DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 Group I (Claims 1-12 and 20) in the reply filed on August 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0157005, filed on November 15th, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on December 6th, 2023; February 21st, 2025; June 6th, 2025; August 12th, 2025; and June 16th, 2026 have been received and considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 11, line 1 recites the limitation “wherein the insulating layer comprise.” This appears to be a typographical error and should most likely read (with emphasis) “wherein the insulating layer comprises.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Prior Art
Yamada US PG Publication 2020/0328417 (“Yamada”)
Kenji JP2014211945A (“Kenji”)
Mase US PG Publication 2020/0282516 (“Mase”)
Kalita US PG Publication 2020/0402772 (“Kalita”)
Inoue US PG Publication 2020/0035996 (“Inoue”)
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-10, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada US PG Publication 2020/0328427.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada discloses a positive electrode 30 (Fig. 3, [0006], [0022], entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
a positive electrode collector 32 (corresponding to the instantly claimed current collector) (Fig. 3, [0006], [0022]);
a positive electrode active material layer 34 (active material layer) formed on at least one side of the current collector (Fig. 3, [0006], [0022]); and
an insulating layer 36 formed on a surface of the current collector on which the active material layer is formed (Fig. 3, [0006], [0022], [0028]),
wherein a surface of the insulating layer 36 has an arithmetic mean value thickness (arithmetic average height Sa) of 10 µm or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 3 µm or more)1 ([0009]-[0010]).
1 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
885
1047
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 of Yamada
Regarding Claim 2, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and Yamada discloses wherein the active material layer 34 is formed on a part of the surface of the current collector 32 (Fig. 3, [0006], [0022]), and
the insulating layer 36 is formed on at least part of the surface of the current collector 36 on which the active material layer 34 is not formed (as depicted by uncoated section 32A), and at least a part of a surface of the active material layer 34 (wherein the insulating layer 36 and active material layer 34 are adjacent to one another and have abutting surfaces) (Fig. 3, [0006], [0022], [0028]).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1, and Yamada discloses wherein the insulating layer 36 comprises a binder (such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF)) ([0039]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that PVdF has a solubility parameter that falls within the claimed range of 10 MPa1/2 to 30 MPa1/2, as evidenced by paragraph [0158] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Regarding Claim 7, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 6, and Yamada discloses wherein a content of the binder in the insulating layer 36 is 10 wt% or more (which encompasses the claimed range of 50 to 100 wt%)1 ([0039]).
1 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).
Regarding Claim 8, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 6, and Yamada discloses wherein the insulating layer 36 further comprises an inorganic filler 36a comprising alumina (Al2O3) particles ([0029]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that the alumina (Al2O3) particles are ceramic particles, as evidenced by paragraphs [0059]-[0060] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Regarding Claim 9, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 8, and Yamada discloses wherein an average particle diameter of the ceramic particles 36 is 3 µm or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 µm to 100 µm)1 ([0029]-[0030]).
1 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).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 8, and Yamada discloses wherein the ceramic particles 36a include metal oxides (i.e. alumina) (which meets the instant claim limitation metal oxides, metalloid oxides, metal fluorides, or metal hydroxides) ([0029]-[0030]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 6, and Yamada discloses wherein the electrode 30 further comprises N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) ([0056]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that NMP is a compound having a dipole moment at 20oC in a range of 2.2D to 6D, as evidenced by paragraphs [0066]-[0067] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Regarding Claim 20, Yamada discloses a battery comprising the electrode 30 as described in the rejection of Claim 1 above ([0050]).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada US PG Publication 2020/0328427, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Kenji JP2014211945A (machine translation provided), Mase US PG Publication 2020/0282516, and Kalita US PG Publication 2020/0402772.
Regarding Claims 3-5, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 1. Yamada fails to explicitly disclose wherein the surface of the insulating layer satisfies any of the conditions (i) to (iii).
However, Kenji discloses a lithium-ion battery comprising an insulating plate and a surface layer disposed thereon ([0018]-[0024], entire disclosure dependent upon). Kenji discloses that a maximum height roughness less than 3 µm results in a smooth interface without any irregularities which, thereby, has reduced adhesion between adjacent layers ([0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Yamada such that the maximum height roughness (Sz) of the surface of the insulating layer is greater than 3 µm (which encompasses the claimed range of greater than or equal to 15 µm)1 (corresponding to the instantly claimed condition (i)), in order to prevent a reduction in adhesion between the adjacent layers, as taught by Kenji.
Further, Mase discloses a powder with adhesion properties ([0037], entire disclosure dependent upon). Mase teaches that an arithmetic average peak curvature (Spc) of less than 400 mm-1 creates enough level of roundness (curvature) such that adhesion can occur without any of the particle layer getting snagged or caught ([0038]-[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Yamada in view of Kenji such that the arithmetic average peak curvature (Spc) of the surface of the insulating layer is less than 400 mm-1 (which encompasses the claimed range of less than or equal to 40 mm-1)1 (corresponding to the instantly claimed condition (ii)), in order to create enough level of curvature such that the adhesion between the adjacent layers can occur without the particles getting snagged or caught, as taught by Mase.
Further, Kalita discloses a layered structure (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Kalita teaches a developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr) of less than 5 improves adhesion between adjacent layers ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Yamada in view of Kenji and Mase such that the developed interfacial area ratio (Sdr) is less than 5 (which encompasses the claimed range of less than or equal to 0.0009)1 (corresponding to the instantly claimed condition (iii)), in order to improve adhesion between adjacent layers, as taught by Kalita.
1 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).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada US PG Publication 2020/0328427, as applied to Claim 8, further in view of Inoue US PG Publication 2020/0035996.
Regarding Claim 11, Yamada teaches the instantly claimed electrode according to Claim 8.
Yamada fails to disclose wherein the insulating layer comprises the ceramic particles in an amount of 1 to 100 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the binder.
However, Inoue discloses an insulating layer for an electrode (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Inoue teaches the use of an insulating filler, alumina, within the insulating layer in an amount of 99 mass% or less relative to the entire insulating layer ([0036]-[0037]) such that a smaller amount of the binder is necessary ([0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the electrode of Yamada such that the insulating layer comprises the ceramic particles, alumina, in an amount of 99 parts by weight or less (wherein mass and weight are directly proportional) relative to 100 parts by weight of the entire insulating layer in order to use a smaller amount of the binder, as taught by Inoue.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an insulating layer comprising a ceramic particle filler and a binder, wherein the ceramic particles are present in an amount of 99 parts by weight or less relative to 100 parts by weight of the entire insulating layer would encompass the instantly claimed range of 1 to 100 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the binder1.
1 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights