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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 12/23/25. Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not found persuasive. Claims 21-40 are pending and remain rejected.
This Action is FINAL, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
All prior 35 USC 112 rejections of record have been withdrawn. The claims have been amended to overcome the indefinite rejections.
Double Patenting
The prior double patenting rejection of record has been withdrawn. A proper terminal disclaimer was filed on 12/23/25.
Claims Analysis
At least claim 21 recites preparing a mixture including “a measured amount of solvent that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture”. At least claim 31 recites “adding a measured amount of a solvent to the mixture that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture”. Applicant points to [0027]-[0028] of the originally filed specification for support. The cited paragraphs teach “the solvent activation step 130, if performed, may cause the binder to soften further and become more able to stretch without breaking” and “unlike slurry coating and extrusion processes in which the solvent may be 60-80% by weight of the resulting wet mixture, the present disclosed process may add a relatively small amount of solvent in step 130, amounting to less than 20% of the resulting mixture”. See also Figure 1 of the present specification.
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) 21, 23-31 and 33-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duong et al., US 2015/0303481 A1.
Duong teaches an energy storage device having a cathode, an anode and a separator between the anode and the cathode, where at least one of the cathode and the anode includes a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) composite binder material [0009]. Duong teaches electrode films may be formed using wet or dry processes. For example, active electrode materials may be combined with binder materials, solvents, and other additives, in a wet coating method which requires substantial subsequent drying techniques to fabricate an electrode film [0007]. A dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of the electrode film [0078]. The dry process includes calendaring the electrode mixture to form a free-standing electrode film [0021]. The method includes combining an active material and PTFE to form a first mixture, adding PTFE to the first mixture to form a second mixture and subjecting the second mixture to a high shear process. Both the combining and adding can include blending at a temperature of about 20°C to about 75°C Subjecting the second mixture to the high shear process may include fibrillizing the PTFE. In some embodiments, fibrillizing can include jet-milling [0017-0018]. The combining can include combining a conductive carbon additive with the active material and the PTFE to form the first mixture [0020]. In some embodiments, PVDF and the electrode active material can be mixed at a temperature of about 20°C to less than 140°C [0093]. The second mixture is compressed to form the free-standing electrode film. Compressing the electrode film mixture to form a free-standing film can be performed at a temperature sufficient to melt a meltable binder component, such as PVDF. For example, compressing the electrode film mixture to form a free-standing electrode film can be performed at temperatures higher than about 140°C, including about 140°C to about 300°C, or about 140°C to about 200°C. In some embodiments, the free-standing electrode film can be laminated to a current collector in the same step or in separate steps. In some embodiments, lamination of a free-standing electrode film to a current collector can be performed at temperatures of about 100°C to about 200°C, or about 160°C to 200°C [0101; 0117-0118]. Duong teaches DMC and DEC are known solvents for use in lithium ion batteries [0075;0088]
Duong does not explicitly teach the mixture includes a solvent. However, one of skill would have found the claimed invention obvious as Duong teaches the dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of the electrode film. Thus, Duong at least suggests small amounts of solvents (substantially no solvents) may be used to produce the free-standing electrode via the dry fabrication process. The presently claimed invention has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation wherein at least claim 1 encompass a mixture including minute amounts of a solvent. In addition, Duong teaches it was known in the art to produce an electrode film wherein active electrode materials may be combined with binder materials, solvents, and other additives, in a wet coating method which requires substantial subsequent drying techniques to fabricate an electrode film.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 is allowed. Claim 22 is 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: claims 22 and 32 require injecting the solvent into the mixture while the mixture is being subjected to the shear force. Duong does not teach or suggest injecting a solvent into a mixture including the active material, the conductive additive and PTFE while the mixture is being subjected to the shear force.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Duong fails to contemplate the use of any measured amount of solvent that is both greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture. Applicant submits the phrase “substantially no solvents” of Duong does not describe or even suggest a measured amount of solvent. Examiner disagrees. Duong explicitly teaches “a dry fabrication process can refer to a process in which no or substantially no solvents are used in the formation of the electrode film” [0078]. Duong’s disclosure of separate recitations for “no solvents” or “substantially no solvents” is emphasized. One of skill would have clearly interpreted “no solvents” to be zero and “substantially no solvents” to be a small amount greater than zero.
The teaching of Duong of a dry fabrication process in which substantially no solvents are used at least suggests a mixture including “a measured amount of solvent that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture” (claim 21) and “adding a measured amount of a solvent to the mixture that is greater than zero and less than 20% by weight of the mixture” (claim 31). One of skill in the art would have found “substantially no solvents” to render “a measured amount of solvent greater than zero” obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY DOVE whose telephone number is (571)272-1285. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-3:00.
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.
/TRACY M DOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725