGPub 2021/0399308 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses in Figs. 1 and 7-8 a process for making electrochemical cells (700) ([0093]) comprising coating a first wet slurry (801) comprising a binder onto a surface (110) forming a first coated layer (111), coating a second wet slurry (802) on top of the first coated layer (111) while the first coated layer (111) is still wet to form a second coated layer (112), thereby forming a wet multilayer stack, resulting in an initial wet-on-wet contact between the first coated layer (111) and the second coated layer (112) forming an interface (803) to define a portion of an electrochemical cell ([0094], [0104]), and further forming a continual binder gradient across the interface (803) ([0104], [0110], [0081], [0090]-[0092]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein one or more of the first coated layer (111) and the second coated layer (112) comprises a binder material ([0094]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first wet slurry (801) and the second wet slurry (802) are coated simultaneously (Fig. 8, [0101]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the surface (110) is a current collector ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the surface is one of Aluminum or Copper ([0028]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses drying (710) the wet multilayer stack to form a dried multilayer stack (101) ([0105]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the dried multilayer stack (101) comprises an electrode layer ([0093], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the dried electrode stack (101) is formed by wet-on-wet coating, the first coated layer (111) comprises a binder, and wherein a continual binder gradient is achieved across the interface ([0104], [0110], [0081], [0090]-[0092]) and therefore Kim necessarily and inherently discloses wherein at least 1% of the binder in the first coated layer (111) migrates across the interface into the second coated layer (112) during drying.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2021/0399308 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanda et al. (JP 2012-243644 A, see also the provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein one or more of the first wet slurry (801) and the second wet slurry (802) comprises an electrode active material ([0052]) and may be formed to be a cathode or an anode ([0026]).
However, Kim does not disclose wherein one or more of the first wet slurry and the second wet slurry comprises a solid electrolyte material.
Kanda teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a solid electrolyte layer as the electrolyte in order to prevent electrolyte boiling and leakage ([0004]).
Specifically, Kanda teaches wherein the electrochemical cell comprises an electrode layer comprising an electrode active material and a solid electrolyte material in order to achieve superior battery performance ([0007], [0009], [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the electrochemical cell of Kim to comprise a solid electrolyte layer as the electrolyte, as taught by Kanda, in order to prevent electrolyte boiling and leakage.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form one or more of the first wet slurry and the second wet slurry of modified Kim to comprise a solid electrolyte material, as taught by Kanda, in order to achieve superior battery performance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2021/0399308 A1) as applied to Claim 7 above.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Assuming for the sake of argument that the process of Kim does not necessarily and inherently meet the claim limitation, the following is relied upon.
Kim discloses wherein the dried electrode stack (101) is formed by wet-on-wet coating, the first coated layer (111) comprises a binder, and wherein a continual binder gradient is achieved across the interface (803) in order to achieve increased adhesion between the first and second coated layers (111, 112 of Kim) ([0104], [0110], [0081], [0090]-[0092]) and therefore Kim suggests wherein at least 1% of the binder in the first coated layer (111) migrates across the interface into the second coated layer (112) during drying.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the dried multilayer stack such that at least 1% of the binder in the first coated layer migrates across the interface into the second coated layer during drying, as suggested by Kim, in order to achieve increased adhesion between the first and second coated layers, as desired by Kim.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2021/0399308 A1) as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Carlson (US PGPub 2012/0064399 A1).
Regarding Claims 10-11, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the dried multilayer stack (101) is implemented in an electrochemical cell ([0093]) and wherein the dried multilayer stack (101) may be formed to be a cathode or an anode ([0026]).
However, Kim does not disclose laminating the dried multilayer stack with a dried coated layer to form an electrochemical cell, wherein the dried coated layer comprises an electrode.
Carlson teaches a process for making an electrochemical cell comprising laminating a dried multilayer stack (e.g. a cathode) comprising a surface (current collector) and a coated layer (electrode layer) with a dried coated layer (e.g. an anode) to form the electrochemical cell ([0013], [0046]).
Specifically, Carlson teaches wherein the dried coated layer comprises an electrode ([0013], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to laminate the dried multilayer stack of Kim with a dried coated layer, wherein the dried coated layer comprises an electrode, as taught by Carlson, in order to form an electrochemical cell, as desired by Kim.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US PGPub 2021/0399308 A1) in view of Carlson (US PGPub 2012/0064399 A1) as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Bauer et al. (US PGPub 2004/0224234 A1, cited on the IDS dated June 26, 2026).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the process of forming the dried multilayer stack (101 of Kim) achieves increased adhesion between the first and second coated layers (111, 112 of Kim) ([0104] of Kim).
Specifically, modified Kim discloses wherein in the process, additional wet slurries of different compositions may be used to form additional layers ([0100] of Kim).
However, modified Kim does not disclose wherein the dried coated layer is a second multilayer stack and is made by coating a wet electrode on a surface to form a first coated electrode layer, and coating a wet separator slurry on top of the first coated electrode layer to form a wet multilayer stack is then dried.
Carlson further teaches wherein the dried coated layer may comprise a separator layer ([0046]).
Moreover, Bauer teaches wherein a wet-on-wet coating method may be used to coat a separator layer onto an electrode layer ([0106]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the dried coated layer of modified Kim using the process disclosed by modified Kim in light of the teachings of Carlson and Bauer, such that the dried coated layer is a second multilayer stack and is made by coating a wet electrode slurry on a surface to form a first coated electrode layer, and coating a wet separator slurry on top of the first coated electrode layer to form a wet multilayer stack, wherein the wet multilayer is then dried, in order to form a dried coated layer that achieves increased adhesion between the first coated electrolyte layer and a separator layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
