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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/03/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 & 17 are amended. Claims 3, 5 & 19 are canceled. Claims 22-23 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-18 & 20-21 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 14-18 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0305316 A1) in view of Konishi (US 2019/0341606 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 9 & 14-16, Wang teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising an anode film comprising an anode active material, 1 wt% to 6 wt% of a fluoropolymer binder comprising PVDF and PTFE in a weight ratio of 10:90 to 95:5, and a conductive carbon, wherein the anode is free of solvent residue ([0057], [0060] & [0065]) but is silent as to graphite-based processing aid having a number average particle size of less than 4 microns. Konishi teaches an anode film comprising an anode active material and a processing aid comprising a flaked graphite, wherein the processing aid has a ID/IG of less than 1.6 and a number average particle size of less than 4 microns ([0022], [0029]-[0030], [0041], [0043], [0047], [0049] & [0100]-[0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a processing aid as described in Konishi because the battery deterioration can be prevented under severe use conditions such as repeated use or use at high temperature without impairing output characteristics as taught by Konishi ([0023]).
Regarding claims 17-18 & 21, Wang teaches a method of fabricating an anode film of an energy storage device, comprising: a) combining an anode active material such as silicon oxide and/or graphite, a conductive carbon and PVDF to form a first mixture; b) adding PTFE to the first mixture to form a second mixture; and c) subjecting the second mixture to a shearing process to form a dry anode forming mixture comprising PVDF and PTFE, wherein no liquid is used in the process ([0035]-[0037], [0057] & [0060]). Wang is silent as to combining a processing aid having a number average particle size of less than 4 micrometers.
Konishi teaches an anode film comprising an anode active material and a processing aid comprising a flaked graphite, wherein the processing aid has a ID/IG of less than 1.6 and a number average particle size of less than 4 microns ([0022], [0029]-[0030], [0041], [0043], [0047], [0049] & [0100]-[0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a processing aid as described in Konishi because the battery deterioration can be prevented under severe use conditions such as repeated use or use at high temperature without impairing output characteristics as taught by Konishi ([0023]).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0305316 A1) and Konishi (US 2019/0341606 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 14-18 & 21 above, and further in view of Iguchi (US 2022/0416250 A1).
Regarding claims 10-12, Wang as modified by Konishi teaches the anode film of claim 1 but is silent as to the PVDF being a functionalized PVDF comprising a functional group. Iguchi teaches an anode film comprising an anode active material and a binder including a functionalized PVDF comprising PVDF and a functional group such as carboxyl ([0017]-[0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to functionalize the PVDF in Wang with a functional group such as carboxyl in view of improving adhesion to a metal foil current collector to form the anode as taught by Iguchi ([0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Wang as modified by Konishi and Iguchi teaches the anode film of claim 10. Wang further teaches the fluoropolymer binder comprising PTFE and PVDF forming a matrix through the fibrillized PTFE which reads on the claimed scaffold structure ([0047]), [0053] & [0067]).
Claims 7-8, 20 & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0305316 A1) in view of Konishi (US 2019/0341606 A1) and Murata (JP 2013222641 A).
Regarding claims 7-8, Wang as modified by Konishi teaches the anode film of claim 1, as noted above, but is silent as to an amount of the processing aid being from 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the weight of the anode film (claim 7) and an amount of the processing aid being from 0.5 to 5 wt% based on the weight of the anode film (claim 8). Murata teaches an anode film comprising an active material (i.e particles (A) + carbon particles (B) such as graphite), a processing aid (i.e carbonaceous layer on carbon particles (B)) (Pages 3-4), a binder comprising PVDF (Page 7), and a conductive carbon in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the active material and the processing aid (Pages 7-8), wherein the total binder amount is from 0.5 to 100 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the active material and the processing aid (Page 7) and the processing aid is included in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by mass relative to the total mass of the carbon particles (B) with an exemplary embodiment using 1 part by mass (Example 1). Since particles (A) are mixed with the carbon particles (B) in an amount of preferably 30 to 40 parts by mass relative to the total mass of the carbon particles (B) (Page 7), the minimum content of the processing aid is given by: 1 part of the processing aid / [40 parts of particles (A) + 100 parts of carbon particles (B) + 1 part of the processing aid + 100 parts of binder + 100 parts of conductive carbon] = 0.3 wt%. The maximum content of the processing aid is given by: 1 part of the processing aid / [30 parts of particles (A) + 100 parts of carbon particles (B) + 1 part of the processing aid + 0.5 parts of binder + 10 parts of conductive carbon] = 0.7 wt% It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a graphite-based processing aid as described in Murata in an amount of 0.3 wt% to 0.7 wt% based on the total mass of the anode film, which overlaps with the presently claimed range, because insertion and desorption of lithium ions is facilitated, and the rapid charge / discharge characteristics of the lithium ion battery are improved as taught by Murata (Page 5).
Regarding claim 20, Wang as modified by Konishi teaches the method of claim 17, as noted above, but is silent as to an amount of the processing aid being from 0.1 to 20 wt% based on the weight of the anode film. However, as noted in the rejection of claims 7-8 above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a graphite-based processing aid as described in Murata in an amount of 0.3 wt% to 0.7 wt% based on the total mass of the anode film, which overlaps with the presently claimed range, because insertion and desorption of lithium ions is facilitated, and the rapid charge / discharge characteristics of the lithium ion battery are improved as taught by Murata (Page 5)
Regarding claims 22-23, Wang teaches a lithium-ion battery comprising an anode film comprising an anode active material, 1 wt% to 6 wt% of a fluoropolymer binder comprising PVDF and PTFE in a weight ratio of 10:90 to 95:5, and a conductive carbon, wherein the anode is free of solvent residue ([0057], [0060] & [0065]) but is silent as to a graphite-based processing aid with a ID/IG ratio of less than 1.6 and having a number average particle size of less than 4 microns and wherein the amount of the processing aid is from 0.1 wt% to 20 wt% of the anode film. Konishi teaches an anode film comprising an anode active material and a processing aid comprising a flaked graphite, wherein the processing aid has a ID/IG of less than 1.6 and a number average particle size of less than 4 microns ([0022], [0029]-[0030], [0041], [0043], [0047], [0049] & [0100]-[0101]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a processing aid as described in Konishi because the battery deterioration can be prevented under severe use conditions such as repeated use or use at high temperature without impairing output characteristics as taught by Konishi ([0023]). Murata teaches an anode film comprising an active material (i.e particles (A) + carbon particles (B) such as graphite), a processing aid (i.e carbonaceous layer on carbon particles (B)) (Pages 3-4), a binder comprising PVDF (Page 7), and a conductive carbon in an amount of 10 to 100 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the active material and the processing aid (Pages 7-8), wherein the total binder amount is from 0.5 to 100 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the active material and the processing aid (Page 7) and wherein the composite of the carbon particles (B) and the carbonaceous layer (i.e processing aid) has an average particle size D50 of 3 microns to 10 microns with the processing aid necessarily having an average particle size less than that of the composite (Page 4). Murata further teaches the processing aid being included in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by mass relative to the total mass of the carbon particles (B) with an exemplary embodiment using 1 part by mass (Example 1). Since particles (A) are mixed with the carbon particles (B) in an amount of preferably 30 to 40 parts by mass relative to the total mass of the carbon particles (B) (Page 7), the minimum content of the processing aid is given by: 1 part of the processing aid / [40 parts of particles (A) + 100 parts of carbon particles (B) + 1 part of the processing aid + 100 parts of binder + 100 parts of conductive carbon] = 0.3 wt%. The maximum content of the processing aid is given by: 1 part of the processing aid / [30 parts of particles (A) + 100 parts of carbon particles (B) + 1 part of the processing aid + 0.5 parts of binder + 10 parts of conductive carbon] = 0.7 wt% It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to use a graphite-based processing aid as described in Murata in an amount of 0.3 wt% to 0.7 wt% based on the total mass of the anode film, which overlaps with the presently claimed range, because insertion and desorption of lithium ions is facilitated, and the rapid charge / discharge characteristics of the lithium ion battery are improved as taught by Murata (Page 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the modification of Wang in view of Konishi and Wang in view of Murata does not fairly teach or suggest the presently claimed subject matter, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues the cited reference do not fairly teach or suggest the active material and the graphite-based processing aid being provided as separator particulate components. However, contrary to applicant’s assertions, it is noted that the graphite-based processing aid of Konishi is provided as a separate particulate component alongside the particulate active material. While the graphite-based processing aid in Konishi is provided as a coating over the active material particles, the coating nevertheless includes particulate graphite particles having a particle size of preferably 1 micron to 5 microns and thickness of preferably less than 20 nm. Accordingly, the mere fact that Konishi teaches providing the processing aid as a coating on the active material particles does not negate the fact that the coating includes particles of the processing aid which are separate particulate components albeit within a composite of the particulate processing aid and the particulate active material. Thus, applicant’s argument that the cited art does not teach the active material and the graphite-based processing aid being provided as separator particulate components is not found to be persuasive.
Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-2, 4, 6-18 & 20-23 stand rejected.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (EST).
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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights