DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the July 16th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on July 16th, 2026:
Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 are pending in the current application.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on July 16th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1, 3, and 5-18 are acknowledged, however, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Lee fails to disclose a relationship that reads on the instantly claimed 0.5 < Re/Rs < 1 is not persuasive.
As stated in the rejection of Claims 4-5 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 21st, 2026, Lee discloses:
a content (B1s) (wt%) of the first binder with respect to a solid in the first electrode slurry coated on the current collector in order to form the first electrode layer is 3.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]), and
a content (B2s) (wt%) of the second binder with respect to a solid in the second electrode slurry coated on the first electrode slurry in order to form the second electrode layer is 0.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that since these electrode slurries account for 100 wt% of their corresponding electrode layer, the values of B1s would be equivalent to that of B1e and B2s would be equivalent to that of B2e. And, therefore, Lee discloses an Re/Rs value of 1, which overlaps the instantly claimed range.
Applicant further argues that these values do not correspond to the instantly claimed values as they are not the Re/Rs “value of the final electrode.” This argument is not persuasive as the claims as currently written do not recite, reference, or claim any “final electrode.”
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that the manufacturing method of Lee does not include a process of heating the slurry to reduce the viscosity is not persuasive.
The claims, as currently written, require a multilayer electrode. The claims do not recite, reference, or claim any manufacturing method for said multilayer electrode. Therefore, the multilayer electrode of Lee is capable of reading on the instantly claimed multilayer electrode. Additionally, there is no claim limitation requiring a specific viscosity value or range. And, therefore, these limitations cannot be imposed on the prior art of reference.
Further, it is improper to compare the loading deviation of Lee in view of Kim to that of Applicant’s own Comparative Examples 1 and 3 solely based on the manufacturing method of Lee. Even further, the data as presented in Applicant’s specification does not justify why the skilled artisan would not be motivated to minimize the loading deviation. Applicant’s Figure 4 merely shows that an electrode having a larger difference between the maximum loading value and the minimum loading value would have a larger deviation. There is no justification as to why a larger deviation would be inferior to a smaller deviation. And as stated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 21st, 2026, it is not inventive to discover an optimum range of the loading deviation by routine experimentation with the lack of any new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.05, II).
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant’s argument that Kim cannot be used to modify Lee is not persuasive.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the benefits of minimizing loading deviation, as taught by Kim and explained in detail in the rejection of Claim 2 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on April 21st, 2026, would be true regardless of the specific manufacturing methods of Lee and/or Kim (i.e. it would still be beneficial to prevent the deterioration of the safety of the battery by having more consistent results in loading regardless of any specific manufacturing steps that were taken to arrive at a specific electrode).
Therefore, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Any modifications to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Prior Art
Previously cited Lee US PG Publication 2019/0027740 (“Lee”)
Previously cited Kim US PG Publication 2012/0321946 (“Kim”)
Previously cited Zhu US PG Publication 2014/0248543 (“Zhu”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1, 3, and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US PG Publication 2019/0027740 in view of Kim US PG Publication 2012/0321946.
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a multilayer [negative] electrode for a secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon), comprising:
a current collector ([0014]);
a first [negative] electrode [mixture] layer formed on the current collector and containing a first [negative] electrode active material and a first binder ([0014]); and
a second [negative] electrode [mixture] layer formed on the first electrode layer and containing a second [negative] electrode active material and a second binder ([0014], [0020]-[0021]),
wherein a content (wt%) of the first binder with respect to a total weight of the first electrode layer is higher than a content (wt%) of the second binder with respect to a total weight of the second electrolyte layer ([0021], [0025]-[0026]), and
an adhesion of the first electrode layer to the current collector is 37 gf/15mm (which is equivalent to about 0.24 N/cm – which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 0.2 N/cm or more) (see Examples 4-5 in Table 1); and
Lee discloses wherein a content (B1s) (Wt%) of the first binder with respect to a solid in a first electrode slurry coated on the current collector in order to form the first electrode layer is 3.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]) and a content (B2s) (Wt%) of the second binder with respect to a solid in a second electrode slurry coated on the current collector in order to form the second electrode layer is 0.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]); and the content of (B1e) of the first binder in the first electrode layer in the multilayer electrode is 3.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]) and the content (B2e) of the second binder in the second electrode layer in the multilayer electrode is 0.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that Lee discloses where Rs is 3, wherein Rs is a difference (B1s-B2s) and wherein Re is 3, wherein Re is a difference (B1e-B2e). And, therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Lee discloses wherein Re/Rs is 1 (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5<Re/Rs<1 and 0.75<Re/Rs<1)1.
Lee fails to disclose wherein in the multilayer electrode, a difference between a maximum loading value and a minimum loading value of the electrode layer at five or more positions having regular intervals in a length direction is 10% or less of a total loading average value.
However, Kim discloses a secondary battery including a first electrode plate (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon). Kim teaches that it is best to minimize the deviation of the loading level in the electrode plate as a large deviation may cause an unbalance of current flow, deteriorate the reliability of the secondary battery, deteriorate the safety of the battery, and deteriorate the performance of the battery ([0064]-[0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the multilayer electrode of Lee such that a difference between a maximum loading value and a minimum loading value of the electrode layer at five or more positions having regular intervals in a length direction is minimized in order to avoid an unbalance of current flow, deteriorate the reliability of the secondary battery, deteriorate the safety of the battery, and deteriorate the performance of the battery, as taught by Kim2.
1 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).
2 “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein the content of (B1e) of the first binder in the first electrode layer in the multilayer electrode is 3.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]) and the content (B2e) of the second binder in the second electrode layer in the multilayer electrode is 0.5 wt% (Example 4, [0086]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Lee in view of Kim discloses wherein Re is 3 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of more than 0.2), wherein Re is a difference (B1e-B2e).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein a weight ratio of the electrode active material (200 wt% - combination of the first electrode slurry, 100 wt%, and the second electrode slurry, 100 wt%): the sum of the first (3.5 wt% of the first electrode slurry) and the second (0.5 wt% of the second electrode slurry) binders in the solid is 1:0.02 (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1:0.01 to 0.1) (Example 4, [0086]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein the first and the second binders are water-soluble (Example 1, [0079]-[0083] wherein the binders are both mixed in distilled water).
Regarding Claim 10, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 9, and Lee discloses wherein the water-soluble binder is selected from a list including styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) and polyvinyl alcohol (which meets the claim limitation of styrene-butadiene rubber, acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber, polyvinyl alcohol, sodium polyacrylate, a copolymer of propylene and olefin having 2 to 8 carbon atoms, polyacrylamide, a copolymer of (meth)acrylic acid and (meth)acrylic acid alkyl ester, or combinations thereof) ([0028], [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 11, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein the water-soluble binder is styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) (which meets the claim limitation of styrene-butadiene rubber or acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber) ([0028], [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein the first and second binders are the same (i.e. both are styrene butadiene rubber SBR) ([0028], [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 13, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein the first and second electrode layers each include a [carboxymethyl cellulose - CMC] thickener (Example 1, [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 14, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 13, and Lee discloses wherein the thickener is carboxymethyl cellulose - CMC (Example 1, [0080]-[0081]).
The skilled artisan would recognize that CMC is a cellulose-based compound, as evidenced in paragraph [0041] of Applicant’s own PG Publication.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 13, and Lee discloses wherein the thickener in the first electrode layer and the thickener in the second electrode layer are both CMC (Example 1, [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein the electrode is a negative electrode (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee in view of Kim teaches the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1, and Lee discloses wherein the first and second electrode active materials are selected from a group including artificial graphite, natural graphite, and hard carbon (Example 1, [0042], [0080]-[0081]).
Regarding Claim 18, Lee in view of Kim discloses a secondary battery ([0062]) comprising: the multilayer electrode as described in the rejection of Claim 1 ([0062]); a separator ([0062]); and an electrolyte ([0062]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee US PG Publication 2019/0027740 in view of Kim US PG Publication 2012/0321946, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Zhu US PG Publication 2014/0248543.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Lee in view of Kim discloses the instantly claimed multilayer electrode according to Claim 1. Lee fails to disclose a distribution of the first binder and a distribution of the second binder.
However, Zhu discloses a secondary battery comprising a binder of CMC ([0012]-[0017], [0103], [0163]).
Zhu teaches decreasing the binder concentration with increasing distance from the interface comprising a current collector ([0131], [0163]-[0171]) to allow for a minimization of the thickness of the active material layer while allowing the electrochemically deposited active material to remain intact ([0128]-[0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the multilayer electrode of Lee in view of Kim such that a concentration distribution of the first binder decreases as a distance from the current collector increases in a thickness direction of an electrode and a concentration distribution of the second binder decreases as a distance from the current collector increases in a thickness direction of an electrode to allow for minimization of the thickness of the active material layer while allowing the deposited active material to remain intact, as taught by Zhu.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON MELFI whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights