DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Amendment
3. In response to the amendment received on 5/22/2026:
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 has been amended, Claim 4 is cancelled, and Claims 17-21 stand withdrawn.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The rejection under 35 USC 102 has been overcome in light of the amendment but the claims remain rejected under previously cited prior art, as explained below. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Election/Restrictions
5. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 5/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Office has not provided any evidence to support one reason for patentable distinctness, which is that the product could be made by a different process than what is required by the claimed method.
6. The Office has provided a reason for patentable distinctness between the restricted claims of Groups I and II as required in MPEP §803, which only necessitates a provision of reasons and/or examples to support conclusions. The Office “need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases." However, it is noted that the Gyulai NPL reference cited below shows describes electrode formation using both dry-form process and a process using solvents.
PNG
media_image1.png
181
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, the claims under consideration are 1-3 and 5-16 (since Claim 4 has been cancelled).
7. Claims 17-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species and Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/22/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. Claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom US PG Publication 2020/0313191 in view of Gyulai et al. NPL ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2023, 6, 5122-5134 (hereinafter “Gyulai NPL”) as evidenced by the attached Technical Data Sheet for C-NERGY KS6L (found at https://soltexinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/C-NERGY-KS6L.pdf) (hereinafter “KS6L specs”).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 8, and 13-16, Wixom discloses a freestanding (para 0068, meeting Claim 13) cathode film in a lithium ion battery (para 0067, meeting Claim 16) comprising a processing aid (processing additive “PA” such as engineered porosity carbon or hard carbon or activated carbon (5 wt%, paras 0059-0064, 0093, Table 2, meeting Claim 8), cathode active material “AM” (comprising LmFP/NCM, para 0066, 0093, Table 2), a conductive carbon “CC” (5 wt%, para 0065, meeting Claim 15), and a fluoropolymer binder comprising PTFE “binder” (5 wt%, para 0093, Table 2), and wherein the cathode is free of solvent residue (dry solvent-free composition, para 0085), and wherein the total binder amount is from 0.5 wt% to 10 wt% of the cathode film since it the formulation of the cathode film includes 5 wt% PTFE (also meeting Claim 14’s range of 0.5 wt% to 6 wt%) (see entire disclosure and especially Tables 1-2; paras 0011-0013, 0058-0072, 0078, Tables 1-2).
Wixom discloses the use of a processing aid but fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing aid is a graphite-based processing aid or wherein the processing aid is selected from the group consisting of graphite powder, graphene, nano graphite, furnace black, acetylene black, carbon nanotubes (CNT), carbon nanofibers (CNF), fine graphite powder, vapor deposited graphite fibers and combinations thereof (pertaining to Claim 5). However, in the same field of endeavor of dry-processed electrode design, Gyulai NPL discloses that graphite (e.g. KS6L graphite which is graphite-based) is beneficially used processing aid/additive to improve lubrication during the shearing process, and long-range percolation of the electrically conductive carbon network (see highlighted portion of Gyulai NPL, p. 5124, and section included herein) which is a fine black powder, see “Electrode Composition and Materials section”, also meeting Claim 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
181
931
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use KS6L graphite (a graphite powder and a graphite-based processing aid) as a processing aid in the cathode film of Wixom because Gyulai NPL teaches that this material improves lubrication and long-range percolation of the electrically conductive carbon network.
Regarding Claim 6, the processing additive taught by Gyulai NPL, KS6L Graphite powder, has a particle size of 3.4 microns (see evidentiary reference for material specifications including D50), and so the graphite-based processing aid of Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL anticipates the claimed range.
9. Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom US PG Publication 2020/0313191 in view of Gyulai et al. NPL ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2023, 6, 5122-5134 (hereinafter “Gyulai NPL”), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Duong US PG Publication 2015/0303481.
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL discloses the claimed cathode film as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Wixom discloses that the binder comprises PTFE or PVDF or a combination thereof (para 0067-0068) but does not specifically disclose a weight ratio between the two components and does not specify if PVDF is a homopolymer or vinylidene copolymer. However, in the same field of endeavor of dry processing of free-standing cathode films, Duong teaches the combination of e.g. PTFE binder, which is fibrillizable, with e.g. PVDF co-polymer in amount of e.g. 3:2 (para 0085) in a process that ultimately forms a scaffold structure (matrix, lattice, and/or web of fibrils, para 0116) (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. paras 0012-0026, 0078-0079, 0085, 0103-0118 and Fig. 3), the preferred ratio of binders falling squarely within the broadly claimed range (10:90 to 95:5 encompasses a range of “almost all PVDF to almost all PTFE”), and Duong teaches that this composition of a composite binder provides a dry-processed free-standing electrode film with components that are supported by the network formed by fibrillizable binders and solves issues of PTFE-based binders such as increased irreversible capacity loss during redox processes (para 0008). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the cathode film of Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL such that it uses a composite binder of PTFE and a copolymer of PVDF and to determine the optimal weight ratio between PVDF and PTFE be e.g. from 10:90 to 95:5 as a matter of routine experimentation because this design forms a dry-processed free-standing electrode film with components that are supported by the network formed by fibrillizable binders and solves issues of PTFE-based binders such as increased irreversible capacity loss during redox processes. “[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).
10. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom US PG Publication 2020/0313191 in view of Gyulai et al. NPL ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2023, 6, 5122-5134 (hereinafter “Gyulai NPL”), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Gogyo US PG Publication 2019/0190063.
Regarding Claim 3, Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL discloses the claimed cathode film as described in the rejection of Claim 1, which are incorporated herein in its entirety, including the obviousness of using graphite as the processing agent. Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL teaches the use of graphite-based material as a processing aid to improve lubrication, for example, and teaches the use of a processing aid having a number average particle size of 3.4 microns (see above) but does not specifically disclose wherein the graphite-based processing aid has an ID/IG of less than 1.5.
However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium-ion battery design, Gogyo discloses wherein when graphite is used in a cathode, the graphite can be flaky graphite and should have ID/IG of less than 1.0 because this allows for suppression of side reactions with electrolyte (see e.g. paras 0065-0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use flaky graphite as a graphite processing aid in the cathode film of Wixom and Gyulai NPL, said material having a ID/IG of less than 1.0 (falling within the claimed range of less than 1.6) because Gogyo teaches that graphite with these properties allows for suppression of side reactions with electrolyte.
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom US PG Publication 2020/0313191 in view of Gyulai et al. NPL ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2023, 6, 5122-5134 (hereinafter “Gyulai NPL”), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Jung US PG Publication 2022/0149350.
Regarding Claim 7, Wixom, and Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL, discloses the claimed cathode film as described in the rejection of Claims 1 and 4-5, which are incorporated herein in their entireties, including the obviousness of using graphite-based processing agent. Wixom discloses that the processing additive preferably has a particle diameter of e.g. 1 to 5 micrometers (para 0062) but Wixom modified by Gyulai does not specifically disclose wherein the processing agent is flaked graphite having a number average particle size of less than 4.0 micrometers. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium-ion battery design, Jung discloses wherein when graphite is used in a cathode, the graphite such as flake graphite and should have particle size less than the active material because this allows for the graphite to more easily perform lubrication (see e.g. paras 0065). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use flakey graphite as the graphite processing aid in the cathode film of Wixom and Gyulai NPL, said material having a number average particle size of e.g. less than 4.0 µm because Jung teaches that the size of graphite flake should be determined by designing it to be smaller than the active material particle size to improve lubrication properties and because Wixom teaches that the processing agent has a size of 1 to 5 µm. “[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).
12. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wixom US PG Publication 2020/0313191 in view of in view of Gyulai et al. NPL ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 2023, 6, 5122-5134 (hereinafter “Gyulai NPL”) and Duong US PG Publication 2015/0303481, as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Frieberg US Patent 11,967,721.
Regarding Claims 10-11, Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL and Duong discloses the claimed cathode film as described in the rejection of Claim 2, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL and Duong discloses the use of PVDF as a cathode binder but fails to specifically disclose wherein the PVDF is a functionalized PVDF comprising a functional group wherein the function group is selected from the group consisting of a carboxylic group or salt or ester thereof, a phosphate, a sulfonate, or a combination thereof. However, in the same field of endeavor of lithium ion battery cathode design, Frieberg discloses wherein a carboxylic acid functionalized PDVF binder element in a cathode contributes to better battery performance (e.g. discharge capacity retention is improved) compared with examples using PVDF such as PVDF homopolymer (see entire disclosure and especially col 6, lines 4-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use an acid-functionalized PVDF polymer as the PVDF in Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL and Duong because Frieberg teaches that this material in a cathode contributes to better battery performance (e.g. discharge capacity retention is improved) compared with examples using PVDF such as PVDF homopolymer.
Regarding Claim 12, Wixom modified by Gyulai NPL, Duong, and Frieberg does not specifically disclose wherein the fluoropolymer binder comprising the PTFE and functionalized PVDF is in the form of a scaffold. However, Duong teaches the combination of e.g. PTFE binder, which is fibrillizable, with e.g. PVDF co-polymer in amount of e.g. 3:2 (para 0085) in a process that ultimately forms a scaffold structure (matrix, lattice, and/or web of fibrils, para 0116). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design the binder of Wixom modified by Duong and Frieberg such the fluoropolymer binder comprising the PTFE and functionalized PVDF is in the form of a scaffold because Duong teaches that this is a desired aspect of the structure and the skilled artisan would appreciate that the free-standing nature of the cathode film would benefit from the support provided by the binder having this structure. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims are based on the claims as amended. The amended claims have been addressed in the updated rejection above.
Further,
Arguments directed at claim 1
14. Applicant argues that the prosecution history of the Wixom reference includes evidence that graphite is not a processing aid for the invention of Wixom because graphite does not have the necessary physical characteristics to fibrillize the binder and so the skilled artisan would understand that Wixom cannot be combined with Gyulai NPL to teach the use of graphite as a processing aid for its invention.
The Office has carefully considered this argument and respectfully disagrees. It is submitted that the processing benefit of graphite provided to the invention of Wixom as taught by Gyulai NPL does not rest solely on fibrillation assistance, but as stated previously and repeated in the above rejection, graphite is useful as a processing aid in a dry-formed electrode to provide lubrication, for example, to the electrode mixture to form the electrode. The claim language does not preclude the inclusion of both Wixom’s own processing aid (which provides needed fibrillation) and that of Gyulai NPL (which provides lubrication), and such an embodiment is encompassed by the rejection as presented previously, and herein.
Accordingly, such an argument is not found to be persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
15. 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 LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30a to 3p Eastern Time.
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 Tavares-Crockett can be reached on 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights