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 .
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn. The pending claims are claims 1-10.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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.
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.
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 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 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Yudi does not teach the claimed “crystallinity of 10% or less” and that, “an active material and a binder resin does not necessarily have a crystallinity of 10% or less, refuting the obviousness rejection based on the inherency theory.”
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).
Yudi et al., teaches the same structural free standing electrode film (abstract) where the electrode comprises an active material and a binder resin (0005-0006), as claimed in independent claim 1.
The Applicant argues that “the data illustrates that every free-standing type electrode film including an active material and a binder resin does not necessarily have a crystallinity of 10% or less, refuting the obviousness rejection based on the inherency theory.” Additionally, Applicant argues that “even when the composition of the free-standing electrode film is the same, based on the difference in processing conditions the crystallinity will not be necessarily and always arrive at the claimed range.”
The Applicant argues that “Yudi only teaches a method including blending and calendaring and is silent in regards to the kneading and pulverizing steps.”
However, it is noted claims 1-10 are product claims. It is also noted the method claims are open meaning the transitional phrase is “comprising”. Applicant is remined of MPEP 2111.03 I. Additionally Yudi teaches a method including both kneading and pulverizing steps, because a synonym for kneading is rolling (0031), and a synonym for pulverizing is milling (0027; 0034), which are both included in the method of Yudi..
Yudi teaches an electrode having the same structure and the same method of processing. Therefore, the binder resin in the free-standing electrode film would have a crystallinity of 10% or less.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sonntag et al., US 2016/0340476; Zhang et al., US 20180175366.
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