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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
The amendment/remarks submitted 02/20/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending. Claim 10 is cancelled. Claims 3-4, 9, 11, and 13-14 are amended. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are examined herein.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 2023/0378468 A1 (“Katou”) in view of US 2023/0042207 A1 or WO 2023/014127 A1 (“Kang”). (The documents US 2023/0042207 A1 and WO 2023/014127 A1 appear to have the same disclose. The US document is referenced below.)
The applied reference has a common joint inventor, applicant, and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 15, Katou discloses an electrode 10 comprising a core 11 (“electrode current collector”) and an electrode mixture 12 (“electrode layer”) provided on a surface of the core 11 (Abstract; Fig. 1; [0015]-[0016]). The electrode mixture 12 comprises an active material and a fluorine-containing binder (such as PTFE and PVdF) ([0017]). The fluorine-containing binder comprises fibrous PTFE ([0025], [0031]-[0034]). Katou further discloses the electrode mixture is produced by a dry method ([0023], [0044]).
While Katou is silent regarding the QBR as specifically recited in the instant claims 1 and 6, Katou discloses the following: When the electrode mixture 12 is trisected in the thickness direction to specify a first region, a second region, and a third region from a side of the core 11, a content (a) of the PTFE powder in the first region, a content (b) of the PTFE powder in the second region, and a content (c) of the PTFE powder in the third region preferably satisfy −5%≤(c−a)/(a+b+c)≤5%. That is, a difference between: the content (a) of the PTFE powder in the first region, near the surface; and the content (c) of the PTFE powder in the third region, near the core 11, being preferably within a range of ±5%, based on all the contents of the PTFE powder (a+b+c) allows the PTFE powder to be substantially uniformly present in the entire electrode mixture 12 without unevenly presence in a part thereof ([0040]). Given the production method of Katou and the disclosure of the range of (c−a)/(a+b+c), it is the position of the Office that the QBR as claimed is necessarily present. However, even if the QBR is not necessarily present it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed QBR because Katou prefers PTFE powder to be substantially uniformly present in the entire electrode mixture 12 without unevenly presence in a part thereof.
Katou does not expressly disclose the electrode has a bending resistance of 2 to 10 mm Φ.
Kang discloses a method for manufacturing a dry electrode (Abstract). Kang discloses the dry electrode obtained as described has a flexing resistance of less than 10 mm φ, particularly, a flexing resistance of 8 mm φ or less. The dry electrode film causes less cutting of the fibrilized binder, and thus can provide improved flexibility ([0126]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed bending resistance in view of the method of Kang causing less cutting of the fibrilized binder, preventing cracks when the electrode is bent.
Regarding claim 2, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 1. Katou further discloses the electrode mixture 12 comprises a conductive agent such as carbon materials ([0018], [0022]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 2. Katou further discloses an example wherein the active material (a lithium-transition metal composite oxide) is provided in an amount of 95.2 mass %, the conductive agent (acetylene black) is provided in an amount of 1.0 mass %, and PTFE is provided in an amount of 3.8 mass % based on a total mass of the electrode mixture 12 ([0052]-[0053]). See also the broader discussion in [0020], [0022], and [0024].
Regarding claims 7-8, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 2. Kang discloses the bending resistance test is performed in accordance with JIS K5600-5-1 ([0126]). It is the Office’s understanding that the method recited in instant claim 8 is a restatement of testing procedure in JIS K5600-5-1.
Regarding claim 12, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 1. It is deemed that the adhesion strength is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed electrode. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
“When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Regarding claim 16, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 1. Katou further discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising the electrode ([0014]).
Regarding claims 18-19, modified Katou discloses the secondary battery of claim 16. It is deemed that the resistance at 0.1 seconds [claim 18] and 10 seconds [claim 19] are inherent characteristics and/or properties of the specifically disclosed electrode. See the sections of MPEP 2112 cited above.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0378468 A1 (“Katou”) in view of US 2023/0042207 A1 or WO 2023/014127 A1 (“Kang”) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of US 2021/0344014 A1 (“Park”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 1. Katou does not expressly disclose the electrode current collector further comprises a conductive primer layer on at least one surface thereof.
Park discloses an electrode for a lithium secondary battery which includes an electrode current collector; a primer coating layer disposed on at least one surface of the electrode current collector (Abstract). The primer coating layer increases the interfacial resistance between the electrode current collector and the electrode active material layer, and reduces the amount of short-circuit current flowing thorough a nail, even when nail penetration occurs, and thus can improve the safety of a battery ([0016]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the primer coating layer of Park to improve the safety of a battery.
Regarding claim 17, modified Katou discloses the secondary battery of claim 16. Katou does not expressly disclose an energy storage system comprising the secondary battery as a unit cell.
Park teaches that lithium secondary batteries are known to be used as batteries for vehicles due to their high energy density and high output ([0002], [0045]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the secondary battery as a unit cell in an energy storage system as a unit cell because this is a known use of a battery from which one would expect the combination to yield predictable results.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0378468 A1 (“Katou”) in view of US 2023/0042207 A1 or WO 2023/014127 A1 (“Kang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2020/0274164 A1 (“Nakano”).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 1. Katou does not expressly disclose a degree of crystallinity of the fluorine-containing binder is 10% or lower [claim 9] or ranges from 0% to 3% [claim 11].
Nakano discloses an electrode for a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery has a current collector and an electrode active material layer arranged on a surface of the current collector (Abstract). The electrode active material layer includes an electrode active material and a binder including polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF), and the polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) is in a non-crystallized state and is included in the range of 0.5 to 3.3% by volume with respect to the total volume of the electrode in the electrode active material layer (Abstract). The PVdF in the non-crystallized state retains the shape of the electrode active material layer and improves the cycle durability of the battery ([0009], [0017], [0157]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of a non-crystallized (i.e. 0% crystallinity) PVdF as taught by Nakano to retain the shape of the electrode active material layer and improve the cycle durability of the battery.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0378468 A1 (“Katou”) in view of US 2023/0042207 A1 or WO 2023/014127 A1 (“Kang”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2003/0175588 A1 (“Zhang”).
Regarding claim 13, modified Katou discloses the electrode of claim 1. Katou does not expressly disclose that the fluorine-containing [fibrillized] binder further comprises one or more of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) or polyvinylidene fluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (PVDF-HFP).
Zhang discloses a cathode composition for a lithium secondary battery (Abstract). The cathode composition comprises binder fibers such as polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, and a vinylidene fluoride copolymer ([0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include fibrous PVDF in addition to fibrous PTFE because Zhang shows them to be equivalent binder fibers known in the art for the same purpose. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5-6, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6-8, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, 12, 14-16, and 18-19 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2023/0042207 A1 or WO 2023/014127 A1 (“Kang”). These documents appear to have the same disclosure and are both relied upon, though only the US document is cited in the rejection. It is noted that the applied reference has a common joint inventor, applicant, and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This action is made NON-FINAL.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Scott Carrico whose telephone number is (571)270-5504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:15AM-6PM ET.
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.
Robert Scott Carrico
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/Robert S Carrico/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
