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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/20/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami (US20160082467A1) in view of Kumakari (US20100279158A1).
For claim 1 and 6, Mikami teaches of an electrode production apparatus, comprising: a first roll (fig. 1, 11, Mikami), and a second roll (fig. 1, 12, Mikami) disposed opposing the first roll (fig. 1, ¶ [0017], Mikami) and having a higher rotational speed than that of the first roll (¶ [0049], Mikami), wherein the electrode production apparatus is configured such that an electrode material (fig. 1, 22, Mikami), supplied and passing between a circumferential surface of the first roll and a circumferential surface of the second roll while contacting both the circumferential surfaces of the first and second rolls (fig. 1, Mikami), is caused to be adhered (¶ [0017-0019] , Mikami), as a coating film (fig. 1, 25, Mikami), on the circumferential surface of the second roll (fig. 1, 25, Mikami), and the coating film is transferred from the circumferential surface of the second roll onto a surface of an electrode collector separately supplied to the second roll (fig. 1, 21, Mikami), to thereby form an electrode mix layer made up of the transferred coating film (fig. 1, 23, Mikami), on the electrode collector (¶ [0017-0019], Mikami).
Mikami also teaches that it is effective to have the surface of the first and second roller undergo surface treatment (“predetermined texture shape”) such that uneven recesses and projections are present on the surface of the roller ([0041], Mikami).
However, they are silent to the pitch and depth of the “predetermined texture shape”.
Kumakari however, teaches on an electrode group for a secondary battery ([abstract], Kumakari) wherein a predetermined textured shape is formed on the circumferential surface of the first roll and on the circumferential surface of the second roll (¶ [0061], Kumakari), the textured shape comprises repetition of a predetermined relief pattern (fig. 2, Kumakari), at a given pitch (fig. 2, Kumakari), in a running direction (fig. 2, Kumakari), and the given pitch (fig. 2, Kumakari), which is a smallest repeating unit (fig. 2, Kumakari).
PNG
media_image1.png
655
572
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2, Kumakari
In regards to the following limitations “and a recess depth of the predetermined relief pattern are configured to satisfy designed so that the following expression holds: y ≤0.2x - 20, where x (µm) denotes the given pitch and y (µm) denotes the recess depth”. The examiner notes that Kumakari teaches of a and upper and lower roller where the projections (“predetermined relief pattern”) has a height (“depth”) of 8-12µm and a pitch of 170 µm [0098-0101, 0115-0118, Kumakari].
The examiner notes that 0.2 * 170 – 20 = 14 and as such satisfies the applicants equation as 8-12µm ≤ 14 µm.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Mikami such that the first and second roll were subjected to a surface treatment such that the circumference of the roll possessed a relief pattern in the running direction with a pitch of 170 µm and a depth of 8-12 µm. Doing so would produce a roller capable of forming trenches in the surface of the mixture layer capable of suppressing nonuniform distribution of the electrolyte [0080-0081, Kumakari].
Furthermore, prior case laws have shown that "[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.", MPEP 2144.05.
For claim 2, modified Mikami teaches wherein a material of the circumferential surface on which the predetermined texture shaped is formed, in the first roll and the second roll (11 and 12) being ceramic (¶ [0040], e.g. alumina, Mikami).
For claim 3, modified Mikami teaches wherein the pitch of the predetermined texture shape being 170 µm ([0098-0101, 0115-0118], Kumakari’s disclosed range anticipates the applicants claimed range of 150-300 µm).
Furthermore, prior case laws have shown that "[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." MPEP 2144.05.
For claim 4, modified Mikami teaches of a recess depth wherein in the expression: y ≤ 0.2x - 20, x is prescribed so that the recess depth of the relief pattern lies in the range from 8 um to 12 um (¶ [0118], Kumakari’s disclosed range anticipates the applicant’s claimed range 4-15 um).
Furthermore, prior case laws have shown that "[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." MPEP 2144.05.
For claim 5, modified Mikami teaches of a relationship between a rotational speed S1 of the first roll and a rotational speed S2 of the second roll satisfies the following expression: 1.5 x S1 < S2 < 5 x S1 (¶ [0049], Mikami teaches the rotational speed of the second roller is 1 to 30 times faster than the first roller).
Furthermore, prior case laws have shown that "[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." MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8 and 9 Mikami as modified above discloses the electrode production apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the electrode material is in a form of a wet granulated product [0017, Mikami discloses the use of a wet mixture coating material which is a solution including coating particles as a solute in a solvent. Applicants instant specification [0017] defines “wet granulated product” as a mixture of at least a powder material and a solvent. As such, the examiner is interpreting the wet mixture coating material disclosed by Mikami to be equivalent to a wet granulated product].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mikami as applied to claim 6 above in further view of Oh (US20200335766A1).
For claim 7, modified Mikami teaches of a method for producing an electrode via two rollers disposed opposite of one another that transfer an electrode coating material from a first roll to a second roll and finally to a current collector.
Modified Mikami is silent to using an electrode coating mixture in which the total weight of the electrode material being defined as 100% by weight, the weight% of solids is 55-90 wt%.
Oh however, teaches a method for preparing an electrode for a secondary battery ([abstract], Oh) wherein on using a slurry of electrode active material in which the solid content has a total weight% of 70-90 wt% ([abstract], Oh) .
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a slurry of electrode active material in the range of 70-90wt%, as disclosed by Oh. This would allow for the drying time of the slurry to be reduced (¶ [0033], Oh). As such, the movement of low-density electrode material, such as binders, may be minimized during drying allowing for a more uniform dispersion of solids (¶ [0033], Oh).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Mikami as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hamabe (US2016052010A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mikami discloses that a surface roughening treatment can be used to influence transferability of the coating mixture (table 1, Mikami). But is silent to the coating film being transferred from the second roll onto the surface of the electrode collector without leaving an adhesion residue on the first roller.
However, Hamabe the electrode production method, wherein the coating film is transferred from the second roll onto the surface of the electrode collector separately supplied to the second roll (fig. 2, Hamabe), without leaving an adhesion residue on the circumferential surface of the first roll ([0042-0045], fig. 5, Hamabe).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would be motivated to further modify the electrode roller disclosed by modified Mikami to include the optimized surface hardness as disclosed by Hamabe as this can further improve the transferability of the electrode material to the electrode current collector without leaving behind any adhesive residue (abstract, [0041-0045], fig. 5, Hamabe).
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed on 08/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons listed below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Miyahisa have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/Q.D.E/
Examiner, Art Unit 4153
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights