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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 5 includes “D1” & “D2” which are not described in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: P20 line 15 “a carbon atom © of the graphene included in the shell” appears to be a typo and should read “a carbon atom (C) of the graphene included in the shell”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 “electrode current collect” should read “electrode current collector”. 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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kejha et al. (US 20030014859 A1, “Kejha”) in view of Beneventi et al. (US 20160126554 A1. “Beneventi”) and Wang et al. (US 20190305316 A1, “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Kejha discloses a method of preparing a dry electrode (see title “method” & see [0009] “dry electrodes” & see [0055] “prepared” & “cathode” which reads on electrode), the method comprising: preparing a cut electrode current collector (see [0055] “cathode current collectors were cut”); applying a dry mixture onto at least a portion of the cut electrode current collector to prepare a first dry electrode plate (see [0055] “hand-dipped into the slurry” & “vacuum dried in vacuum oven”); and rolling the first dry electrode plate to prepare a dry electrode (see [0060] “hot callendered”). Regarding the limitation of wherein the applying of the dry mixture is performed by using a cartridge comprising a drum having a surface on which a plurality of protrusions are provided, Kejha does not explicitly disclose.
Beneventi teaches doctor blade (see [0139] “doctor blade 2” & “flexible substrate 1 according to the desired pattern”). Beneventi teaches in [0001] “does not require the of a synthetic polymer binder, or of organic solvents” & describes method for preparing an electrode (see title). Beneventi describes in [0035] “dry electrodes”.
Kejha and Beneventi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely methods for preparing an electrode (see title) & dry electrodes (see [0035]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate doctor blade, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0139]) into the method of preparing a dry electrode of Kejha because doing so allows for a desired pattern to be formed on the surface, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0139]).
Wang teaches “methods for dry electrode films” (see title) & in [0044] “electrode films 112 and/or 114 may be prepared by a process as described herein”; see [0017] “classifier with a spinning wheel that selects an output size of particles” & FIG. 2B. Wang teaches in [0025] “components that affect the storage potential of an energy storage device” & “particle size”.
Kejha and Wang are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely “methods for dry electrode films” (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate spinning wheel, as suggested by Wang (see [0017] & FIG. 2B) into the method of Kejha because doing so allows for an output size of particles to be selected, as suggested by Wang (see [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the cut electrode current collector has a form selected from foil (see [0039] “metal foil current collectors”).
Regarding claim 4, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the cut electrode current collector comprises a base film and a metal layer on one surface of the base film (see [0016] “porous (dry) electrodes, coated on porous, expanded metal foil”; see FIG. 1 describes “7 current collector” & “5 separator” reads on base film; see [0039] “metal foil current collectors” reads on metal layer), wherein the base film comprises a polymer (see [0043] “polymer”), the polymer comprising polyethylene (PE) (see [0043] “polyethylene”), polypropylene (PP) (see [0043] “polypropylene”), and the metal layer comprises copper (Cu) (see [0055] “copper”), aluminum (Al) (see [0055] “aluminum”).
Regarding claim 5, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the preparing of the cut electrode current collector comprises preparing an electrode current collector sheet (see [0055] “cathode current collectors were cut”); providing an interlayer on the electrode current collector sheet (see [0055] “PVDF homopolymer binder”); and cutting the electrode current collector sheet on which the interlayer is formed (see [0057] “all above electrodes were then cut into the same size sections”).
Regarding claim 6, Kejha discloses the method of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the interlayer comprises a binder (see [0055] “PVDF homopolymer binder”).
Regarding claim 7, Kejha discloses the method of claim 5 and further discloses wherein the interlayer comprises a carbon-based conductive material (see [0056] “anode current collectors” & “mesocarbon microbeads (MCMB) as the active material”).
Regarding claim 8, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the preparing of the first dry electrode plate (see title “method” & see [0009] “dry electrodes” & see [0055] “prepared” & “cathode” which reads on electrode plate) comprises: preparing the dry mixture (see [0055] “vacuum dried in a vacuum”). Kejha does not explicitly disclose and applying the dry mixture onto at least the portion of the cut electrode current collector by using the cartridge.
Beneventi teaches doctor blade (see [0139] “doctor blade 2” & “flexible substrate 1 according to the desired pattern”). Beneventi teaches in [0001] describes does not require the use of organic solvents & describes method for preparing an electrode (see title). Beneventi describes in [0035] “dry electrodes”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate doctor blade, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0139]) into the method of preparing a dry electrode of Kejha because doing so allows for a desired pattern to be formed on the surface, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0139]).
Regarding claim 9, Kejha discloses the method of claim 8 and further discloses in [0055] “hand-dipped into the slurry” & “vacuum dried in vacuum oven”), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the preparing of the dry mixture comprises mixing together a dry electrode active material and a dry binder to prepare the dry mixture.
Beneventi teaches dry mixture preparation (see [0050] “mixture of solid particles is particularly suitable for preparing a cathode ink”) and describes in [0014] a “method that is economical, quick and easy for manufacturing supported flexible electrodes of variable shapes, that employs raw materials that are inexpensive, recyclable and non-toxic, that can easily be industrialized, that reduces the losses of materials, while allowing the production of flexible lithium batteries that have good electrochemical performance and are easy to assemble”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate dry mixture preparation of Beneventi (see [0014], [0050]) into the method of Kejha because doing so is economical, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0014]).
Regarding claim 12, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a height h of each of the protrusions on the surface of the drum is in a range of about 0.1 mm to about 20 mm, and a width w between the adjacent protrusions is in a range of about 0.01 mm to about 0.1 mm.
Wang teaches [0066] “PTFE binder particles” & “about 100 µm”.
Wang teaches a range of 100 µm (equivalent to 0.1 mm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 mm. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 13, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the preparing of the first dry electrode plate comprises applying the dry mixture having an average particle diameter of about 0.05 mm to about 1.0 mm onto the cut electrode current collector by using the cartridge.
Wang teaches in [0017] “spinning wheel that selects an output size of particles” & in [0066] “PTFE binder particles” & “about 100 µm” which is equivalent to 0.1 mm which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the preparing of the dry electrode comprises: inserting the first dry electrode plate between calender rolls; and rolling the first dry electrode plate by using the calender rolls to prepare the dry electrode (see [0060] “hot callendered”).
Regarding claim 16, Kejha discloses the method of claim 14 and further discloses wherein the preparing of the dry electrode comprises rolling the first dry electrode plate by using the calender rolls (see [0060] “hot callendered”). Kejha does not explicitly disclose to form a fibrillized dry electrode film on the cut electrode current collector in a machine direction (MD).
Beneventi teaches in [0139] “doctor blade” & “flexible substrate 1 according to the desired pattern” which reads on machine direction & [0016] “binder comprising a lignocellulosic material” & see [0023] & [0024] describes fibrous material. Beneventi teaches in [0022] “the electrode binder comprises a lignocellulosic material that makes it possible to immobilize the active material of the electrode while endowing it with excellent mechanical properties”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Beneventi to include a binder composition including a fibrous material (see [0023], [0024]) into the method of Kejha because doing so improves the mechanical properties, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0022]).
Regarding claim 17, Kejha discloses the method of preparing the dry electrode of claim 1 and further discloses a dry electrode (see [0055]).
Regarding claim 18, Kejha discloses a system for preparing a dry electrode (see [0011] “automated production”), the system comprising: a cutting portion for preparing a cut electrode current collector (see [0055] “cathode current collectors were cut”); an applicator for preparing a first dry electrode plate by applying a dry mixture onto the cut electrode current collector (see [0055] “hand-dipped into the slurry” & “vacuum dried in vacuum oven”); and a rolling portion for preparing a dry electrode by rolling the first dry electrode plate (see [0060] “hot callendered” & see [0022] “nip-rollers”). Kejha does not explicitly disclose wherein the applicator comprises a cartridge comprising a drum having a surface on which protrusions are provided.
Beneventi teaches doctor blade (see [0139] “doctor blade 2” & “flexible substrate 1 according to the desired pattern”). Beneventi teaches in [0001] does not require organic solvents & describes method for preparing an electrode (see title). Beneventi describes in [0035] “dry electrodes”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate doctor blade, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0139]) into the method of preparing a dry electrode of Kejha because doing so allows for a desired pattern to be formed on the surface, as suggested by Beneventi (see [0139]).
Wang teaches “methods for dry electrode films” (see title) & in [0044] “electrode films 112 and/or 114 may be prepared by a process as described herein”; see [0017] “classifier with a spinning wheel that selects an output size of particles” & see annotated FIG. 2B describes protrusions (see annotated “p”) on the surface. Wang teaches in [0025] “components that affect the storage potential of an energy storage device” & “particle size”.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate spinning wheel, as suggested by Wang (see [0017] & FIG. 2B) into the method of Kejha because doing so allows for an output size of particles to be selected, as suggested by Wang (see [0017]).
Regarding claim 19, Kejha discloses a dry electrode of claim 17 and further discloses a lithium battery (see title “lithium-ion cells”) comprising: a cathode; an anode (see FIG. 1 & [0041] “2 anode” & “6 cathode”); and an electrolyte between the cathode and the anode (see [0039] “electrolyte separator between the electrodes”), wherein at least one selected from the cathode and the anode is the dry electrode (see [0047] “(dry) electrodes”).
Regarding claim 20, Kejha discloses the lithium battery of claim 19 and further discloses wherein the electrolyte comprises a liquid electrolyte (see [0058] “liquid electrolyte”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kejha et al. (US 20030014859 A1, “Kejha”) in view of Beneventi et al. (US 20160126554 A1. “Beneventi”) and Wang et al. (US 20190305316 A1, “Wang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ludwig et al. (Ludwig et al., “Solvent-Free Manufacturing of Electrodes for Lithium-ion Batteries”…).
Regarding claim 2, Kejha discloses the method of claim 1 and further discloses cut electrode current collector (see [0057] “all above electrodes were then cut into the same size sections” which describes the current collectors have a size). Kejha does not explicitly disclose wherein a width W of the cut electrode current collector is in a range of about 100 mm to about 500 mm, and a length L of the cut electrode current collector is in a range of about 200 mm to about 600 mm.
Ludwig teaches in FIG. 1E “12 in” which reads on 304 mm which lies within the claimed range.
Kejha and Ludwig are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely manufacturing methods for lithium-ion batteries (see title).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kejha et al. (US 20030014859 A1, “Kejha”) in view of Beneventi et al. (US 20160126554 A1. “Beneventi”) and Wang et al. (US 20190305316 A1, “Wang”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Falzone et al. (WO 2023286787 A1, “Falzone”).
Regarding claim 10, Kejha discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the dry binder comprises a fluorine-based binder (see [0045] “preferred binder of the electrodes is polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF)” & “other polymeric binders may be also suitable”). Kejha does not explicitly disclose a glass transition temperature (Tg) of the dry binder is in a range of about 15 °C to about 100 °C, however, glass transition temperature is a property of the binder material.
Falzone teaches glass transition temperature of PTFE (see abstract “composite binder materials include a fluoropolymer, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”) & see [0118] “fibrillatable resin has a glass transition temperature of preferably 10°C or higher, more preferably 15°C or higher, while preferably 35°C or lower, more preferably 30°C or lower, still more preferably 25°C or lower” & see [0119] “The fibrillatable resin preferably includes polyethylene, polyester, and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), more preferably PTFE.”.
Kejha and Falzone are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely methods of making (see title) & “dry electrode film” (see [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a resin which has a glass transition temperature within the claimed range (see [0118]) into the method of Kejha because doing so is preferable as suggested by Falzone (see [0119]).
Kejha does not explicitly disclose a content of the dry binder is in a range of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry mixture.
Beneventi teaches a binder see [0018] “binder” & “0.5 to 30 wt% relative to the total weight of the mixture of solid particles”.
Beneventi teaches a range of 0.5 to 30 wt%, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kejha et al. (US 20030014859 A1, “Kejha”) in view of Beneventi et al. (US 20160126554 A1. “Beneventi”) and Wang et al. (US 20190305316 A1, “Wang”) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022235015 A1, “Kim”, US 20230361277 A1 used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 11, Kejha discloses the method of claim 9 and further discloses wherein the dry mixture further comprises a dry conductive material, the dry conductive material comprises a carbon-based conductive material (see [0055] “PVDF homopolymer binder” & “carbon”; see [0056] “mesocarbon microbeads (MCMB) as the active material” reads on conductive material & carbon-based conductive material). Kejha does not explicitly disclose the carbon-based conductive material comprises a fibrous carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of 10 or more, a particulate carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of 5 or less, or a combination thereof, and a content of the dry conductive material is in a range of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry mixture.
Kim teaches “electrically conductive material may be generally contained in an amount of 0.5% by weight” & “0.5% by weight or more or 1% by weight or more”; see [0066] “carbon material” & “free standing film” & “aspect ratio of greater than 1, they may be advantageously connected to each other to form a free-standing film” & “since the carbon nanotubes have a shape having an aspect ratio of greater than 1, they may be advantageously connected to each other to form a free-standing film.”
Kejha and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely manufacturing methods for batteries (see title).
Kim teaches a range of 0.5% by weight or more or 1% by weight or more, which lies within the claimed range of about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an aspect ratio of greater than 1, as suggested by Kim (see [0066]) into the method of Kejha because doing so “advantageously connect[s] to each other to form a free-standing film”, as suggested by Kim (see [0066]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kejha et al. (US 20030014859 A1, “Kejha”) in view of Beneventi et al. (US 20160126554 A1. “Beneventi”) and Wang et al. (US 20190305316 A1, “Wang”) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (KR 20230025359 A, “Kwak”) in view of Maegawa et al. (US 20140030592 A1, “Maegawa”). The machine translation is used herein for citation purposes.
Regarding claim 15, Kejha discloses the method of claim 14 and further discloses wherein the calender rolls roll the first dry electrode plate at a temperature (see [0042] “controlled heat and pressure roller laminator”; see [0060] “hot callendered by a commercial goldsmith’s roller press”; see [0061] “compliant pressure roller laminator” & describes about 110 °C – 120 °C which reads on about 150 °C; see [0073] “heat and pressure roller type laminator”). Kejha does not explicitly disclose at a temperature of about 150 °C to about 300 °C and a pressure of about 800 kgf/cm2 to about 3,500 kgf/cm2.
Kwak teaches “the heating temperature of the electrode powder is preferably controlled below the melting point of the binder resin in order to prevent deterioration of the electrode components included in the electrode powder, for example, the binder resin used. For example, it may be controlled to 320° C or less.” (see [0113]).
Kwak teaches a range of 320° C or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of about 150 °C to about 300 °C. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Kejha and Kwak are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely methods for manufacturing electrodes & dry electrode film (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate heating temperature of 320° C or less, as suggested by Kwak (see [0113]) into the method of Kejha because doing so prevents deterioration of the electrode components as suggested by Kwak (see [0113]).
Maegawa teaches pressure (see [0145] “roll press” & “press conditions are appropriately set depending on the type of press, and the desired porosity and density of the electrode active material layer. The press conditions can be easily set by a person having ordinary skill in the art by performing some preliminary experiments. When using a roll press, the linear pressure of the roll press may be set to 0.1 to 10 t/cm, and preferably 0.5 to 5 t/cm”) & t/cm appears to be a typo and should read “t/cm2”.
Maegawa teaches a range of 0.5 to 5 t/cm2 (equivalent to 500 to 5000 kgf/cm2), which overlaps the claimed range of 800 kgf/cm2 to about 3,500 kgf/cm2. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Kejha and Maegawa are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely methods for forming dry film (see [0144]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate pressure of 0.5 to 5 t/cm[2], as suggested by Maegawa (see [0145]) into the method of Kejha because doing so is preferable, as suggested by Maegawa (see [0145]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 07/14/2026
Prosecution Insights