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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 3/4/2026 is entered and fully considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 6-8 in the reply filed on 6/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are withdrawn. Claim 4 was canceled.
Response to Arguments
On review of the 112(a) rejection, the examiner notes that the rejection should not have been made. A claim amendment limiting the range of the PVDF to smaller range does not appear to be claiming a different invention. By requiring the particular subrange or endpoints be described in the specification, “would let form triumph over substance”. Forcing applicant to list out subranges and endpoints in the specification to preserve the ability to retreat from a broader range is not required.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the required coverage of PDVF on the surface of the anode active material. Specifically, the SHI reference notes that when using 2% PVDF a low shear mixing results a coverage of 70-90% of active material [0058]. The examiner agrees that the low shear mixing in SHI does not result in the claimed coverage. However, other references also teach blending, and MASHTALIR in particular uses high-shear blending [0183] which may create a different coverage than the low shear mixing. The examiner notes that, applicant’s specification uses a multi-purpose mixer and crusher/pulverizer [0058] and example 1 [0063].
As previously noted the MASHTALIR reference uses the same binder loading at 5% [0086]. The reference further teaches mixing techniques includes shaking (pulverizing) and planetary mixer (multipurpose mixer) [0174]. These mixing methods are the same as what is described in applicant’s specification. When using the same composition and blending technique it is reasonable to expect the same coverage of PVDF on anode active material to be achieved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 8-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI et al. (US 2024/0208138) in view of MASHTALIR et al. (US 2025/0201855).
Regarding claims 6, 8-10, and 12-13,
SHI teaches a method of making a dry powder anode material by mixing graphite with conductive aid and binder [0043]. The binder is used at up to 4% of the mixture [0089]. The graphite (carbon anode active material) has a D50 of 5-20µm which falls within the claimed range [0043]. The binder can be PVDF [0043]. The PVDF have a particle size of 200-500 nm [0058]. The dry mixing of the same materials is expected to produce the same coverage of anode active material by the binder.
SHI does not expressly teach using a PVDF particle size of 150nm or less. However, SHI teaches that one of the variables defining the morphology of a dry powder electrode is particle size, noting that small particles may not congeal as readily as larger agglomerates thus keeping cavities between active particles [0096]. The examiner notes that the void spaces are desirable for electrolyte penetration [0056]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to manipulate the particle sizes to ensure sufficient electrolyte penetration into the electrode (reducing internal resistance of the electrode), MPEP 2144.05.II.
SHI does not teach using a blending operation that results in claimed coverage of PVDF on anode active material. MASHTALIR teaches a solvent free process for making electrodes including anode active material with binder abstract and [0073]. The anode active material can be a graphite [0076]. The binder can be loaded at 5% [0086] and can also be PVDF [0089]. Accordingly the MASHTALIR reference teaches using a similar powdered anode composition to SHI. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use binder at a higher loading of 5% as a known workable composition. Furthermore, increased binder will result in increased adhesive strength.
The reference still do not teach a blending step that prepares the claimed PVDF coverage of anode active material. The examiner notes that the claim does not particularly describe the blending process that achieves the claimed coverage. However, the specification uses a multi-purpose mixer and crusher/pulverizer [0058] and example 1 [0063]. In view of the mixing techniques described in applicant’s specification, the MASHTALIR reference further teaches mixing techniques includes shaking (pulverizing) and planetary mixer (multipurpose mixer) [0174]. These blending techniques are very similar to the mixing techniques used in applicant’s specification. When using the same composition and blending technique it is reasonable to expect the same coverage of PVDF on anode active material to be achieved.
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHI et al. (US 2024/0208138) in view of MASHTALIR et al. (US 2025/0201855) further in view of XIA et al. (US 2024/0113274) and ELTON (US 2021/0260822).
Regarding claims 7 and 11,
SHI teaches a method of making an electrode by applying the dry powder mixture but does not teach using an electrostatic coating [0063]+. However, MASHTALIR teaches that when making an electrode from the mixture, coating technique is not limited and uses known techniques [0189] which are noted to include dry methods such as electrostatic spray deposition [0010]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an electrostatic coating process as the dry deposition technique of SHI as a substitution of known prior art techniques for applying dry electrode mixtures to a substrate.
XIA shows that dry anode material including binder [0050] and graphite [0046] can be deposited by electrostatic deposition [0037] without limiting the powder size. Accordingly, the dry powder of SHI is expected to be appropriate for electrostatic deposition. In addition, ELTON uses electrostatic deposition to provide a powder bed for 3D printing [0039] and fig. 1. Therefore, the references provide evidence to show that not only are the powder materials in SHI capable of electrostatic coating. The references further show an electrostatic deposition process can be incorporated into the 3D printing process of SHI.
At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an electrostatic coating process as the dry deposition technique of SHI as a substitution of known prior art techniques for applying dry electrode mixtures to a substrate.
Regarding claim 14,
SHI does not expressly teach using a particle size of 150nm. However, SHI teaches that one of the variables defining the morphology of a dry powder electrode is particle size, noting that small particles may not congeal as readily as larger agglomerates thus keeping cavities between active particles [0096]. The examiner notes that the void spaces are desirable for electrolyte penetration [0056]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to manipulate the particle sizes to ensure sufficient electrolyte penetration into the electrode (reducing internal resistance of the electrode), MPEP 2144.05.II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712