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
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Status of Application
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 currently depends from Claim 3. Claim 3 currently recites “… the dry electrode film … is free of a residual processing solvent”. Claim 7 also currently recites “The electrode as claimed in claim 3, wherein the dry electrode film is free of a residual processing solvent” which does not further limit the subject matter of the claim 3.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4,7-11,14-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauer (US20180076464A1, IDS cited).
Regarding claim 1, Bauer discloses an electrode comprising:
an electrode current collector (current collector layer 2);
a metal lead (terminal region 3) comprising a first region on the electrode current collector and a second region protruding outward from the electrode current collector; and
an electrode active material layer (active material foil 4) on the electrode current collector,
wherein the electrode active material layer (active material foil 4) covers at least a portion of a side surface A of the first region of the metal lead (i.e., the side surface A and an upper surface of the active material layer 4K are adjacent to each other; see the annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
527
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the side surface A of the first region of the metal lead directly contacts the electrode active material layer (i.e., there is no additional component disposed between the side surface A and the electrode active material layer, thus the two components are directly communicating; see in Fig 1).
Regarding claims 3, 7, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrode active material layer is a dry electrode film [0018], and wherein the dry electrode film is a self-standing film (“free-standing active material foil” [0018]), and is free of a residual processing solvent (“does not use solvents, or is largely free of solvents” [0018]).
Regarding claim 4, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 3, wherein the dry electrode film comprises a dry electrode active material [0019]. Bauer further discloses wherein the dry electrode film comprises at least one binding agent that may be present in the form of fibrils and may be a PVDF [0019], which envisages the claim limitation of “dry binder comprises a fibrillized binder that is a fluorine-based binder”.
Regarding claim 8, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrode active material layer (active material foil 4) covers the entire side surface A of the first region of the metal lead (i.e., the side surface A entirely lies within or “covers” an upperside of the active material layer 4; see Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
417
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrode is free of an insulating layer on the metal lead and the electrode current collector (see Fig 1).
Regarding claim 10, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrode active material layer (active material foil 4) further covers at least a portion of an upper surface B of the first region of the metal lead (i.e., as shown in Fig 1 below, the upper surface B and the rightside of the foil 4 are aligned, thus, when seen from the bottomview of Fig 1, the right surface of the active layer 4K would lie over or “cover” the upper surface B of the metal lead; see Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
527
617
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 9, wherein a thickness T2 of an area of the electrode active material layer overlaps the metal lead (i.e., 0mm as the electrode active material layer 4 does not overlap with the metal lead) and is less than a thickness T1 of the electrode active material layer that overlaps the electrode current collector (see T1 in the annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
474
248
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein a length L of the first region of the metal lead is at most equal to a width W of the electrode current collector (current collector layer 2, see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
417
597
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein, one end of an area in a longitudinal direction X of the electrode current collector is defined as 0a, another end of the area in a longitudinal direction X of the electrode current collector is defined as 100a, and areas therebetween are defined as 1a to 99a, and the metal lead is in at least one selected from among areas 1a to 99a (see the annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
474
248
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein the electrode current collector is a layer or a sheet [0051].
Regarding claim 19, Bauer discloses a lithium battery (Electrochemical cell 20; Fig 1) comprising: a cathode (cathode 1K; e.g., LFP [0047]); an anode (anode 1A; [0047]); and an electrolyte (e.g., NASICON [0004,0021]) between the cathode and the anode, wherein at least one of the cathode or the anode is the electrode according to claim 1 [0047].
Regarding claim 20, Bauer discloses the lithium battery as claimed in claim 19, wherein the electrolyte comprises a solid electrolyte (“inorganic solid-body electrolyte” [0021]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US20180076464A1, IDS cited 03/20/2025).
Regarding claim 6, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 3,
wherein the dry electrode film further comprises a dry conductive material (e.g., conductive additives such as carbon black or graphite), wherein the dry conductive material comprises a carbon-based conductive material, and wherein the carbon-based conductive material comprises a particulate carbon-based material having an aspect ratio of 5 or less (e.g., conductive additive such as conductive carbon black or graphite [0019]), and
an amount of the dry conductive material is less than or equal to 2 wt% [0019], which overlaps with the claimed range of “about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film”.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected the overlapping amount of dry conductive material, with a reasonable expectation to form a paste-like, shapeable mass to form a free-standing active material foil [0018].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US20180076464A1, IDS cited 03/20/2025), in view of Yudi (US20210098770A1).
Regarding claim 5, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 4, wherein the dry binder may be a PVDF in 4 wt% with respect to the active material foil [0019], which falls within the claimed range of “about 0.1 wt% to about 5 wt% with respect to a total weight of the dry electrode film.” However, PVDF does not have a glass transition temperature that falls within the claimed range of “about 15 °C to about 150 °C”.
In this regard, Yudi teaches a dry, free standing electrode film for an energy storage device, wherein the electrode film comprises PTFE and at least one or more binder components selected from the list comprising PVDF, PEO, PDMS [Yudi 0063] in about 1.5 wt% to 5 wt% of the electrode film [Yudi 0061]. Yudi further teaches such fibrilized binder provides desired mechanical support for other components in the film [Yudi 0055]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used PTFE, which has a glass transition temperature within the claimed range, in addition to the PVDF binder, with a reasonable expectation to provide mechanical support for other components of the electrode film [Yudi 0055].
Claim(s) 12-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US20180076464A1, IDS cited 03/20/2025), in view of Imhof (DE19838123A1, translation attached, IDS cited 03/20/2025).
Regarding claim 12-13, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1. However, Bauer does not disclose wherein the metal lead comprises an uneven portion on the first region {claim 12} and further does not disclose “wherein an area of the uneven portion is 50 % or more of a total area of the first region” {claim 13}.
In this regard, Imhof teaches an electrode 21, wire mesh 11 that serves as a carrier (e.g., nickel wire mesh; i.e., current collector), and a current collector tab 15, wherein the current collector tab 15 to the wire mesh 11 and the electrode 21 (See Fig 2 – Imhof). Imhof further teaches wherein the first region (i.e., non-protruding portion) of the tab is entirely roughened, knurled or corded so that its surface is not smooth (see Fig 2), wherein such surface is advantageous for increasing the number of points of contact in welding zone between the current collector tab and the current collector [0018 - Imhof].
As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the metal lead of Bauer, such that its first region is entirely uneven as taught by Imhof, with a reasonable expectation to increase the number of points of contact and to better weld the current collector tab and the current collector [0018-Imhof].
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US20180076464A1, IDS cited 03/20/2025), in view of Zeng (CN218513485U, translation attached).
Regarding claim 17, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the electrode current collector comprises a metal layer made of copper, nickel, or aluminum [Bauer 0047].
However, Bauer does not disclose wherein the current collector further comprises:
a base film on at least one side of the metal film,
wherein the base film comprises a polymer, and the polymer comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyimide (PI), or a combination thereof
In this regard, Zeng teaches a current collector for lithium ion battery wherein the current collector comprises a polymer film substrate and a metal layer, wherein the metal layer comprises copper, aluminum, nickel [Zeng 0019] and the polymer film comprises PET, PE, PP, and PI [Zeng 0020]. Zeng further teaches such current collector has high tensile strength and the polymer layer improves the safety performance of the battery, especially the needle penetration resistance [Zeng 0035]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added a polymer film on the metal layer with a reasonable expectation to form a current collector with high tensile strength and a battery with high safety [Zeng 0035].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US20180076464A1, IDS cited 03/20/2025), in view of Madsen (WO2022123207A1, US equivalent US20240006592A1 used as translation).
Regarding claim 18, Bauer discloses the electrode as claimed in claim 1. Bauer is silent to wherein the electrode further comprises an interlayer between the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector, wherein the interlayer comprises a carbon-based conductive material.
In this regard, Madsen teaches an electrode structure including a current collector layer and a free-standing electrode layer, and an interlayer comprising a conducting material (e.g., carbon [0069]) [Madsen 0018], wherein the interlayer is disposed between the current collector surface and the electrode surface to improve electrical contact between the electrode and the current collector layer [Madsen 0018]. As such, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added an interlayer comprising conductive carbon material between the electrode active material layer and the current collector, with a reasonable expectation to improve electrical contact [Madsen 0018].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAEYOUNG SON whose telephone number is (703)756-1427. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 7/23/2026
Prosecution Insights