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 in the reply filed on 09/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/02/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim limitation “an adhesion enhancement layer” (line 4) should read “the adhesion enhancement layer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (JP2018190527A, cited in IDS filed 01/02/2024, see Examiner provided translation in previous Office Action for citations) in view of Hyun et al. (KR100901533B1, cited in previous Office Action).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Takeda discloses a positive electrode current collector ([5]) coated with an adhesion enhancement layer (i.e. coating/covering layer, [25]), comprising:
an aluminum foil current collector ([20]); and
an adhesion enhancement layer (i.e. coating/covering layer, [25]) coated on at least one surface of the aluminum foil (i.e. formed on one or both sides of a sheet-like metal substrate, [20];[25]), the adhesion enhancement layer comprising a first binder polymer (i.e. polymer containing vinylidene fluoride, [25];[33]), and a first conductive material (i.e. powdery carbon material to impart conductivity to the coating layer, [25];[28]),
wherein the first binder polymer comprises a first polyvinylidene-based polymer (i.e. polymer containing vinylidene fluoride has 50 to 99% VDF, [33]-[34]).
Takeda further discloses the content of the polymer containing vinylidene fluoride in the coating layer is preferably 50 to 80% by mass ([46]) as when the content of the polymer containing vinylidene fluoride in the coating layer is 50% or more, sufficient adhesion of the coating layer to the metal substrate can be obtained, even when the coating layer is rubbed ([47]). Conversely, when the content of the polymer containing vinylidene fluoride is 80% mass or less, the proportion of the powdery carbon material in the coating layer is sufficient and high conductivity can be maintained ([47]). A skilled artisan would recognize that in optimizing the amount of the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer, the amount of F is optimized in order to achieve similar effects.
Therefore, while Takeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the adhesion enhancement layer comprises a 1 to 10 weight% of F, as claimed in claim 1, or 2 to 8 weight% of F, as claimed in claim 3, when measured on surfaces of the adhesion enhancement layer by EDX, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have arrived at the claimed range by way of routine optimization in order to achieve the desired balance between adhesion and conductivity in the adhesion enhancement layer.
Takeda further discloses controlling the basis weight of the coating layer per surface of metal substrate to 0.1 to 5.0 g/m2 as when the coating amount is 0.1 g/m2 or more, the conductivity between the metal substrate and active material can be secured by the powdery carbon material (i.e. first conductive material), while if the coating amount is 5.0 g/m2 or less, the resistance value can be reduced ([27]).
However, Takeda does not disclose wherein the adhesion enhancement layer comprises from 40 to 80 weight% Al, as claimed in claim 1, or from 45 to 75 weight% Al as claimed in claim 3, when measured on surfaces of the adhesion enhancement layer by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX). Takeda also does not disclose a ratio of F/Al contents of 0.00125 to 0.25 as claimed in claim 1, or of 0.027 to 0.178, as claimed in claim 4, when measured on surfaces of the adhesion enhancement layer by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX).
In light of the instant specifications (see pg. 11, lines 9-10, and pg. 14, lines 6-10), “40-80 weight% of Al” and “45 to 75 weight % Al” is interpreted to mean the amount of the aluminum foil current collector that is not coated with the adhesion enhancement layer.
Hyun teaches a similar positive electrode with adhesion enhancement layer (i.e. silane compound, pg. 2, lines 24-26). Furthermore, Hyun teaches the layer is patterned and coated in a predetermined shape without coating the entire surface of the current collector (pg. 2, 44-48). Hyun further teaches the preferable coating amount of the layer is 0.1 to 30% by weight, or 70-99.9% by weight not coated, based on the total weight of the positive electrode active material (pg. 2, lines 8-10), which overlaps with the claimed range of 40 to 80 weight % Al not coated claimed in claim 1, and 45 to 75 weight % Al not coated, claimed in claim 3.
Hyun further teaches where if the coating amount is too small, it is difficult to expect improvement of the adhesion between the active material layer and the positive current collector (pg. 2, lines 10-12) and if it is too large, there is less electrode active material and binder for the same thickness (pg. 2, line 12).
Therefore, while Takeda does not disclose wherein the adhesion enhancement layer comprises from 40 to 80 weight% of Al as claimed in claim 1, or 45 to 75 weight % as claimed in claim 3, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arrived at the claimed range for the weight% of Al comprised in the adhesion enhancement layer when measured on surface by EDX through routine optimization in order to achieve the desired balance between adhesion between the current collector and active material layer, as well as maintaining the amount of active material used in the electrode, as taught by Hyun and desired by Takeda.
Furthermore, while modified Takeda does not disclose wherein the adhesion enhancement ratio of F/Al contents of 0.0125 to 0.25 as claimed in claim 1, or 0.0027 to 0.178 as claimed in claim 4, when measured on surfaces of the adhesion enhancement layer by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EXD), a skilled artisan would recognize that in possessing F weight% and Al weight%, modified Takeda would possess an F/Al ratio.
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 arrived at the claimed range F/Al ratio to achieve the desired balance between adhesion, amount of active material and conductivity.
Regarding claim 2, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda discloses have a coating that is formed one or both sides of the current collector (Takeda, [25]), where the coating is patterned and coated in a predetermined shape (Hyun, pg. 2, lines 44-48).
Hyun further teaches that the shape of the pattern is not limited as long as the layer is coated substantially uniformly, for example stripes, an island pattern, or a honeycomb pattern (Hyun, pg. 2, lines 53-55, Fig. 2A-2C).
As modified Takeda’s coating layer comprises the first binder polymer (Takeda, [25]), when the coating layer is present in an island pattern, the first binder polymer within the coating layer would also be distributed in island arrays over at least one surface of the aluminum foil current collector.
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 an island pattern for the coating layer, and thus for the first binder polymer, to be distributed in island arrays, as this is a well-known configuration for current collector coating layers in the art, as taught by Hyun.
Regarding claim 6, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda discloses having an adhesion enhancement layer comprising of a first binder including a polymer containing vinylidene fluoride and a conductive material (i.e. powdery carbon material) (Takeda, [25]), all of which are components Applicant has claimed as part of their invention.
Modified Takeda further discloses the content of the polymer containing vinylidene fluoride in the coating layer is preferably 50 to 80 mass% (Takeda, [46]) while the content of the powdery carbon material in the coating layer is 20 to 50% by mass (Takeda, [31]), yielding a range of the ratio of the polymer (i.e. polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer) to the carbon material (i.e. first conductive material) to be 1:1 to 4:1, which is within the weight ratio desired by Applicant (see instant specification, pg. 12, lines 15-17). Applicant’s Example 1 contains a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene as a first binder polymer and denka carbon black as a first conductive material (see instant specification, pg. 23, lines 5-10) but does not express that such a selection is preferred or that any of the listed components of pg. 10, lines 12-19, are preferably over others.
Therefore, while modified Takeda does not disclose wherein the adhesion enhancement layer has a contact angle of a diiodomethane droplet of 70° to 120°, Applicant’s written description appears to suggest as long as the adhesion enhancement layer comprises a first binder polymer comprising a polyvinylidene-based polymer, and a first conductive material, modified Takeda’s coating layer would necessarily possess a contact angle of a diiodomethane droplet of 70° to 120°, absent evidence to contrary.
Regarding claim 8, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda further discloses wherein the polymer containing vinylidene fluoride as a monomer unit can be a copolymer containing vinylidene fluoride and different fluorine compound as a monomer unit, such as tetrafluoroethylene (TFE), chlorotrifluoroethylene (CTFE), hexafluoropropylene (HFP), hydrofluoroether (HFE) etc. (Takeda, [33]).
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 hexafluoropropylene (HFP) from the list of monomer compounds provided by Takeda to achieve a copolymer of vinylidene fluoride and hexafluoropropylene, with reasonable expectation of success in achieving a successful first binder polymer, as these are well-known monomer units and copolymers in the battery art.
Regarding claim 10, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda further discloses the content of the polymer containing vinylidene fluoride in the coating layer (i.e. first binder polymer) is preferably 50 to 80 % by mass, most preferably 60 % by mass (Takeda, [46]). Furthermore, modified Takeda discloses that when the content of the polymer is 50 mass% or more, sufficient adhesion of the coating layer to the metal substrate can be obtained, while when the content of the polymer is 80 mass% or less, the proportion to the powdery carbon material (i.e. the first conductive material) is sufficient and high conductivity can be maintained (Takeda, [47]).
Modified Takeda further discloses the content of the powdery carbon material (i.e. first conductive material) in the coating layer is preferably from 20 to 50 % by mass, more preferably 40 to 50% by mass (Takeda, [31]). When the content of the powdery carbon material (i.e. first conductive material) is 20.0 mass% or more, sufficient conductivity can be exhibited, while when the content of the powdery carbon material is 50.0 mass% or less, the binder is sufficiently present and adhesion between the carbon fine particles and between the base material (i.e. current collector) and coating layer can be maintained (Takeda, [32]).
The disclosed mass% for the polymer and carbon material yields a weight ratio of the first polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer and first conductive material to be from 1:1 to 4:1, which is fully within the claimed range of 0.5:1 to 8:1. Thus, modified Takeda satisfies claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda further discloses the thickness of the coating layer (i.e. adhesion enhancement layer) is preferably 0.1 µm or more and 15.0 µm or less, more preferably 0.3 µm or more and 5.0 µm or less (Takeda, [26]) which is equivalent to 300 nm or more and 5,000 nm or less and within the claimed range of 50 to 5,000 nm.
Furthermore, modified Takeda discloses when the thickness of the coating layer is 0.1 µm or more, conductivity between the metal substrate (i.e. current collector) and electrode active material can be ensured by the powdery carbon material, while if the thickness is 15.0 µm or less, an increase in electrical resistance due to layer thickness can be prevented (Takeda, [26]).
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 and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges to achieve the desired balance between conductivity and electrical resistance, as taught by Takeda (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (JP2018190527A) and Hyun et al. (KR100901533B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seol et al. (US20180006289, cited in IDS filed 01/02/2024).
Regarding claim 5, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda discloses an adhesion enhancement layer (i.e. coating/covering layer) comprising a polyvinylidene-based polymer and a conductive material (Takeda, [25]). Modified Takeda further discloses the irregularities on the surface of the coating layer have a surface roughness Ra of 1 µm or less (Takeda, [30]), which encompasses the claimed range of 90 to 600 nm.
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 arrived at the overlapping portion of the ranges, with reasonable expectation in achieving a satisfactory adhesion enhancement layer.
Assuming, arguendo, applicant is able to convincingly prove that the disclosed range is not sufficiently specific, it would have still been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the following reasons.
Seol teaches a similar positive electrode current collector with a primer coating layer including a first polymer binder and first conductive material that is formed on at least one surface of the positive current collector ([0009]). Seol further teaches that the primer coating layer (i.e. adhesion enhancement layer) has a surface roughness (Ra) of 85 nm to 400 nm ([0009]), even more preferably 90 nm to 200 nm, which is within the claimed range of 90 to 600 nm ([0010]). Seol further teaches that the roughness of the predetermined range increases the contact area between the positive electrode mixture layer and current collector, thus improving adhesion ([0031]).
Furthermore, Seol teaches if the surface roughness is less than 85 nm, it is impossible to provide a sufficient surface roughness value and adhesion may not be improved compared to the positive electrode current collector having no primer layer ([0045]). Conversely, if the surface roughness is larger than 300 nm, the surface roughness may be larger than the particles of the positive electrode material, and thus the adhesion may not be improved by means of surface roughness ([0045]).
Therefore, it would further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have routinely selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the ranges, in order to achieve the desired adhesion between the positive electrode layer and current collector, as desired by modified Takeda, and taught by Seol.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (JP2018190527A) and Hyun et al. (KR100901533B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (EP3582306B1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda discloses that the coated liquid comprising the powdery carbon material (i.e. first conductive material) and binder (i.e. first binder polymer) dispersed in a solvent is coated on one or both sides of the metal substrate (i.e. current collector) and is subsequently dried to form the coating layer, where drying is preferably carried out at a temperature of 50°C or higher to sufficiently evaporate the solvent.
While a skilled artisan would appreciate the first polymer binder having a melting temperature greater than the drying temperature in order to preserve the physical characteristics of the first binder polymer, modified Takeda does not explicitly disclose wherein the melting point of the first polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer is from 50°C to 150°C.
Nevertheless, Yamamoto teaches a similar current collector with a conductive layer formed on the surface and consisting of a binding material ([0008]). Yamamoto further teaches that the binding material (i.e. first binder polymer) contains polyvinylidene fluoride and a PTC (positive-thermal coefficient) function-imparting component such as a PVDF-HFP copolymer ([0024]).
Yamamoto further teaches the melting point of the binding material is preferably from 70°C to 130°C, which is within the claimed range of 50°C to 150°C. The melting point of the binding material is preferably 70°C or higher for thermal stability and 130°C or lower for stability ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have arrived at the claimed range and routinely selected and optimized within the range for the polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer, to achieve the desired balance between thermal stability and stability.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (JP2018190527A) and Hyun et al. (KR100901533B1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hagiwara et al. (JP2013073830A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Takeda discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Takeda discloses the molecular weight of the polymer containing vinylidene fluoride is not particularly limited (Takeda, [33]).
However, modified Takeda does not explicitly disclose wherein a weight average molecular weight of the first polyvinylidene fluoride-based polymer is from 700,000 to 1,300,000.
Hagiwara teaches a similar electrode comprising of a conductive intermediate layer (i.e. adhesion enhancement layer) formed on the surface of the current collector ([7]). Hagiwara’s taught conductive intermediate layer comprises conductive particles and a thermoplastic polymer having a number average molecular weight of 630,000 or more and less than 1,000,000 ([16];[26]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 700,000 to 1,300,000. Furthermore, Hagiwara teaches the composition for forming the conductive intermediate layer is preferably prepared using polyvinylidene fluoride as the thermoplastic polymer as it enhances the stability and cycle characteristics of the conductive interlayer ([14]).
Hagiwara further discloses when the number average molecular weight of the thermoplastic polymer is 1,000,000 or more, the viscosity when preparing the composition for forming the conductive intermediate layer is too high to obtain coatability, and it is not possible to preferably manufacture an electrode ([26]). Furthermore, when the thermoplastic polymer has a number average molecular weight of less than 630,000, the binding force is weakened ([26]). Additionally, by controlling the number average molecular weight of the thermoplastic polymer in the above range, the fluidity of the composition for forming the conductive intermediate layer can be increased, and the amount of solvent in the composition can be reduced ([26]).
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 routinely selected and optimized within the overlapping portion of the claimed ranges, in order to achieve the desired balance between viscosity and adhesion of the conductive intermediate layer, as taught by Hagiwara (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights