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 with traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 08/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions of the instant application (i.e. Groups 1-4) share a “special technical feature” which is neither taught nor suggested by Uchida. This is not found persuasive as discussed in detail, below.
Applicant has argued that it has not been shown that Uchida teaches or suggests a metal foil and a negative electrode active material layer coated thereon, wherein upper and lower portions of the negative electrode are coated with a binder, as recited in Claims 1 and 11, or that a process including “forming a negative electrode active material layer on a metal foil” and “performing patten coating using by applying a binder on upper and lower portions of the negative electrode active material layer to form a negative electrode”, as recited in Claim 13. Applicant has argued that Uchida only allegedly teaches that the negative electrode active material layer 63 is formed on both faces of the negative electrode current collector foil except for an exposed portion 62 and that the binder solution 122 is sprayed in the thickness direction to form the negative electrode sheet 60. Accordingly, Applicant submits Uchida does not teach or suggest forming the negative electrode active material layer on upper and lower portions of the negative electrode current collector foil as recited in Claim 1, 7, 11 and 13.
The Examiner has carefully considered this argument, but respectfully does not find it persuasive. As laid out in the Restriction Requirement mailed 06/10/2026, the technical feature between Groups 1 and 2, Groups 1 and 3, Groups 1 and 4, and Groups 2 and 3 is “a negative electrode comprising a negative electrode active material layer on a metal foil, wherein upper and lower portions of the negative electrode are coated with a binder”. Uchida discloses that the negative electrode active material layer is formed on both faces of the negative electrode current collector foil [0039]. Here, “both faces” is broadly and reasonably interpreted as corresponding to an upper face and a lower face of the current collector, absent a special definition of “upper” and “lower”. Uchida discloses that a binder is added to fill gaps between active material particles [0067-0070]. Therefore, binder is understood to be applied to both “upper portions and lower portions of the negative electrode” (see also Claim Interpretation, below) and, therefore, the technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Accordingly, the restriction requirement between Groups 1 and 2, Groups 1 and 3, Groups 1 and 4, and Groups 2 and 3 is maintained.
Since Applicant has not pointed out a specific error in the mapping of the prior art to the technical features as laid out in regards to Groups 2 and 4, and Groups 3 and 4, the restriction requirement between these groups is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-14 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/10/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “upper and lower portions of the negative electrode” as recited in Claim 1 is interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation since a special definition is not provided in the instant specification. As such, the limitation “upper and lower portions” is interpreted to encompass both top and bottom portions and opposite edge portions of a single side (see illustrations, below) as supported by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
PNG
media_image1.png
384
1249
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamafuku et al. (US-20150147624-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamafuku discloses a negative electrode (5, Fig. 6), comprising: a metal foil (negative current collecting substrate 5a, Fig. 6; [0141-0142]) and a negative electrode active material layer (combination of negative active material layer 5b and intermediate layer 6; see Fig. 6; [0144-0147, 0151]) coated thereon, wherein upper and lower portions (i.e. edges) of the negative electrode are coated with a binder (insulating layer 7; [0115]).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamafuku anticipates all of the limitations as set forth, above. Yamafuku further discloses that the lower portion of the negative electrode has a larger binder coating area than the upper portion thereof (see annotation of Yamafuku Fig. 6, below). The Examiner notes that, absent a special definition provided in the instant specification, any portion of the negative electrode can read on the “upper portion” and the “lower portion”, including areas wherein the lower portion has a larger binder coating area than the upper portion, as depicted in Yamafuku Fig. 6 (see below).
PNG
media_image2.png
321
1363
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Yamafuku Fig. 6.
Regarding Claim 6, Yamafuku anticipates all of the limitations as set forth, above. Yamafuku further discloses that the negative electrode active material layer includes a carbon-based conductive material [0104, 0109, 0133, 0144, 0145, 0151-0152].
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamafuku et al. (US-20150147624-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamafuku anticipates all of the limitations as set forth, above. Yamafuku discloses that the binder contained in the negative active material layer can be the same binder contained in the positive active material layer [0147], which can be both an aqueous binder and a nonaqueous binder [0105]. The aqueous binder can be selected, from a list of possible aqueous binders, to be SBR [0067].
Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the binder of the negative electrode active material layer to contain SBR (reads on SBR-based binder) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful negative electrode active material layer.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamafuku et al. (US-20150147624-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Kim et al. (US-20150263323-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamafuku anticipates all of the limitations as set forth, above. Yamafuku discloses that the negative electrode active material is not particularly limited, and is a substance capable of contributing to the charge/discharge electrode reaction, such as carbon-based substances [0145-0146]. Yamafuku does not explicitly teach that the negative electrode active material layer contains a silicon-based active material.
Kim teaches a secondary battery including an anode [0029-0031]. As the anode active material a variety of materials, including carbon-based materials and Si, can be selected [0031]. The Examiner notes that this establishes Si as a substitutable alternative to carbon-based materials (MPEP 2144.06, II), and as a suitable material for use in an anode active material (MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the carbon-based negative electrode active material taught by Yamafuku for Si (reads on a silicon-based active material) with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful negative electrode (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (US-20160226060-A1; cited 06/10/2026).
Regarding Claim 1, Uchida discloses a negative electrode (negative electrode sheet 60; [0032, 0039]), comprising: a metal foil (current collector foil 61; [0039]) and a negative electrode active material layer coated thereon [0039].
Uchida discloses that the negative electrode active material layer is formed on both faces of the negative electrode current collector foil [0039], and that a second binder is sprayed onto the surface of the negative electrode active material layer [0067-0069, 0089]. Therefore, although Uchida does not explicitly disclose that “upper and lower portions of the negative electrode are coated with a binder”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided each face of the active material (i.e. the upper face and the lower face) with a binder (second binder) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 2, Uchida renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Uchida further discloses that the binder (second binder) can be selected from a list of binder which includes PVdF [0043, 0067, 0096]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the binder to be PVdF with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful negative electrode.
Regarding Claim 3, Uchida renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Uchida further discloses a specific example wherein the negative electrode active material layer contains an SBR (reads on an SBR-based) binder [0012, 0043, 0093, 0101].
Regarding Claim 4, Uchida renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. The Examiner notes that, absent a special definition provided in the instant specification, any portion of the negative electrode can read on the “upper portion” and the “lower portion”, including areas wherein the lower portion has a larger binder coating area than the upper portion (see annotation of modified Uchida Fig. 6, below).
PNG
media_image3.png
997
885
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of modified Uchida Fig. 6.
Regarding Claim 6, Uchida renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Uchida discloses a specific embodiment wherein the negative electrode active material is selected to be graphite particles [0093], which reads on a negative electrode active material layer which “includes a carbon-based conductive material”.
Assuming, arguendo, that Applicant is able to show by means of evidence or persuasive argument that a graphite negative electrode material does not read on a carbon-based conductive material, the limitations of Claim 6 would still have been obvious since Uchida teaches that the negative electrode active material layer includes a conductive agent [0042], and that the conductive agent can be a carbon material [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the negative electrode active material layer to include a carbon material as a conductive agent (reads on carbon-based conductive material) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful negative electrode.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (US-20160226060-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Kim et al. (US-20150263323-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Uchida renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth, above. Uchida discloses that as the negative electrode active material, it is possible to use any conventional substance used for lithium-ion secondary batteries, without limitation [0040]. In a specific embodiment, Uchida discloses the use of graphite particles [0093]. Uchida does not teach that the negative electrode active material layer contains a silicon-based active material.
Kim teaches a secondary battery including an anode [0029-0031]. As the anode active material a variety of materials, including carbon-based materials and Si, can be selected [0031]. The Examiner notes that this establishes Si as a substitutable alternative to carbon-based materials (MPEP 2144.06, II), and as a suitable material for use as an anode active material (MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the negative electrode graphite particles taught by Uchida for Si (reads on a silicon-based active material) with a reasonable expectation that such a substitution would result in a successful negative electrode (MPEP 2144.06, II; MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/26/2026
Prosecution Insights