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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 23 and its dependent claims cites a “precipitated binder” and a “dissolved binder”. Based on paragraphs 0025, 0197, and 0198 of the instant specification, it appears that both binders are dried before inclusion in the final product. Therefore, the limitations of “precipitated” and “dissolved” are considered product-by-process limitations.
In this regard, it has been held that the determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself and does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (See MPEP 2113).
For the purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the structural limitations provided by the “precipitated binder” and the “dissolved binder” are that there are at least two distinct binders; the “dissolved binder” is not interpreted as a binder in a dissolved state.
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.
Claim(s) 22, 35-36, and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawai (JP 2003077542 A, machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 22, Kawai teaches an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising:
a current collector (Abstract),
an electrode layer having a high porosity region (Abstract, 0006 – negative electrode material A1 has a greater average porosity than A2); and
a separator layer (0053 – porous membrane) in physical contact with the electrode layer (0066 – the separator is placed between the positive electrode and negative electrode and laminated and would therefore be in physical contact with the electrodes), the separator layer having a high porosity region (0066 – the porous separator would necessarily have a high porosity region);
wherein the electrode layer and the separator layer in physical contact at an interface, and the interface comprises a low porosity region (0006, 0066 – the separator would contact the negative electrode material layer A2, which can be viewed as an interface with a low porosity region).
Regarding Claim 35, Kawai teaches the cell of Claim 22. The electrode layer comprises an anode active material (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 36, Kawai teaches the cell of Claim 35. The active material comprises carbon-based active materials such as graphite (0020).
Regarding Claim 38, Kawai teaches the cell of Claim 22. The electrode layer may comprise a conductive additive (0026 – conductive materials).
Claim(s) 22 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuo (WO 2019244282 A1, machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 22, Mitsuo teaches an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising:
a current collector (Abstract),
an electrode layer having a high porosity region (Abstract – connecting parts with high void ratio region); and
a separator layer (0152) in physical contact with the electrode layer (0153), the separator layer having a high porosity region (0156 – the separator has a porosity and would necessarily have a high porosity region);
wherein the electrode layer and the separator layer in physical contact at an interface, and the interface comprises a low porosity region (Abstract, 0012 – the low void ratio region is positioned along the surfaces of the active material bodies; Fig. 3 – there is active material at the surface of the positive electrode which would form an interface with the separator, meaning that there would be a low porosity region at the interface).
Regarding Claim 33, Mitsuo teaches the cell of Claim 22. The electrode layer comprises a cathode active material (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Mitsuo teaches the cell of Claim 33. The cathode active material is a composite oxide containing lithium and nickel (0118) and can be viewed as a metal oxide.
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.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (JP 2003077542 A, machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 32, Kawai teaches the cell of Claim 22. The average porosity of the low porosity region (A2) is between 1% and 59% (0014), which overlaps the claimed range of 5% to 30%.
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 the overlapping portions of the disclosed porosity ranges as the selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (JP 2003077542 A, machine translation provided) in view of Tanaami (US 20220231288 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Kawai teaches the cell of Claim 22. Kawai teaches various binders suitable for the electrode layer (0022-0023) and that mixtures of binders may be used (0024) but does not explicitly disclose an embodiment where two binders are used in combination.
Tanaami teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode with a binder (Abstract). Various binders may be used in combination of two or more (0053). The first binder may be viewed as the precipitated binder and the second binder may be viewed as the dissolved binder.
Kawai and Tanaami are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells with binders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the binder of Kawai with two binders taught by Tanaami as it is a known number of binders for an electrode. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an electrode with a suitable number of binders and it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B).
Regarding Claims 24-28, modified Kawai teaches the cell of Claim 23. Tanami teaches that the binders may be a thermoplastic elastomer (Claim 24) such as styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) (Claims 25 and 26) and a fluororesin or fluoropolymer (Claim 27) such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Claim 28) (0053).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified selected styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) for the binders of modified Kawai as Tanaami lists them as suitable binders for an electrode and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Claim(s) 37 and 39-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo (WO 2019244282 A1, machine translation provided) in view of Yao (US 20230112652 A1, cited in the 6/12/2025 IDS) and Zamani (US 20240039099 A1).
Regarding Claims 37 and 39-41, Mitsuo teaches the cell of Claim 22. Mitsuo teaches that the separator is impregnated with an electrolyte (0152) and does not teach that it comprises a solid-state electrolyte material.
Yao teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a separator disposed between an anode and a cathode (Abstract). An integrated ceramic separator may be used in combination with a porous polyolefin film penetrated with a liquid electrolyte (0111). The integrated ceramic separator inhibits Li-dendrite growth and prevents short circuits (0058).
Mitsuo and Yao are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells with separators.
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 modified the cell of Mitsuo by including the integrated ceramic separator of Yao in the cathode in order to inhibit Li-dendrite growth and prevent short circuits.
Yao teaches that the integrated ceramic separator may comprise sulfide ceramic particles (0062) but does not specify the material.
Zamani teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a catholyte/integrated separator where the catholyte material may be a sulfide-based solid electrolyte (0029). An example of a sulfide-based solid electrolyte is Li6PS5Cl (0032).
Zamani is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells with separators.
Examiner notes that, although Zamani utilizes a m additional solid electrolyte rather than a porous polymeric film and liquid electrolyte like modified Mitsuo, Yao teaches that an integrated ceramic separator/catholyte is compatible with both types of electrolytes (Yao: 0111).
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 Li6PS5Cl as the sulfide ceramic particle in the integrated separator of modified Mitsui as Zamani teaches it as a suitable material for a catholyte/integrated separator. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a catholyte/integrated separator comprising a suitable sulfide material and it has been held that the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP 2143 A).
The integrated ceramic separator comprising Li6PS5Cl would result in the electrode layer comprising a solid-state electrolyte material (Claim 37) and the separator layer comprising a solid-state electrolyte material (Claim 39), where the solid-state electrolyte material comprises Li6PS5Cl (Claims 40 and 41).
Claim(s) 23-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo (WO 2019244282 A1, machine translation provided) in view of Tanaami (US 20220231288 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Mitsuo teaches the cell of Claim 22. Mitsuo teaches that the electrode comprises a binder (0150) but does not teach that two binders are used together.
Tanaami teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode with a binder (Abstract). Various binders may be used in combination of two or more (0053). The first binder may be viewed as the precipitated binder and the second binder may be viewed as the dissolved binder.
Mitsuo and Tanaami are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells with binders.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the binder of Mitsuo with two binders taught by Tanaami as it is a known number of binders for an electrode. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an electrode with a suitable number of binders and it has been held that the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B).
Regarding Claims 24-28, modified Mitsuo teaches the cell of Claim 23. Tanaami teaches that the binders may be a thermoplastic elastomer (Claim 24) such as styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) (Claims 25 and 26) and a fluororesin or fluoropolymer (Claim 27) such as polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (Claim 28) (0053).
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 styrene-ethylene-butylene-styrene block copolymer (SEBS) and polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) for the binders of modified Mitsuo as Tanaami lists them as suitable binders for an electrode and choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143 E).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuo and Tanaami as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Yao (US 20230112652 A1, cited in the 6/12/2025 IDS).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Mitsuo teaches the cell of Claim 23. Modified Mitsuo does not teach that the separator further comprises a precipitated binder and a dissolved binder, wherein the precipitated binder and the dissolved binder are the same as the precipitated binder and the dissolved binder in the electrode layer.
Yao teaches an electrochemical cell comprising a separator disposed between an anode and a cathode (Abstract). An integrated ceramic separator may be used in combination with a porous polyolefin film penetrated with a liquid electrolyte (0111). The integrated ceramic separator inhibits Li-dendrite growth and prevents short circuits (0058).
Mitsuo and Yao are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cells with separators.
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 modified the cell of Mitsuo by including the integrated ceramic separator of Yao in the cathode in order to inhibit Li-dendrite growth and prevent short circuits.
Due to the integrated separator, at least part of the separator layer would comprise the same precipitated binder and dissolved binder as in the electrode layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not teach or suggest the limitations of Claim 30 where “the concentration of the precipitated binder in the electrode layer and the precipitated binder in the separator layer defines a gradient across the interface”.
The prior art teaches binder concentration gradients in cathodes and separators:
Zhang (US 20190305299 A1) teaches that electrodes may have a higher concentration of binder at the surface compared to at the current collector (0006). Specifically, a concentration ratio between the concentration at the surface to the current collector of 2 or less results in an electrode that is more physically robust and less susceptible to cracking (0027). Kim (US 20170263927 A1) suggests that this binder distribution is a natural result of binder migration during the formation of the electrode (Kim: 0046). Examiner notes that both Kim and Zhang indicate that this difference results in negative properties if the difference is too great (Zhang: 0006; Kim: 0046)
Park (US 20230268615 A1) teaches that a separator may have a concentration gradient that increases toward an electrode in order to improve adhesion (0037).
Tanaami (US 20220231288 A1) and Becker (US 20230307603 A1) teach that the claimed precipitated binder (SEBS) and dissolved binder (PVDF) are known binders in both electrodes and separators (Tanaami: 0053; Becker: 0065).
Thus, based on the teachings of Zhang, Park, Tanaami, and Becker, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an electrode and separator comprising the same precipitated and dissolved binders, where both the concentration of the precipitated binder in the electrode and the concentration of the precipitated binder in the separator increases in the direction of the interface between the electrode and separator.
However, the binder concentration gradients are not related to each other, and the modification would only result in two independent binder concentration gradients (cathode gradient and separator gradient) that meet at the interface rather than a single gradient across the interface. The prior art does not teach or suggest a binder concentration gradient that is continuous over both the electrode and the separator.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Woehrle (US 20170317338 A1) teaches an electrochemical cell (Title) comprising an electrode where the concentration of the binder decreases toward the current collector (Abstract). The electrode comprises a high-porosity region and a low-porosity region: the ratio of the porosity in a near-surface layer to the porosity of a layer near the collector is 1.2 to 5 (0047).
However, Example 3 has a porosity of 36% at the surface and a porosity of 30% at the current collector side (0071). Therefore, it appears that the aforementioned 1.2 to 5 is a ratio range (1.2:1 to 5:1) rather than a ratio (1.2:5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights