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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, in the reply filed on August 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4, 2026.
Status of Application
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-12 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 20170092943 A1, IDS of 2/26/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a positive electrode comprising: a current collector; a first positive electrode active material layer coated on (arranged on, Abstract) an upper portion of the current collector for positive electrodes (Abstract); a resin layer (buffer layer including resin PVDF, Abstract and Table2); a second positive electrode active material layer (Abstract); and the buffer layer is arranged between the first active material layer and the second active material layer (Abstract), which corresponds to the claimed “a resin layer coated on an upper portion of the first positive electrode active material layer; and a second positive electrode active material layer coated on an upper portion of the resin layer”.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Li further discloses in Tables 1-3, the battery 3 has: a thickness of the first positive electrode active material layer T1 of 15 um, a thickness of the second positive electrode active material layer T2 of 80 um , and a thickness of the resin layer Tr of 5 um, therefore, battery 3’s T1, T2, and Tr satisfy Equation 1 Tr<T1<T2 (claim 2); and anticipates the claimed: the first positive electrode active material layer has a thickness of greater than 0 um and less than 200 um, the second positive electrode active material layer has a thickness of greater than 0 um and less than 200 um, and the resin layer has a thickness of 5 to 50 um (claim 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
6. Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20170092943 A1, IDS of 2/26/2025), as applied to claim 1, in view of Yoon (US 20170214051 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Li further discloses the buffer layer comprises a conductive material (carbon material, [0032]). As established above, Li’s buffer layer has included a resin binder PVDF as a resin and adhesive. Thus, Li does not explicitly disclose the resin layer comprises a base resin and an adhesive.
However, Li further teaches specific type of the binder for the buffer layer is not particularly restricted and can be selected according to actual demand, and the examples: carboxylic sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylic acid, polystyrene butadiene copolymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polyurethane, polyene acid ester, polyvinylidene fluoride, epoxy resin and chlorinated rubber can all be used as the binder for the buffer layer ([0033]), which strongly suggests that any one or multiple of resins from the forgoing list would perform the binder function thus rendering obvious the selection of two from the list where one is PVdF serving as the claimed base resin while any of the other candidates serving as the claimed adhesive with a reasonable expectation of success. [MPEP 2144.06 (I)].
Further, as established in claim 1, since Li’s resin layer is one part of the positive electrode (Abstract) and Li further discloses the positive electrode binder is one or more selected from a group consisting of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, polyacrylonitrile, polyacrylic acid, polystyrene butadiene copolymer, polyvinyl alcohol, polyurethane, polyene acid ester, polyvinylidene fluoride, epoxy resin and chlorinated rubber ([0028]), which suggests the binder can be a combination of two choices selected from the foregoing list, thus rendering obvious the binder of the buffer layer may comprise two resins from the list, a base resin PVDF and another adhesive resin.
Assuming, arguendo, that Li, for some reason, is not considered to render obvious the binder of the buffer layer may comprise two resins from the list, a base resin and an adhesive resin as set forth above, the following obviousness rejection is also presented.
Li has concerns about reducing energy density and increasing internal resistance of the battery ([0005]).
Yoon teaches an electrode active material slurry including a first binder and a second binder such that adhesion property may be sufficiently secured even by using a small amount of binder (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the buffer layer of Li by using a first binder PVDF as the base resin and a second binder selected from the forgoing list (Li: [0033]) as the adhesive, therefore arriving at the claimed “the resin layer comprises a base resin, a conductive material, and an adhesive”, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in securing sufficient adhesion property using a small amount of binder taught by Yoon, in order to improve energy density and reducing internal resistance of the battery, as desired by Li.
Regarding claim 5, modified Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Modified Li does not explicitly disclose the resin layer comprises 10 to 90 % by weight of the base resin, 5 to 50 % by weight of the conductive material, and 5 to 40 % by weight of the adhesive.
However, Li further discloses in the buffer layer, the ratio of the total weight of the carbon material to the total weight of the binder is 1:9~9:1 ([0034]), which translates to comprising 10% to 90% by weight of the conductive material, overlapping the claimed range of 5 to 50% by weight for the conductive material. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to arrive at a weight percentage value of the conductive material in the resin layer that falls in the overlapping portion (10 to 50%) between the taught and claimed ranges for the conductive material.
Yoon further teaches a weight ratio of the first binder and the second binder suitably may be about 1:0.1 to 2 (parts by weight) ([0016]). Since Li ([0034]) teaches the total weight percentage of the binder in the resin layer is 10% to 90% similarly calculated as the weight percentage for the conductive material above, thus in modified Li, the resin layer comprises a total of 10 to 90% by weight for the first binder (base resin) and the second binder (adhesive) combined. Therefore, in modified Li, the weight percentage of the base resin is calculated to be 3.3 to 81.8%, falling within the claimed range “10 to 90% by weight if the base resin”; the weight percentage of the adhesive is calculated to be 0.91 to 60%, overlapping the claimed range as claimed “5 to 40% by weight of the adhesive”.
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed limitation “the resin layer comprises 10 to 90 % by weight of the base resin, 5 to 50 % by weight of the conductive material, and 5 to 40 % by weight of the adhesive”, as taught by Li in view of Yoon, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in securing sufficient adhesion property using a small amount of binder, in order to improve energy density and reducing internal resistance of the battery, as desired by Li.
Regarding claim 6, modified Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Li further discloses the binder selected will expand at a rising temperature ([0033]). Since modified Li has included PVDF as a base resin, which has a melting temperature around 177 °C, falling within the melting temperature range as claimed “the base resin has a melting temperature of 60 to 180 °C”; and teaches the claimed “a volume thereof expands upon melting” because the melting of PVDF normally experience thermal expansion at a rising temperature.
Regarding claim 7, modified Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Modified Li mentions that the specific type of the binder is not particularly restricted and further discloses the binder including vinyl acetate resin among other choices ([0028]), broadly encompassing and rendering obvious the claimed copolymer species “polyethylene vinyl acetate”.
Yoon also teaches the first binder may be chlorinated polyethylene which falls within the claimed polyethylene category. It would have been further obvious to use chlorinated polyethylene as taught by Yoon for the base resin in the modified Li resin layer, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in securing sufficient adhesion property using a small amount of binder taught by Yoon, in order to improve energy density and reducing internal resistance of the battery, as desired by Li.
Regarding claim 8, modified Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Modified Li further discloses the conductive material comprises carbon ([0032]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Li discloses all limitations set forth above. As established above in claim 4, modified Li has included the adhesive selected from the foregoing examples ([0033]) which includes for example, polyvinyl alcohol, carboxylic sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, or chlorinated rubber among other choices.
Modified Li does not specifically select the adhesive from the listed examples that comprises one or more of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyvinyl alcohol, carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), starch, hydroxypropyl cellulose, recycled cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyethylene, polypropylene, ethylene- propylene-diene terpolymer (EPDM), sulfonated EPDM, styrene butadiene rubber, or fluorine rubber.
A skilled artisan would envisage selecting for example, polyvinyl alcohol, carboxylic sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, or chlorinated rubber from the finite listed examples taught by modified Li as the adhesive in order to secure sufficient adhesion property for the positive electrode.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the adhesive by, for example: 1) selecting polyvinyl alcohol, reading on the claimed “polyvinyl alcohol”; 2) selecting carboxylic sodium carboxymethyl cellulose from the list, falling within the claimed “carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)”; or 3) selecting chlorinated rubber, falling within the claimed “fluorine rubber”, from the finite examples list taught by modified Li, without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success in securing sufficient adhesion property for the positive electrode.
7. Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20170092943 A1, IDS of 2/26/2025).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Li further discloses both the first and second positive electrode active material layers may each be NCM 523 among other choices (battery 7 in Table 1 and batteries 1 and 3 in Table 3); and encompasses the scenario of using NCM523 in one battery for both the first and second positive electrode active material layers ([0015] [0025]). However, Li does not explicitly show in an Example battery using NCM523 simultaneously for making both of the first and second positive electrode active material layers.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have prepared both of the first and the second positive electrode active material layer using NCM523 out of convenience with a reasonable expectation that the selection of NCM523 for both the first and second positive electrode active material layer would make a successful positive electrode, thus rendering obvious the claimed: a high-nickel positive electrode active material (claim 10); and an NCM-based positive electrode active material (claim 11).
8. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20170092943 A1, IDS of 2/26/2025), as applied to claim 1, in view of Wada (JP2019029205A, see machine translation for citation, IDS of 6/26/2025).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses all limitations set forth above. Li has concerns about the manners of improving safety of the battery would reduce energy density and increase internal resistance of the battery ([0005]); further discloses the content of binder is 0.5~20% of the total weight of the material layer ([0029]) and the content of conductive agent is 0.5~18% of the total weight of the material layer ([0031]), which inherently teaches the content of the positive electrode active material is about 62~99%.
Li does not explicitly disclose the positive electrode has a loading amount of 10 mg/cm2 or more, wherein the loading amount is defined as a weight per unit area of a positive electrode active material coated on a positive electrode current collector.
Wada teaches similar desires of high output and high energy density (2nd Para/P2); and a positive electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery capable of suppressing heat generation of the battery at the time of internal short circuit (Abstract) related to high electron resistance of the positive electrode mixture including a first positive electrode active material and a second positive electrode active material (11th para/P2). Wada further teaches the basis weight of the positive electrode mixture layer was 53.0 mg/cm2 (Example 1, P5). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to use the same basis weight of 53.0 mg/cm2 for the positive electrode of modified Li, as taught by Wada with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving high output and high energy density of the battery.
In light of the content of the positive electrode active material of Li being about 62~99% as set forth above, it would have been further obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan that modified Li in view of Wada would have the positive electrode active material loading amount on a positive current collector calculated to be 33~52 mg/cm2, falling within the range as claimed “10 mg/cm2 or more”.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAN LUO whose telephone number is (571)270-5753. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 UM ET.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on (571)270-1292. 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.
/K. L./Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/30/2026
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/1/2026
