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 .
A new Non-Final Rejection is presented below.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn. The pending claims are claims 1-10.
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yudi et al., US 20210098770, in view of Nakano et al., US 2020/0274164.
Regarding claim 1, Yudi et al., teaches an electrode (abstract; 0004-0007) for an electrochemical device (abstract; 0017), comprising: a free-standing type electrode film (abstract; 0020; 0031), wherein the free-standing type electrode film comprises an active material (abstract; 0017-0018) and a binder resin (0021; 0025; 0031), wherein the binder resin contained in the free-standing type electrode film has a crystalline structure (0054).
Yudi does not teach a crystallinity of 10% or less.
Nakano et al., teaches a binder comprising a crystallinity of 0.5 to 3.3% or less (0011; 0016; 0019; 0027).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Nakano into the teachings of Yudi because Nakano teaches that “when the binder formed of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) is contained in an amount of 3.3% by volume or less, it is possible to retain the shape of the electrode active material layer without adversely affecting the discharge capacity at a high rate.” (0157).
Regarding claim 2, Yudi et al., does not teach wherein the free-standing type electrode film has a tensile elongation of 2% or more and 30% or less.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 3, Yudi et al., does not teach wherein the free-standing type electrode film has a tensile strength of 0.5 Mpa or more and 10.0 Mpa or less in the machine direction (MD).
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 4, Yudi et al., does not teach wherein the free-standing type electrode film (abstract; 0010) has a porosity of 10 to 45%.
Regarding claim 5, Yudi et al., teaches wherein the free-standing type electrode film further comprises a conductive material (abstract; 0036; 0039).
Regarding claim 6, Yudi et al., does not teach wherein a ratio of the active material : conductive material : a binder resin is 80-98 wt% : 0.5-10 wt% : 0.5-10 wt%.
However, A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 7, Yudi et al., teaches wherein the binder resin comprises one or more of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (0018; 0040-0041), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (0040-0041; 0063-004), or polyolefin (0041; 0063).
Regarding claim 8, Yudi et al., teaches wherein the conductive material comprises one or more of natural graphite (0061), carbon black (0039; 0061), ketjen black (0071).
Regarding claim 9, Yudi et al., teaches further comprising a current collector (0025; 0031; 0053), wherein the free-standing type electrode film (0020; 0031; 0036-0037) is disposed on at least one surface or both surfaces of the current collector (0034; 0051; 0053).
Regarding claim 10, Yudi et al., teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode of claim 1 (0003; 0028).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “crystallinity of 10% or less of the binder resin is not inherent over Yudi because more than a mere probability or possibility of the allegedly inherent feature’s existence must be shown, and as such, the prior art fails to teach or suggest all of the claimed elements.” Yudi does not teach a crystallinity of 10% of less.
However, a new Non-Final Rejection is presented above, Yudi et al., US 20210098770, in view of a new reference, Nakano et al., US 2020/0274164, wherein the new secondary reference, Nakano et al., teaches a binder comprising a crystallinity of 0.5 to 3.3% or less (0011; 0016; 0019; 0027).
The Applicant argues that “the reasonable expectation of success requirement refers to "the likelihood of success" in combining or modifying prior art disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention.”
However, modification of Yudi with the new secondary reference, Nakano, provides a “reasonable expectation of success” because the crystallinity of less than 10% in Nakano teaches that “when the binder formed of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) is contained in an amount of 3.3% by volume or less, it is possible to retain the shape of the electrode active material layer without adversely affecting the discharge capacity at a high rate.” (0157).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights