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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to Applicant’s claim amendments received 16 September 2025. Claims 1-5 and 10-11 are currently pending of which claims 1 and 11 are currently amended. Claims 6-9 are cancelled.
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 1-5, 10 and 11 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.
The claims recite the limitations “V = 1.2t +3 and V ≥ 3” with a nonaqueous solvent and “V=1.15t +1.5 and V ≥ 1.5” with an aqueous solvent, when t is the distance in mm between the first electrode and the second electrode. However, as the distance between the first electrode and the second electrode must be positive and non-zero for the electrochemical reactions to occur, it is unclear as to how, 1.2*a positive non-zero value + 3, could be equal to 3 or how 1.15*a positive non-zero value + 1.5 could be equal to 1.5, i.e. the values must be greater than 3 or 1.5 to satisfy the equations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0288289 A1 to Takeno et al. (Takeno).
As to claim 1, Takeno teaches an impurity processing device for processing metal impurities contained in a solid-liquid mixture for forming an electrode of an electric storage device, the impurity processing device comprising a first electrode and a second electrode structured to apply an electric field to the solid liquid mixture and a power supply to apply an amount of electricity to the liquid-solid mixture by causing a current to flow between the first electrode and the second electrode via the solid-liquid mixture and flowing a voltage between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the solid liquid mixture comprises a solvent, aqueous or non-aqueous, and an electrode active material. (Paragraphs 0022, 0023, 0024, 0050 and 0051). Apparatus claims must be distinguished form the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Functional limitations do not serve to further limit apparatus claims beyond imparting the limitation that the apparatus be capable of performing the claimed function. The power supply of Takeno is a power supply configured to apply a variety of voltages, including 1.5V and 3V, the apparatus of Takeno is capable of being supplied with any number of fluids with any number of concentrations and corresponding conductivities, and operating at any number of temperatures, thus in combination the power source of Takeno would be capable of performing the functional language of “to apply an amount of electricity of 1 C or more to the solid-liquid mixture by causing a current of 0.1 mA or more to flow between the first electrode and the second electrode via the solid-liquid mixture” and “wherein a voltage V, in volt between the first electrode and the second electrode at a current of 0.1 mA or more flowing between the first electrode and the second electrode, and a distance t, in mm, between the first electrode and the second electrode satisfy: V=1.2t +3 and V is greater than 3, where the solvent is a nonaqueous solvent; and V = 1.15t +1.5 and V is greater than 1.5, where the solvent is an aqueous solvent” (MPEP 2114).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2007-136284 A to Kato et al. (Kato).
As to claim 2, Takeno teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Takeno fails to teach that the power supply is capable of providing a sinusoidal current. However, Kato also discusses impurity removing devices utilizing first and second electrodes and teaches that a variety of different power applications are effective including a power supply providing a sinusoidal current (Paragraph 0031; Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to operate the power supply for the impurity removing device of Takeno with a sinusoidal current with the expectation of effectively proving power as taught by Kato.
As to claim 3, Takeno teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Takeno fails to teach that the power supply is capable of providing a sinusoidal alternating current having a frequency higher than 10 mHz. However, Kato also discusses impurity removing devices utilizing first and second electrodes and teaches that a variety of different power applications are effective including a power supply providing a sinusoidal alternating current (Paragraph 0031; Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to operate the power supply for the impurity removing device of Takeno with a sinusoidal current with the expectation of effectively proving power as taught by Kato.
Kato further teaches that the frequency of this sinusoidal wave should be changed/chosen in order to change/choose the removal performance (Paragraph 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to optimize the frequency in order to optimize the removal performance as taught by Kato (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 4, Takeno teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Takeno fails to teach that the power supply is capable of causing a rectangular wave current. However, Kato also discusses impurity removing devices utilizing first and second electrodes and teaches that a variety of different power applications are effective including a power supply providing a rectangular wave current (Paragraph 0031; Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to operate the power supply for the impurity removing device of Takeno with a rectangular wave current with the expectation of effectively proving power as taught by Kato.
As to claim 5, Takeno teaches the apparatus of claim 1. However, Takeno fails to teach that the power supply is capable of causing an intermittent current. However, Kato also discusses impurity removing devices utilizing first and second electrodes and teaches that a variety of different power applications are effective including a power supply providing a pulsed, intermittent, current (Paragraph 0031; Figure 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to operate the power supply for the impurity removing device of Takeno with a pulsed, intermittent, current with the expectation of effectively proving power as taught by Kato.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeno as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2015-079610 A to Suzuki (Suzuki).
As to claim 10, Takeno teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Takeno teaches that the impurity processing device is provided upstream from the formation of the battery electrode (Abstract). However, Takeno fails to teach a specific configuration of the apparatus. However, Suzuki also discusses upstream impurity removal from a slurry for formation of a battery electrode and teaches that the impurity processing device, a filter (120), is provided as part of a pipe through which the slurry flows upstream from a coating die (140) for applying the slurry to a coated material and downstream from a tank (110) (Paragraphs 0014 and 0015; Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Takeno by forming the first electrode and second electrode withing a pipe and apparatus as in Suzuki with the expectation of effectively coating the electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of the claims is the inclusion of all of the limitations towards the components of the slurry, the amount of electricity, the current and the voltage being tied to the distance per the equations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 September 2025 in regards to claims 1-5 and 10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue that the new claim limitations overcome the prior art and overcome the interpretation that the power source is capable of performing the claimed limitation. However, as discussed above, the Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s argument filed 16 September 2025 in regards to claim 11 have been found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIEL P Contreras whose telephone number is (571)270-7946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM to 4 PM.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/CIEL P CONTRERAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794