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
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-14) in the reply filed on August 7, 2026, is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II, III, IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites “from the end portions of the electrode film member” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 20170098826 A1) in view of Song et al (US 20210336241 A1, with foreign priority date 28 April 2020).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches a method for manufacturing a dry electrode film ([0020], [0062]; Fig. 1a), comprising:
(S10) preparing an electrode mixture powder and a powdery polymer resin for manufacturing the dry electrode film;
(Fig. 1a teaches steps 18 and 20 which prepare a mixture of dry activated carbon 12, dry conductive particles 14, and dry binder 16 [0103], i.e. an electrode mixture powder, and also teaches step 19 as a dry blend step including particles of dry binder 23 [0127], wherein the dry binder 23 can be a polymer, thereby dry binder 23 reads on the claimed powdery polymer resin.)
(S20) introducing the polymer resin to at least one end of the electrode mixture powder in a cross-machine direction, and compressing the electrode mixture powder and the powdery polymer resin to be processed into a sheet-like electrode film member having a predetermined thickness; and
(Fig. 2b and [0130-0131] teach particles of container 19 corresponding to the dry blend comprising the powdery polymer resin 23, formed in step 19, is intermixed with the particles of container 20 formed in step 20, comprising the electrode mixture powder, as they are fed towards the nip of a roll-mill 32; wherein the intermixing position corresponds to where the polymer resin is introduced to at least one end of the electrode mixture powder. The intermixing position corresponds to at least one end of the electrode mixture powder in the cross-machine direction, because the hopper comprising containers 19 and 20 has a longitudinal length running along the long axis of the rolls of roll-mill 32 (into the page with respect to Fig. 2b, and which is a cross-machine direction), and the intermixing of the polymer resin particles and the electrode mixture powder is expected to occur along the longitudinal length. A compacted dry film 34 exits the roll-mill 32 [0131]; Fig. 2b shows it is a sheet-like film member with a predetermined thickness [0132], and [0131] teaches it is an electrode structure, therefore Mitchell teaches dry film 34 is a sheet-like electrode film member.
Additionally, if container 20 of Fig. 2b comprises the electrode mixture powder, then the corresponding part of the dry film 34 to the left of an intermixing interface as labeled in annotated Fig. 2b below would correspond to an electrode mixture portion having a width predetermined by the dry particle formulation and the roll-mill [0132], and the region to the right of the intermixing interface would correspond to the protective portion also having a width predetermined by the dry particle formulation and the roll-mill [0132], as shown below in annotated Fig. 2b. The protective portion contains the powdery polymer resin 23 introduced from container 19, and thus Mitchell teaches a protective portion connected to the end through which the powdery polymer resin is introduced in the cross-machine direction of the electrode mixture portion and having a predetermined width.)
Mitchell does not teach (S30) removing an edge part having a predetermined width from an end of the electrode film member in the cross-machine direction,
In the same field of endeavor, Song teaches a dry electrode manufacturing method using a cutting unit 30/300 (Figs. 3 and 6; [0131]) and teaches in [0141] the cutting unit 300 uniformly cuts both side edges of the mixture film 71 and is used to cut non-uniform edge portions of an electrode with cutter blades 31 [0088]. The cut portions correspond to an edge part having a predetermined width from an end of the electrode film member along the longitudinal direction, i.e. in the cross-machine direction as shown in Fig. 3 (top view of the cutting unit), as claimed. Song teaches that the combination of compressing electrode material powders into a sheet-like film followed by an electrode cutting step in a dry electrode forming process is a known method. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified Mitchell’s method to utilize Song’s step of a cutting unit to cut the edge portions of the electrode for the benefit of removing non-uniform edge portions. Additionally, they would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A).
Within the combination, the edge parts removed on either side of the electrode film 34 in the width direction, i.e. the longitudinal and cross-machine direction, would include the protective portion and thereby read upon the claimed limitation of “… the protective portion is included in the edge part of the electrode film member and removed when carrying out the removing step (S30).”
Annotated Fig. 2b of Mitchell:
PNG
media_image1.png
419
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1. Mitchell teaches (Fig. 1a; [0035]) the electrode mixture powder resulting from step 20 as comprising dry activated carbon (an electrode active material), dry conductive particles (a conductive material), and a dry binder which can be a polymer (a binder resin). Step 20 is a dry fibrillize step applied to the mixture including the binder resin [0104], wherein the resulting particle size is on the order of about 0.1 to 2 µm, i.e. micrometer-sized. Thus, the fibrillization process is a microfibrilization process.
Regarding claim 3, the combination above teaches the method of step 1. Mitchell further teaches in Fig. 1a the dry calendar step 24, and Fig. 2b shows the calendering process is carried out by using roll-mill 32 comprising a pair of calendering rollers. The input stream of the polymer resin fed by container 19 and the input stream of the electrode mixture powder fed by container 20 are intermixed, i.e. introduced, during the calendering process, as seen in Fig. 2b and discussed in Mitchell [0131-0132]. The hopper comprising containers 19 and 20 has a dimension that runs longitudinal to the axis of the rollers, and thus, the powdery polymer resin is introduced to both ends of the input stream of the electrode mixture powder, wherein each end corresponds to an end of the hopper in the longitudinal direction.
Regarding claim 4, the combination above teaches the method of step 3. Fig. 2b of Mitchell shows the calendering process is carried out by using roll-mill 32 comprising a pair of calendering rollers. Fig. 2b also shows guide dam 35 disposed in front of calendering rollers 32 (wherein front refers to the surface of the guide dam faced by each roller) and which divides the input stream of the polymer resin from container 19 and the input stream of the powdery electrode mixture powder from container 20.
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1. Mitchell discloses in Fig. 1a that dry blend of 19 comprising the powdery polymer resin 23 can be subjected to a dry fibrilize process 26 (Mitchell: [0127, 0129]), i.e. is treated by a fibrilization process. Mitchell teaches the fibrilization process can form particles with sizes on the order of about 0.1 to 2 µm ([0104]), i.e. micrometer-sized. Thus, the powdery polymer resin is treated by a microfibrilization process.
Regarding claim 8, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1. Mitchell further teaches in [0146] that binder 23, i.e. the powdery polymer resin, from source 19 can be “the same thermoplastic binder particles as those described above”, and suitable examples of both binder 23 and binder 16 (I.e. the binder resin contained in the electrode mixture powder) are taught as polypropylene, polypropylene oxide, polyethylene ([0102], [0127]), which are the same ingredient.
Alternatively, Mitchell also teaches in [0129] that binder 16 can also be introduced into the mix of binder particles 23 and carbon particles, wherein the powdery polymer resin would comprise binder 16, which is the same ingredient as a binder resin in the electrode mixture powder, as seen in Fig. 1a.
Regarding claim 9, the combination above teaches the method of claim 8. Mitchell further teaches [0129] that “in order to improve suspension and characteristics of particles provided by container 19, a small amount of fibrillizable binder (for example binder 16) may be introduced into the mix of the dry carbon particles 21 and dry binder particles 23, and dry fibrillized in an added dry fibrillization step 26 prior to a respective dry feed step 22 or 29.” Mitchell teaches the fibrilization process can form particles with sizes on the order of about 0.1 to 2 µm ([0104]), i.e. micrometer-sized. Thus, the powdery polymer resin is taught as being treated by a microfibrilization process.
Regarding claim 10, the combination above teaches the method of claim 10. Mitchell teaches [0129] that “in order to improve suspension and characteristics of particles provided by container 19, a small amount of fibrillizable binder (for example binder 16) may be introduced into the mix of the dry carbon particles 21 and dry binder particles 23, and dry fibrillized in an added dry fibrillization step 26 prior to a respective dry feed step 22 or 29,” wherein dry binder 23 corresponds to the claimed powdery polymer resin. Mitchell further teaches dry binder 16 can comprise a fibrillizable fluoropolymer, for example, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) particles [0102]. Thus, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to use powdery polymer resin comprising PTFE because Mitchell teaches it as a suitable option for a component within the powdery polymer resin.
Regarding claim 11, the combination above teaches the method of claim 10. Mitchell further teaches dry binder 23, i.e. the powdery polymer resin, can comprise polymers such as butadiene rubbers and nitrile rubbers, which are elastomeric polymers ([0127]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1. As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of S20 in claim 1, Mitchell teaches the input stream of the polymer resin fed by container 19 and the input stream of the electrode mixture powder fed by container 20 are intermixed ([0131-0132], Fig. 2b). The hopper comprising containers 19 and 20 has a dimension that runs longitudinal to the axis of the rollers, and thus, the powdery polymer resin fed by container 19 is introduced to both end portions of the electrode mixture powder fed by container 20, wherein each end portion corresponds to an end of the hopper the longitudinal direction, which is a cross-machine direction. As previously pointed out in addressing the limitations of S30 of claim 1, Song of the combination teaches the edge part removed on the two sides of the electrode film in the width direction, i.e. the longitudinal and cross-machine direction. Within the combination, the edge part having a predetermined width is removed from the end portions of the electrode film member in the cross-machine direction during the removing (S30). As the protective portion is formed from the stream fed by container 19, which is expected to span the width of container 20, as labeled in annotated Fig. 2b, the protective portion is connected to each of the end portions of the electrode mixture portion in the cross-machine direction as claimed.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 20170098826 A1) in view of Song et al (US 20210336241 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zheng et al (US 20180175366 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mitchell teaches dry binder 23, i.e. the powdery polymer resin, can comprise polymers such as butadiene rubbers and nitrile rubbers, which are elastomeric polymers ([0127]). However, Mitchelle is silent regarding the amount of the elastomeric polymer in the powdery polymer resin.
In the same field of endeavor Zheng et al teaches a dry electrode utilizing a soft polymer binder such as an elastomer (e.g. styrene butadiene rubber (SBR)) as a second binder to bind a first binder coated active material composite together and to the current collector ([0028], [0036]), wherein the ratio of the first binder to the second binder is at a mixture ratio of the coating binder 1 and the binder 2 within a range of 5:95 to 95:5 wt %, and wherein the second binder provides strong adhesion to both the electrode active material and the current collector [0065]. Thus, the amount of the elastomeric polymer is a result-effective variable. A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have adjusted the amount of elastomer in binder 23 of Mitchell, i.e. the powdery polymer resin, to optimize adhesion to the electrode active material and the current collector, as taught by Zheng, and would have arrived at the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of the prior art teaches the method of claim 6. Mitchell and Zheng both teach examples of elastomers that are suitable which are claimed species (Mitchell: butadiene rubbers, nitrile rubbers; Zheng: styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) [0065]).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al (US 20170098826 A1) in view of Song et al (US 20210336241 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Duong et al (US 20150303481 A1).
Support is provided by evidentiary reference “knead,” Merriam-Webster, 2026, and “Ambient Pressure,” Schamlz 2026.
Regarding claim 12, the combination above teaches the method of claim 1.
Mitchell teaches (Fig. 1a; [0035], [0104]) step 18 of preparing a dry blend described as dry particles, i.e. a powdery mixture, comprising dry activated carbon (an electrode active material), dry conductive particles (a conductive material), and a dry binder which can be a polymer (a binder resin) as claimed in limitation 12a.
Following step 18, Mitchell teaches a high shear solventless process in dry fibrillizing step 20 which acts as a matrix enmesh, entrap, bind and/or support dry particles 12 and 14 to form composite particles using the dry binder 16 (Fig. 11, [0104], [0030]), wherein the composite particles correspond to the claimed mixture lumps as claimed in limitation 12b, and wherein the functions of “enmesh, entrap, bind” of the component particles read upon kneading of the powdery mixture, wherein Merriam-Webster defines “knead” as “to work and press into a mass with or as if with the hands” (p1 def 1a).
Mitchell also teaches that within step 20, “Pulverization of dry binder 16 occurs when carbon or other dry non-binder material is added to the jet mill. The presence of particles other than binder acts as diluent that disperses the binder particles away from each other so that they cannot re/coalesce” [0104]. Given that some dry binder 16 is deposited or adhered onto dry particles 12 and/or 14 as mixture lumps [0104] and Fig. 11 and [0104] teaches its form as dispersion sized dry particles, Mitchell teaches pulverizing the the mixture lumps to obtain an electrode powder as claimed in limitation 12c.
However, the combination is silent with regards to the temperature at which the mixture lumps are prepared.
In the same field of endeavor, Duong teaches combining a binder with an active material, such as a carbon active material, for a dry electrode production method at a temperature of about room temperature or higher, for example, about 20°C to about 75°C ([0014]-[0018], [0093], [0097]), wherein the combining the binder with the active material at room temperature or higher may provide improved irreversible first cycle capacity loss performance for the resulting electrode, for example as compared to electrodes formed by performing the combination at lower temperatures ([0093],[0097]). Given that Mitchell teaches their invention is suitable as a method for fabricating a battery electrode with anode active materials [0157-0158], a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the method of modified Mitchell to utilize temperatures of about room temperature or higher, such as about 20°C to about 75°C, for kneading the powdery mixture to prepare mixture lumps, as taught by Duong, for the advantages of improved irreversible first cycle capacity loss performance for the resulting electrode, as compared to electrodes formed by performing the combination at lower temperatures. Consequently, the taught range of temperature overlaps with the claimed range. 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 13, the combination above teaches the method of claim 12. Additionally, Mitchell teaches the pressure applied in the high shear step of dry fibrillizing step 20 can be at greater than or equal to 10 PSI [0017]. Ambient pressure (also known as atmospheric pressure) is about 1013 mbar at sea level (see evidentiary reference “Ambient Pressure,” Schamlz), which is 14.7 PSI. Thus, the combination of prior art teaches the kneading (b) is carried out under a pressure condition greater than or equal to 10 PSI, which overlaps with the claimed range of a pressure condition equal to or higher than ambient pressure. 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)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/BACH T DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
09/18/2026
Prosecution Insights