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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/25 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 17 references claim 1, which is withdrawn based on the election without traverse (05/21/24) of Group II in response to the restriction mailed 05/17/24. Thus, upon further consideration, claim 17 has been deemed as further limiting a withdrawn invention and, thus, is also withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 12/22/2025, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 9, 13, and 14 is/are amended; claim(s) 17 and 27 stand(s) as originally or previously presented, with claim 17 now withdrawn, as noted above; claim(s) 1–4, 6, 8, 18, and 22–26 remain(s) withdrawn; claim(s) 5, 7, 10–12, 15, 16, and 19–21 is/are canceled; and claim 28 is added without entering new matter. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the Office Action mailed 10/22/25 has/have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection below.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 12, “crystallization degree in range” should read “crystallization degree in a range” for proper grammar.
In claim 9, lines 15 and 16, “a total weight of the electrode active material layer” should read “[[a]] the total weight of the electrode active material layer” for proper antecedence given that claim 9 already recites “a total weight of the electrode active material layer” in lines 13 and 14.
In claim 13, lines 2 and 3, because parent claim 9 abbreviates carbon nanotubes as CNT, “CNT has the BET specific surface area” should seemingly read “CNT [[has] have the BET specific surface area” for proper grammar. Examiner notes that claim 13 appears to provide sufficient antecedent basis under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the (plural) carbon nanotubes given the parent claim’s abbreviating the nanotubes as CNT.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 9’s “dry electrode” (line 1) will be interpreted as one using no solvent during manufacturing, as specially defined on p. 9, line 12.
Claim 9 further recites “wherein the electrode active material layer includes a free-standing type film” (line 3). For this Office Action the “free-standing type film” will be interpreted as “an object which can maintain its own shape without relying on other members and can be transferred or handled by itself,” as specially defined on pp. 16 and 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 9, 13, 14, 27, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashtalir et al. (WO 2023183754 A1) (Mashtalir) in view of Nagai et al. (WO 2022270361 A1, with EFD 06/25/21; citation to English equivalent US 20240290971 A1) (Nagai).
Regarding claims 9, 13, 14, 27, and 28, Mashtalir discloses an electrochemical device (battery, e.g., ¶ 00200) comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator layer interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (e.g., ¶ 00201–0204), wherein at least the positive electrode is a dry electrode (e.g., ¶ 0065 and Ex. 5 (produced without solvent), ¶ 00252–00256 and Table E with exs. such as E2) comprising a current collector (e.g., ¶ 00255); and an electrode active material layer formed on at least one surface of the current collector (e.g., ¶ 00253–00255), wherein the electrode active material layer includes a free-standing type film (e.g., ¶ 00254);
wherein the electrode active material layer comprises an electrode active material, an electrode conductive material and an electrode binder (NCM622, carbon black additive, and fibrillated PTFE, respectively, e.g., ¶ 00253 and Table E, Ex. E2), wherein the electrode binder has a fibrilized structure which binds the electrode active material and the electrode conductive material (e.g., ¶ 0036, 00253).
Mashtalir further discloses, as noted above, a high-surface-area carbon black electrode conductive material, i.e., a dot-like conductive material (instant spec., p. 4, line 20), yet, while further disclosing that the carbon black is usable alongside other conductive carbon additives (e.g., ¶ 0157–00159), fails to explicitly disclose that the electrode conductive material further comprises carbon nanotubes.
Nagai, in teaching a battery positive electrode composition (Title), teaches that the conductive material is carbon black and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) (Abstract), where the carbon black exhibits similarly high surface area of 100–400 m2/g (¶ 0016). Nagai teaches that this composition allows the conductive material to be uniformly dispersed, efficiently form a conductive path, and maintain excellent battery characteristics even when the conductive material’s content is reduced (¶ 0019). Nagai further teaches that the CNTs exhibit a BET specific surface area of 170–320 m2/g because this range allows more electrical contact points with the active and conducting materials to form while uniformly dispersing the CNTs (¶ 0054), further teaching preferably 180–300 m2/g to reduce internal resistance and achieve higher discharge-rate and cycle characteristics (¶ 0055).
Nagai and Mashtalir are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely conductive material in battery electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a mixture of CNTs and carbon black as Mashtalir’s conductive material, as taught by Nagai, with the reasonable expectation of allowing the conductive material to be uniformly dispersed, efficiently form a conductive path, and maintain excellent battery characteristics even when the conductive material’s content is reduced, as taught by Nagai. It would have been further obvious to configure the CNTs to exhibit a BET specific surface area of 180–300 m2/g—falling within 80 m2/g or more—with the reasonable expectation of increasing electrical contact points between the active and conductive materials, uniformly dispersing the CNTs, reducing internal resistance, and achieving higher discharge-rate and cycle characteristics, as taught by Nagai.
Mashtalir further discloses, as noted above, a PTFE binder (e.g., ¶ 0085 and electrode C4, Table C), as well as the ability to include an additional, non-fibrillizable binder such as PVDF (¶ 0088, 0089, 0091), disclosing that this additional binder can serve as a glue to connect the active material together and provide adhesion to the current collector (¶ 0088; see also separate embodiments partially substituting PTFE with PVDF in ¶ 0260), though Mashtalir fails to explicitly disclose, within Ex. 4, using each binder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate PVDF alongside Mashtalir’s PTFE binder with the reasonable expectation of connecting the active material together and providing adhesion to the current collector, as suggested by Mashtalir.
Regarding the crystallinity values of 0% for PVDF and greater than 0% to 15% for PTFE, Mashtalir further discloses that the binder polymer may initially be semi-crystalline (¶ 0027) but discloses that the binder (such as PTFE in Ex. E2 above) is pre-blended with conductive and active materials and then extruded via twin screw at 100°C and 400 rpm to disperse the carbon and fibrillate the binder (¶ 00253; note that the “non-fibrillizable binder” such as PVDF may undergo the same processing even if it does not fully fibrillate, as seen in Mashtalir’s ¶ 0087 and 0089). Importantly, the spec.’s p. 25, lines 15–24, explains that forming the binder-containing extrudate via twin-screw extruder at, e.g., 100–300°C and 50–600 rpm allows each of the PVDF-based and PTFE binders to achieve ≤ 30% crystallinity—and, ultimately, the recited 0% and greater than 0% to 15%, respectively (see examples).
As Mashtalir discloses a substantially similar twin-screw extrusion of PTFE (alongside the ability to extrude PVDF) at substantially similar conditions as the instant specification, the skilled artisan would have reasonably expected each of Mashtalir’s PVDF and PTFE’s crystallinity values to fall within or at least overlap 0% and greater than 0% to 15% (claim 9) or 0% and greater than 0% to 10% (claim 28), respectively, absent evidence otherwise (MPEP 2112.01 (I)), such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within each respective overlap with a reasonable expectation of forming a successful binder with suitable crystallinity and physical properties (MPEP 2144.05 (I)). Alternatively, based on this rationale, the skilled artisan would have expected Mashtalir’s process to produce crystallization values close to the respectively recited values (MPEP 2112.01 (I)), and the skilled artisan would have expected substantially similar performance from the prior-art values absent demonstrated criticality to each of the recited values (MPEP 2144.05 (I); note that spec.’s p. 15, lines 2–17, appears to indicate no criticality by generally disclosing that each binder’s crystallinity may be ≤ 30%).
Regarding the electrode conductive material’s being 0.1–0.8 wt% based on a total weight of the electrode active material layer, Mashtalir further exemplifies, in example E2 above, 1% carbon black conductive material (Table E) but more broadly allows preferably 0.3~3 wt% (¶ 00148). Similarly, for further reducing internal resistance and improving discharge rate and cycling, Nagai teaches a content of 0.01–5 mass% carbon black in the electrode and 0.01–3 mass% CNTs in the electrode (¶ 0031 and 0058, respectively). More broadly, the skilled artisan would recognize that each of Mashtalir’s carbon black and Nagai’s CNTs—the components constituting the conductive material—must necessarily be included at weights sufficient to perform their respective functions (conductivity and mechanical strength for carbon black (Mashtalir’s ¶ 0093) and increasing electrical contact points between active and conductive materials for CNTs (Nagai’s ¶ 0054)) without detracting from the active material’s necessary effect of providing capacity through ion (de)intercalation and the binder’s effects of affording mechanical stability and holding the active material together, as well as providing adhesion to the collector (Mashtalir, e.g., ¶ 0062 and 0036/0088, respectively).
To balance all these effects, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited (total) weight percentage of conductive material by routinely optimizing the carbon black and CNTs’ weight ratios in the active layer (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Mashtalir further discloses that a content of the electrode active material is, e.g., 97 wt% based on a total weight of the electrode active material layer (Ex. E2, Table E), falling within ≥ 97%.
Mashtalir further discloses that the dry electrode has an in-plane electrode resistivity of, e.g., 15~20 ohm-cm (electrode C4 (manufactured without solvent and using fibrillated binder, ¶ 00245–00248), FIG. 6; see also ¶ 0051 for in-plane) and, while further disclosing that electrode performance can be tested by other procedures such as thru-plane conductivity—which is reflected in the instant testing conditions—in failing to specify the recited testing conditions, Mashtalir fails to explicitly disclose a resistivity of 1–55 ohm•cm under these conditions.
The instant specification notes, though, that the instant resistance is calculated as Rt = Cw*Rw, where Cw represents the content of the conductive material based on the total weight of the active material layer in the target electrode, and Rw represents the electrode resistance value of the target electrode (e.g., p. 26, lines 3–12). Importantly, as seen in the formula, one skilled in the art would recognize that the electrode’s thru-plane resistivity correlates to the electrode’s 1) composition (as such determines conductive-material content and, thus, Cw) and 2) thickness (as such affects Rw by dictating distance electrons must travel).
Regarding 1), as noted above, Mashtalir exemplifies 97 wt% active material and 1% carbon black conductive material in electrode E2 but more broadly allows preferably 0.3~3 wt% (¶ 00148). Moreover, as further seen above, each of the active material, carbon black, CNTs, and PVDF and PTFE binders performs specific functions. Regarding the relation between the binder and conductive material, specifically, the skilled artisan would understand that Mashtalir’s PTFE and PVDF are electrically insulating, and, thus, too much binder would necessarily increase electrode resistance, but enough binder is needed for the above adhesion and mechanical stability. Conversely, the conductive materials would necessarily improve conductivity and, thus, reduce resistance, but too much conductive material would necessarily diminish the other components’ relative contents and, thus, effects. To balance these effects, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the active material:binder:conductive material ratio (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding 2), Mashtalir discloses that the dry electrode film may be 50–300 μm thick (¶ 0198) and, specifically, e.g., 110–120 μm (Ex. E2, ¶ 00254), which is identical to or falls within the spec.’s embodied thickness (p. 41, lines 19 and 20). More importantly, though, the skilled artisan would recognize that the film, i.e., active layer, must be thick enough for suitable capacity without being too thick to excessively increase the distance electrons must travel and, thus, resistance. To balance these effects, then, it would have been obvious to routinely optimize the electrode film’s thickness, including within the apparent overlap/correspondence with the instant disclosure’s embodied thickness (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Therefore, in optimizing both 1) the conductive material and binder’s contents as well as 2) the electrode film’s thickness, the skilled artisan would necessarily have to control and, thus, optimize Cw and Rw and, thereby, arrive at the instant resistivity as evaluated by the recited conditions (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on or renders obvious the following:
(claim 13) the CNT has the BET specific surface area of 180–300 m2/g, satisfying 80–800 m2/g (per Nagai above);
(claim 14) the electrode conductive material further comprises a dot-like conductive material (by Mashtalir’s including carbon black, i.e., a dot-like conductive material, per spec. at p. 4, line 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9 and 28 have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendment overcame the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection—which, as noted above, has been withdrawn—and necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing new reference Nagai (hereinafter “Nagai ‘971” to distinguish between this reference and the previously applied “Nagai ‘206”), as established above. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments against the remaining references as follows:
Applicant argues that Mashtalir uses carbon black as the conductive material and, thus, fails to disclose CNTs with BET surface area ≥ 80 m2/g. Examiner respectfully notes that Nagai ‘971 was used to cure this deficiency, further rendering moot the subsequent argument regarding the previous combination of Mashtalir, Nagai ‘206, and Fukumine.
Applicant then argues that using both a PVDF-based binder and PTFE binder enhances bonding strength with the conductive material, improved dispersibility of the high-surface-area conductive material, and low electrode resistance. Examiner respectfully believes that such effects are overall expected from the prior art. Mashtalir discloses, as set forth above, that using the “non-fibrillizable” binder such as PVDF alongside the fibrillizable binder such as PTFE allows the binders to together “glue” the active and conductive materials together (¶ 0036, 0088). Further, using Nagai’s CNTs with surface area of 180–300 m2/g allows the CNTs to uniformly disperse in the electrode (see claim 1’s discussion). Finally, Mashtalir aims to produce low-resistance electrodes (e.g., ¶ 0018; see also in-plane resistivities substantially similar to the instant range in fig. 6). Thus, this argument is unpersuasive.
Arguendo, if the results were unexpectedly superior, Examiner respectfully submits that claim 9 appears incommensurate with Table 2’s data. For example, claim 9 permits a total binder concentration only infinitesimally greater than 0%, whereas Table 2 only supports 0.54–0.8% first binder and 1.4–1.66% second binder for a total of 1.94–2.46%; it is unclear if the resistance results would occur across any non-zero binder content, particularly given that these binders provide excellent binding force with and improve the dispersibility of the conductive material, as well as allow the electrode to form stably and exhibit low resistance (spec., p. 14, lines 7–13). Moreover, claim 9 allows an electrode of any polarity, whereas Table 2 is limited to positive electrodes (see exs. on pp. 39 and 40); the skilled artisan would understand that the different active materials in positive electrodes (lithium metal oxides, as in above exs.) versus negative electrodes (e.g., graphite, Si; see p. 23, lines 19–26) can produce different electrode resistivities due to their different redox potentials, theoretical capacities, and conductivities (as understood even between the active materials within a given electrode, such as (conductive) graphite versus (semiconductive) Si versus (insulative) SiO). Thus, per MPEP 716.02(d), this argument is further unpersuasive.
Applicant then alleges that Mashtalir only discloses fibrillable PTFE and that replacing some of the PTFE with non-fibrillable PVDF reduces the electrode’s tensile strength based on Mashtalir’s ¶ 0260, meaning Mashtalir fails to disclose the instant PVDF-based and PTFE binders at crystallization 0% and greater than 0% to 15%, respectively. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Mashtalir explicitly allows the combination of fibrillizable and “non-fibrillizable” binders (¶ 0091, 0260), disclosing that the “non-fibrillizable” binder serves as a glue for the active material and adheres such to the collector (¶ 0088). Further, Mashtalir at ¶ 0260 further discloses that partially substituting PTFE with PVDF improves the electrode’s adhesion to the collector and can enhance other electrode characteristics. Although adding PVDF may lower the tensile strength, the skilled artisan would realize that modifications often include simultaneous advantages and trade-offs but that such does not necessarily teach away (see also MPEP 2123, 2143.01 (V.)). Rather, the artisan would have routinely adjusted the PTFE:PVDF ratio to achieve the desired degree of tensile strength, collector adhesion, electrode-ingredient cohesion, and other electrode properties with a reasonable expectation of success, as discussed above.
Regarding the crystallization values, as established above, Mashtalir extrudes the binder via twin screw under virtually identical conditions compared to the instant disclosure, which is critical because the instant spec. notes that the binders achieve their crystallization degrees via such extrusion. As no evidence of record demonstrates that Mashtalir’s method necessarily fails to achieve the instant crystallinity (note that instant comp. exs. with incorrect crystallinity were produced via rotor mixer and, thus, are incomparable to Mashtalir), this rejection is maintained. Examiner further notes that, per spec.’s p. 22, lines 15–19, the crystallization “is not limited” to the instant range achieve “improvement of the physical properties of the electrode” and, thus, does not appear critical to Applicant’s results.
Applicant’s last argument, against Lee, is moot because Lee is no longer applied. Regarding new claim 28, see the new rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 3/16/2026