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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 3/26/2026.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claim 1 to include one of the optional limitations of original claim 1, specifically the dispersion density. Applicant argues the applied refence of the last office action does not contain the limitation. The rejection of newly amended claim 1 is detailed below. Please take note that the deletion of the optional limitation of claim 5 has no bearing on the prior rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dispersion density" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, the term “dispersion density” is not clearly defined in the specification and it is not a term commonly used in the art that would be readily understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. For examination purposes this limitation will be interpreted as density.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2018101624 (A) YUSUKE et al. provided in the IDS dated 7/10/2025 in view of JP2016048652 (A), HIROYA et al. provided in the IDS dated 7/10/2025 as evidenced by KIMA CHEMICAL.
Regarding claim 1. YUSUKE [0011] discloses an electrode plate, which the reference calls an electrode,
comprising a current collector [0011],
a bottom coating [0011] that the reference calls a pressure relaxation layer, and
an active layer [0011], wherein
the bottom coating is positioned between the current collector and the active layer [0011]; and
the bottom coating comprises
a conductive agent [0011] which the reference calls a conductive carbon filler, and
[0011] the active layer which the reference calls the electrode active material layer comprises
[0011] active materials and
[0029] a first liquid absorption material which the reference calls the electrode coating layer, [0049] “the electrode coating layer that may cover a part or the whole of the surface of the electrode active material. The electrode covering layer contains a polymer compound” wherein
a liquid absorption rate of the first liquid absorption material, called the polymer compound is ≥ 110%. YUSUKE [0053] discloses 20% to 400% and more preferably 30% to 300% for this polymer compound, which falls within the instantly claimed range.
YUSUKE [0053] discloses a mass percentage of the first liquid absorption material in the active layer, called a liquid absorption rate. This liquid absorption rate is calculated as “Liquid absorption rate (%) = [(weight of polymer compound after immersion in electrolyte solution - weight of polymer compound before immersion in electrolyte solution) / weight of polymer compound before immersion in electrolyte solution] × 100” YUSUKE [0054] further discloses “When the liquid absorption rate is 10% or more, lithium ions can easily permeate the polymer compound, and therefore the ionic resistance in the electrode active material layer can be kept low” this range overlapping and obvious to the instantly claimed range of 0.5%-30%;
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
HIROYA [title] discloses A Nonaqueous Electrolyte Secondary Battery
HIROYA [0030] discloses the thickener as carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)
KIMA CHEMICAL discloses that CMC has a bulk destiny of 0.3 g/cm3-0.8 g/cm3
and the dispersion density of the first liquid absorption material in the active layer being 0.1 g/cm3-0.5 g/cm3
CMC is a well known binder and thickener in the art and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted CMC for the binder of YUSUKE with little to no experimentation.
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).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a liquid absorption material that is ≥ 110% as the claimed range as well as a mass percentage or the liquid absorption rate as referred to in YUSUKE being over 10% overlapping the instantly claimed range of 0.5%-30%.
Regarding claim 2. YUSUKE discloses the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein the conductive agent features: a resistivity of the conductive agent being ≤ 60 mΩ/cm, in the instant case [0017] 50 µΩ·m (
60
m
Ω
c
m
=
6
Ω
∙
m
) and (
50
µ
Ω
∙
m
=
50
x
10
-
6
Ω
∙
m
) which is smaller;
This falls within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 3. YUSUKE discloses the electrode plate according to claim 1.
YUSUKE does not disclose wherein the bottom coating further comprises
a second liquid absorption material, wherein
a liquid absorption rate of the second liquid absorption material is ≥ the liquid absorption rate of the first liquid absorption material.
HIROYA [title] discloses A Nonaqueous Electrolyte Secondary Battery where
HIROYA [0009] discloses the bottom coating further comprises
[0009] a second liquid absorption material which the reference calls a first binder, wherein
a liquid absorption rate of the second liquid absorption material (first binder) is ≥ the liquid absorption rate of the first liquid absorption material (second binder).
HIROYA [0011-0012] further discloses “a two-layer structure is adopted in which a first layer containing a first binder having a high degree of swelling is used as a lower layer and a second layer containing a second binder having a low degree of swelling is used as an upper layer. In this configuration, the reactivity of the negative electrode active material in the first layer (lower layer) is improved due to the ionic conductivity of the first binder. Furthermore, since a second layer (upper layer) containing a second binder with a low degree of swelling is formed on the first layer, the pores in the surface layer are less likely to be blocked, and ion diffusion when electricity is applied is also ensured. As a result, the input characteristics are significantly improved due to the combination of ion conductivity and ion diffusibility.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a two-layer liquid absorption material structure disclosed by HIROYA in the electrode disclosed by YUSUKE in order to improve the input characteristics significantly due to the combination of ion conductivity and ion diffusibility gained in the two-layer liquid absorption material structure.
Regarding claim 4. YUSUKE modified by HIROYA discloses the electrode plate according to claim 3.
wherein HIROYA [0027] discloses the second liquid absorption material is acrylic resin which is disclosed in the instant application as poly(n-octyl acrylate).
HIROYA [0027] also discloses that for the second binder, a binder with a low degree of swelling is selected.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the acrylic resin disclosed by HIROYA in the electrode disclosed by YUSUKE in order to keep the second binder from swelling excessively.
Regarding claim 5. YUSUKE modified by HIROYA discloses the electrode plate according to claim 1 wherein the first liquid absorption material satisfies the instantly claimed “at least one of the following features (1)-(2)”.
YUSUKE [0095] the mass percentage of the first liquid absorption material called the electrode coating layer in the active layer being “is preferably 0.1 to 20% by weight… preferably 10% by weight or less” which is within the instantly claimed range of 0.5% - 10%;
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the range disclosed by YUSUKE as the instantly claimed range.
YUSUKE [0063] discloses the first liquid absorption material contains a (meth)acryloyl group, satisfying the limitation y-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane of the claim.
Regarding claims 6 and 7. YUSUKE discloses the electrode plate according to claim 1.
YUSUKE does not explicitly disclose that in the active layer, in a direction away from the bottom coating, the dispersion density of the first liquid absorption material gradually decreases or with 1/2 of the active layer's thickness as a boundary, the dispersion density of the first liquid absorption material on a side proximal to the bottom coating is higher than the dispersion density of the first liquid absorption material on a side distal to the bottom coating.
YUSUKE does not explicitly disclose the properties as claimed in the instant application, however because of the bottom coating is under the active material layer it would be reasonable to conclude that the dispersion density of the first liquid absorption material gradually decreases in the direction away from the bottom coating in YUSUKE would also be the same.
Regarding claim 8. YUSUKE discloses in the annotated figure 2 depicted below, the electrode plate according to claim 1, wherein
the active layer (30) comprises an active sublayer (20)
PNG
media_image1.png
302
504
media_image1.png
Greyscale
YUSUKE does not disclose a plurality of stacked active sublayers, wherein
each active sublayer comprises the active materials and
the first liquid absorption material,
the first liquid absorption material in each active sublayer is uniformly distributed, and
in a direction away from the bottom coating,
the mass percentage of the first liquid absorption material in adjacent active sublayers gradually decreases.
HIROYA discloses in the annotated figure 6 depicted below the active layer (22) comprises a plurality of stacked active sublayers (22a, 22b), wherein
each active sublayer (22a, 22b) comprises the active materials (3) and
the first liquid absorption material (1),
the first liquid absorption material in each active sublayer is uniformly distributed, and
in a direction away from the bottom coating (22a), the mass percentage of the first liquid absorption material in adjacent active sublayers gradually decreases
PNG
media_image2.png
257
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Although not depicted here it is the position of the office that whenever you have a surface interface there will be a natural diffusion of matter across the interface.
HIROYA [0011-0012] discloses “a two-layer structure is adopted in which a first layer containing a first binder having a high degree of swelling is used as a lower layer and a second layer containing a second binder having a low degree of swelling is used as an upper layer. In this configuration, the reactivity of the negative electrode active material in the first layer (lower layer) is improved due to the ionic conductivity of the first binder. Furthermore, since a second layer (upper layer) containing a second binder with a low degree of swelling is formed on the first layer, the pores in the surface layer are less likely to be blocked, and ion diffusion when electricity is applied is also ensured. As a result, the input characteristics are significantly improved due to the combination of ion conductivity and ion diffusibility.”
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the stacked active sublayers disclosed by HIROYA in the electrode plate disclosed by YUSUKE in order to improve the input characteristics significantly due to the combination of ion conductivity and ion diffusibility gained in the two-layer liquid absorption material structure.
Regarding claim 9. YUSUKE modified by HIROYA discloses the electrode plate according to claim 8, wherein the active sublayer comprises at least two layers (22a, 22b), and in the direction away from the bottom coating (22b), mass percentages of the first liquid absorption material (1) in the two active sublayers HIROYA [0030] are 1%- 10% which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 1 % - 5%, as well as the limitation ≤ 4.5% mass.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have performed reasonable experimentation to arrive at the instantly claimed range from the data disclosed by YUSUKE modified by HIROYA.
Regarding claim 10. YUSUKE modified by HIROYA discloses the electrode plate according to claim 8.
YUSUKE modified by HIROYA does not disclose the active sublayer comprises at least 3 layers.
YUSUKE modified by HIROYA discloses two layers as shown in the rejection of claim 8 above
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
YUSUKE modified by HIROYA does not disclose that in the direction away from the bottom coating, mass percentages of the first liquid absorption material in the 3 active sublayers are 1%-5%, 0.5%-4.5%, and ≤ 4%, respectively.
HIROYA [0011-0012] discloses that “a first layer containing a first binder having a high degree of swelling is used as a lower layer and a second layer containing a second binder having a low degree of swelling is used as an upper layer. In this configuration, the reactivity of the negative electrode active material in the first layer (lower layer) is improved due to the ionic conductivity of the first binder. Furthermore, since a second layer (upper layer) containing a second binder with a low degree of swelling is formed on the first layer, the pores in the surface layer are less likely to be blocked, and ion diffusion when electricity is applied is also ensured. As a result, the input characteristics are significantly improved due to the combination of ion conductivity and ion diffusibility”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a mixture that would swell more towards the current collector in order to prevent blockage of the pores and increase the input characteristics of the electrode cell. Furthermore, it would have been within the purview of this person of ordinary skill in the art to have performed routine experimentation in order to have arrived at the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 11. YUSUKE [0001] discloses a battery, comprising the electrode plate according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12. YUSUKE [0001] discloses the battery according to claim 11, wherein an [0051] electrolyte of the battery partially infiltrates into the active layer of the electrode plate.
Regarding claim 13. YUSUKE [0002] discloses an electric device such as an electric vehicle, comprising the battery according to claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727 /ZHONGQING WEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights