Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 11, 2026 was received and has been entered. Claims 1, 3-8, 16, and 21 were amended. Claims 2, 12, and 17 were cancelled. Claims 1, 3-10, 16, and 21 are in the application. Claims 11 and 13-15 have been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation “(first or second) device for applying” in claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, and 21 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “applying” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “device” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16, and 21 has/have been interpreted to cover “a spray gun, brushing, a fluidized bed, doctor blading, or wiping with a rag” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., para 0026, 0033).
Claim limitation “first device” in claim 10 refers to the “first device for applying” in claim 1. This limitation has NOT been interpreted under or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, since the limitation is sufficiently modified by structure in the claim to include a grounding wire.
Claim limitation “mechanism for feeding the substrate” in claim 2 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with functional language “feeding” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “mechanism” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 2 has/have been interpreted to cover “a roller” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., para 0025).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The claims rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn since applicant stated on record that independent claims 1 and 16 are not drawn to a composition of matter (Pg. 8 of Remarks filed September 10, 2025).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 recites:
“the first heater heats a first surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second surface of the electrode substrate to which the first electrode layer is applied”.
A suggested revision is as follows:
“the first heater heats a first surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second surface of the electrode substrate, to said second surface of the electrode substrate ”.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“ receiving a first layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, … ; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material ; a conductive material ; and applying via a dry dispersion application,
A suggested revision is as follows:
“ receiving [[a]] the first layer mixture comprising:
[[a]] the active material mixture comprising [[a]] the active material mixture comprising: a cobalt oxide, [[a]] the metal oxide, … ; [[a]] the binder comprising a thermoplastic material ; [[a]] the conductive material ; and applying via a dry dispersion application,
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“ receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, … ; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material ; a conductive material ; and applying via [[a]] the dry dispersion application,
A suggested revision is as follows:
“ receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
[[a]] the active material mixture comprising [[a]] the active material mixture comprising: a cobalt oxide, [[a]] the metal oxide, … ; [[a]] the binder comprising a thermoplastic material ; [[a]] the conductive material ; and applying via [[a]] the dry dispersion application,
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, and 9 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Mosso (US 20110143019, already of record) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
The previous rejection of claims 1, 2, and 3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Goller (USP 4175055, already of record) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3, and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) .
Applicant’s specification reads as follows:
(Spec., para 0026) “First application region 110 includes a device 118 for applying a first layer to substrate 102 that includes a spray mechanism (such as a spray gun or other known devices for causing a spray) that is configured to spray 120 a first or base layer of a mix of material onto substrate 102. In general, although first application region 110 is described as having a spray mechanism or gun in order to apply material onto the substrate, and such is illustrated as “spray 120”, it is contemplated that any mechanism may be used to apply the material, to include painting, brushing, powder coating, using a fluidized bed, doctor blading, or wiping with a rag, as examples. In fact, in this and all subsequent application regions described, it is contemplated that a spray gun or other known spray device may be employed for applying first and subsequent layers to the substrate 102, or any mechanism may be used to apply the materials, as described above, and that the term “spray” may be applied to any mechanism or means that are used to apply a liquid to a surface” (Spec., para 0026).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell teaches a solventless system for fabricating electrodes comprising:
a mechanism (rollers in Fig. 3, 48, 58) feeding an electrode substrate comprising a current collector (50) through the solventless system, ( See Mitchell, para 0118; see for example Fig. 3).
a first dry, solventless application region comprising a first device (an upper roller 52 of a heated roll-mill) receiving a first layer mixture, applying, via a dry dispersion application the first layer mixture to the electrode substrate (50 )as a first upper electrode layer (34) (See Mitchell, para 0118; see for example Fig. 3)
a first heater (implicit of heated roll-mill; para 0119) heating the first electrode layer 34 and/or the electrode substrate 50 during the first upper electrode layer 34 to the electrode substrate 50 to bind the first upper electrode layer 34 to the electrode substrate 50 (para 0118-0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell further teaches that the first upper electrode layer 34 comprises a dry mixture 20 of an active material mixture (i.e., activated carbon 12, conductive particles 14, binder 16), a binder 23, and a conductive material 21 (para 0076-0077, 0104-0105; see for example Figs. 1a and 2 a, b).
Mitchell does not explicitly teach “ a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; a conductive material”.
Porter is directed to forming a dry electrode.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector); because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Regarding claim 3, Mitchell further teaches that the mechanism (rollers) feeding the electrode substrate (50) is a roller assembly (52, 56) that comprises at least one mandrel (chill roll 56) used to compress the electrode substrate (50) after the first upper electrode layer 34 has been applied thereto (See Mitchell, para 0119; see for example Fig. 3.)
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell further teaches the first device (heated roll-mill 52) applies the first electrode layer (34, 34) to each of opposing sides of the electrode substrate (50). (See Mitchell, para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
The previous rejection of claims 4 and 5 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mitchell (hereinafter Mitchell ‘473) (US 20050186473, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Mitchell ‘298 further teaches the first heater is a heated roll-mill (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach that the first heater (heated roll-mill) heats a first (lower) surface of the electrode substrate (50) that is opposite a second (upper) surface of the electrode substrate (50) to which the first (upper) layer (34) is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) heats the first (lower) surface of electrode substrate 225 within a first application region, that is opposite a second (upper) surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second (upper) surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first heater (heated roll-mill) heats a first surface of the electrode substrate (50) that is opposite a second (upper) surface of the electrode substrate (50) to which the first upper layer (34) is applied, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer 50. (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see for example Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Mitchell ‘298 further teaches the first heater is a heated roll-mill (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach that the first heater (heated roll-mill) heats a first (lower) surface of the electrode substrate 50 within the first dry, solventless application region and while the first device applies the first electrode layer to the second (upper) surface of the electrode substrate.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) heats the first (lower) surface of electrode substrate 425 within the first dry, solventless application region and while the first device applies the first electrode layer to the second surface of the electrode substrate, while a first (upper) electrode layer 204 is applied to the second (upper) surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and (upper) electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller 52 opposite of the first (upper) electrode layer 34 in Mitchell ‘298 such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and (upper) electrode layer 50. (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see Fig. 2).
The previous rejection of claims 4 and 6 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, as mentioned above, Mitchell further teaches the first device is a heated roll-mill (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell does not explicitly teach a first heater configured to heat the first opposite, lower surface of the electrode substrate 50 after the first upper electrode layer 34 is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50.
However, Brooks teaches a lower induction coil 17 (first heater) configured to heat a lower surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. ( See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the first heater after the first upper electrode layer 34 is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50 in Mitchell, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer 34 to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50. ( See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see Fig. 1).
The previous rejection of claims 4, 7, and 8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claims 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4, 7, and 8, Mitchell ‘298 further teaches a lower roller 52 (“third” device) of heated roll-mill 52 within the first application region that applies a “third” electrode layer 34 to the first lower surface of electrode substrate 50 (para 0119; see for example Fig. 3).
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach that the lower roller 52 of heated roll-mill is configured to heat the first lower surface of the electrode substrate 50 that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50 to which the first upper layer 34 is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) configured to heat the first lower surface of electrode substrate 425 within a first application region, that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second upper surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see for example Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller 52 opposite of the first upper electrode layer 34 in Mitchell ‘298 such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer 50.
Claims 7- 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach a second heater positioned to heat the first electrode layer 34 after the first electrode layer 34 is applied to the upper second surface of the electrode substrate 50.
However, Brooks teaches an upper induction coil 17 (second heater) configured to heat an upper surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange another (i.e., “second”) heater after the first upper electrode layer 34 is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50 in Mitchell ‘298, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer 34 to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate 50. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
However, as mentioned above, Mitchell ‘298 teaches a second dry, solventless application region comprising a second device, the second device:
receiving a first layer mixture: comprising an active layer mixture, a binder, and a conductive material, and applying, via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
Mitchell teaches multiple steps and plural containers (19, 20) can be used to dispense streams of dry particles to apply a second layer. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach providing a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, in the same embodiment.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector); because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Therefore, in view of Mitchell ‘298 and In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 7, Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach a third heater heating the second electrode layer.
However, Brooks teaches an upper induction coil 17 (second heater) configured to heat an upper surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Mitchell ‘298 and Brooks
In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 8, Mitchell ‘298 does not explicitly teach a third device positioned within the first dry, solventless application region, the third device:
receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the third layer mixture to the first surface of the electrode substrate as a third electrode layer.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector); because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Therefore, in view of Mitchell ‘298 and In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Wirth (USP 3386416, already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Mitchell does not explicitly teach a grounding wire electrically coupled to the electrode substrate when the first device applies the first electrode layer to the substrate.
However, Wirth teaches a grounding wire 17 electrically coupled to a substrate 2 when a container 4 (device) apples a layer to the substrate 2, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity. (See Wirth, col. 2, lines 38-55; col. 3, lines 1-11; see for example Fig. 1.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to electrically couple a grounding wire to the electrode substrate when the first device applies the first electrode layer to the substrate in Mitchell, as taught by Wirth, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity. (See Wirth, col. 2, lines 38-55; col. 3, lines 1-11; see for example Fig. 1.)
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US 20050266298, cited in IDS) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Mosso et al (US 20110143019 A1) .
Regarding claim 16, Mitchell does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to:
cause a feed mechanism to feed an electrode substrate comprising a current collector material through an electrode fabrication system;
cause a first device in a first dry, solventless application region to apply a first electrode layer onto the electrode substrate via a dry dispersion method, the first electrode layer comprising an active material mixture, a binder, and a conductive material; and
cause a first heater to apply heat to the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer, the first heater configured to heat the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate;
wherein the active material mixture comprises lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof, and
the binder comprises a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof.
Mitchell in view of Porter as set forth above teaches a feed mechanism to feed an electrode substrate comprising a current collector material through an electrode fabrication system;
a first device in a first dry, solventless application region to apply a first electrode layer onto the electrode substrate via a dry dispersion method, the first electrode layer comprising an active material mixture, a binder, and a conductive material; and
a first heater to apply heat to the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer, the first heater configured to heat the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate;
wherein the active material mixture comprises lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof, and
the binder comprises a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof.
Mosso further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to operate the system of Mosso in the claimed manner (See Mosso, Abstract, para 0083-0087, and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to include a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to:
cause a feed mechanism to feed an electrode substrate comprising a current collector material through an electrode fabrication system;
cause a first device in a first dry, solventless application region to apply a first electrode layer onto the electrode substrate via a dry dispersion method, the first electrode layer comprising an active material mixture, a binder, and a conductive material; and
cause a first heater to apply heat to the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer, the first heater configured to heat the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate;
wherein the active material mixture comprises lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof, and
the binder comprises a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof, because Mosso teaches this would enable the process conditions to be controlled and monitored. (See Mosso, Abstract, para 0083-0087, and Fig. 1.)
Regarding claim 21, Mitchell does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to:
cause the first device in the first dry, solventless application region to apply the first layer mixture as the first electrode layer onto the electrode substrate via the dry dispersion method; and
cause the first heater to apply heat to the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer and/or after application of the first layer mixture as the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate.
Mitchell in view of Porter as set forth above teaches the first device in the first dry, solventless application region to apply the first layer mixture as the first electrode layer onto the electrode substrate via the dry dispersion method; and
the first heater to apply heat to the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer and/or after application of the first layer mixture as the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate.
Mosso further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to operate the system of Mosso in the claimed manner (See Mosso, Abstract, para 0083-0087, and Fig. 1.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filed date of the claimed invention to include a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to:
cause the first device in the first dry, solventless application region to apply the first layer mixture as the first electrode layer onto the electrode substrate via the dry dispersion method; and
cause the first heater to apply heat to the electrode substrate and/or the first electrode layer and/or after application of the first layer mixture as the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate, because Mosso teaches this would enable the process conditions to be controlled and monitored. (See Mosso, Abstract, para 0083-0087, and Fig. 1.)
Claims 1, 9, 16, and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosso et al (US 20110143019 A1) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Mosso teaches a solventless system for fabricating electrodes comprising:
a first dry, solventless application station 212 (region) comprising an aerosol sprayer (first device) configured to apply, via a dry dispersion application, a first electrode layer to an electrode substrate comprising a current collector material (See Mosso, para 0030 for “dry process” and “aerosol spraying”, para 0044, 0076, 0091); and
integrated heater/implicit of annealing (first heater) configured to heat the first electrode layer and/or the electrode substrate during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate (see para 0060 for “integrated heater”, see para 0073 for “annealing”).
Mosso further teaches the first electrode layer comprises an active material mixture, a binder, and a conductive material (para 0034-0035).
Further regarding claim 1, Mosso further teaches a conveyor belt 12 (mechanism between 202 and 224) for feeding the electrode substrate (current collector) through the system (200). ( See Mosso, col. 4, lines 67-68 through col. 5, lines 1-13; Fig. 2-6).
Mitchell does not explicitly teach “ a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; a conductive material”.
Porter is directed to forming a dry electrode.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector); because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
The apparatus of Mosso is mechanically configured to deposit various compositions, including the claimed compositions, since there is no mechanical or structural difference between the apparatus of Mosso and the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding claim 9, Mosso further teaches the aerosol sprayer (first device) applies the first electrode layer to each of opposing sides of the electrode substrate (para 0032-0033).
Regarding claims 16 and 21, Mosso further teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program comprising instructions which are executed by a computer to cause a processor to operate the system of Mosso in the claimed manner (para 0083-0085; see claim 1 rejection above as being anticipated by Mosso).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosso et al (US 20110143019 A1) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mitchell (hereinafter Mitchell ‘473) (US 20050186473, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Mosso does not explicitly teach that the first heater heats a first surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second surface of the electrode substrate to which the first layer is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) heats the first (lower) surface of electrode substrate 225 within a first application region, that is opposite a second (upper) surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second (upper) surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first heater (heated roll-mill) heats a first surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second surface of the electrode substrate to which the first upper layer is applied, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer. (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see for example Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Mosso does not explicitly teach that the first heater heats a first surface of the electrode substrate within the first dry, solventless application region and while the first device applies the first electrode layer to the second surface of the electrode substrate.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) heats the first (lower) surface of electrode substrate 425 within the first dry, solventless application region and while the first device applies the first electrode layer to the second surface of the electrode substrate, while a first (upper) electrode layer 204 is applied to the second (upper) surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and (upper) electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller opposite of the first (upper) electrode layer in the modified device of Mosso such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and (upper) electrode layer 50. (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see Fig. 2).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosso et al (US 20110143019 A1) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, as mentioned above, Mosso does not explicitly teach a first heater configured to heat the first opposite, lower surface of the electrode substrate after the first upper electrode layer is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate.
However, Brooks teaches a lower induction coil 17 (first heater) configured to heat a lower surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. ( See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the first heater after the first upper electrode layer is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate in modified device of Mosso, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate. ( See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosso et al (US 20110143019 A1) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4, Mosso does not explicitly teach that the lower roller of heated roll-mill is configured to heat the first lower surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate to which the first upper layer is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) configured to heat the first lower surface of electrode substrate 425 within a first application region, that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second upper surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see for example Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller 52 opposite of the first upper electrode layer 34 in Mitchell ‘298 such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer 50.
Claims 7, and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosso et al (US 20110143019 A1) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) and Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Mitchell (hereinafter Mitchell ‘298) (US 20050266298)
Regarding claim 7, Mosso does not explicitly teach a second heater positioned to heat the first electrode layer after the first electrode layer is applied to the upper second surface of the electrode substrate.
However, Brooks teaches an upper induction coil 17 (second heater) configured to heat an upper surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange another (i.e., “second”) heater after the first upper electrode layer is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate in Mosso, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Mosso does not explicitly teach a second dry, solventless application region comprising a second device, the second device:
receiving a first layer mixture: comprising an active layer mixture, a binder, and a conductive material, and applying, via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer.
Mitchell ‘298 teaches a second dry, solventless application region comprising a second device, the second device:
receiving a first layer mixture: comprising an active layer mixture, a binder, and a conductive material, and applying, via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
Mitchell teaches multiple steps and plural containers (19, 20) can be used to dispense streams of dry particles to apply a second layer. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second dry, solventless application region comprising a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture: comprising an active layer mixture, a binder, and a conductive material, and applying, via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, because Mitchell teaches this would reduce the defects due to swelling caused by the interactions of residues and impurities with other materials. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 101-102, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
Mosso does not explicitly teach providing a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, in the same embodiment.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector); because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Therefore, in view of Mosso and In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
The KSR Court recognized that “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. In such circumstances, “the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
It would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector as a predictable solutions for providing materials with increased homogeneity and reducing unwanted properties of solvents, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397).
The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 7, Mosso does not explicitly teach a third heater heating the second electrode layer.
However, Brooks teaches an upper induction coil 17 (second heater) configured to heat an upper surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Mosso and Brooks
In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 8, Mosso does not explicitly teach a third device positioned within the first dry, solventless application region, the third device:
receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the third layer mixture to the first surface of the electrode substrate as a third electrode layer.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a third device positioned within the first dry, solventless application region, the third device:
receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the third layer mixture to the first surface of the electrode substrate as a third electrode layer; because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Therefore, in view of Mosso and In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
A patent for a combination, which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, obviously withdraws what is already known into the field of its monopoly and diminishes the resources available to skillful men. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. KSR v. Teleflex
The KSR Court recognized that “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. In such circumstances, “the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103.”
It would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of including a third device positioned within the first dry, solventless application region, the third device:
receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the third layer mixture to the first surface of the electrode substrate as a third electrode layer. as a predictable solutions for providing materials with increased homogeneity and reducing unwanted properties of solvents, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397).
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mosso et al (US 20110143019 A1) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Wirth (USP 3386416, already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Mosso does not explicitly teach a grounding wire electrically coupled to the electrode substrate when the first device applies the first electrode layer to the substrate.
However, Wirth teaches a grounding wire 17 electrically coupled to a substrate 2 when a container 4 (device) apples a layer to the substrate 2, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity. (See Wirth, col. 2, lines 38-55; col. 3, lines 1-11; see for example Fig. 1.)
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to electrically couple a grounding wire to the electrode substrate when the first device applies the first electrode layer to the substrate in Mitchell, as taught by Wirth, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity. (See Wirth, col. 2, lines 38-55; col. 3, lines 1-11; see for example Fig. 1.)
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goller (USP 4175055, already of record) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Goller teaches a solventless system for fabricating electrodes comprising:
a first application region comprising a chamber 16 (first device) configured to apply, via a dry dispersion application, a first electrode layer to an electrode substrate 12 (col. 4, lines 67-68 through col. 5, lines 1-29; see Figure for example) comprising a current collector (col. 5, lines 62-68 through col. 6, lines 1-30); and
an oven 32 (first heater) configured to heat the first electrode layer and/or the electrode substrate 12 during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate 12 to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate 12 (col. 5, lines 55-61; col. 3, lines 34-41; see Figure for example).
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed. See MPEP 2111.04.
In this case, the limitation “an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; a conductive material” refers to the coating composition and does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115).
The apparatus of Goller is mechanically configured to deposit various compositions, including the claimed compositions, since there is no mechanical or structural difference between the apparatus of Goller and the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Further regarding claim 1, Goller further teaches a conveyor belt 12 (mechanism) for feeding the electrode substrate 12 through the system (col. 4, lines 67-68 through col. 5, lines 1-13; see Figure for example).
Regarding claim 3, Goller further teaches that the (mechanism) for feeding the electrode substrate 12 is a conveyor belt 12 (roller assembly) that comprises rollers 28, 30 (at least one mandrel) used to compress the electrode substrate 20 after the electrode layer has been applied thereto (col. 5, lines 55-61; see Figure for example).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goller (USP 4175055) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1), as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Mitchell (hereinafter Mitchell ‘473) (US 20050186473, cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Goller does not explicitly teach that the first heater heats a first surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second surface of the electrode substrate to which the first layer is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) heats the first (lower) surface of electrode substrate 225 within a first application region, that is opposite a second (upper) surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second (upper) surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the first heater (heated roll-mill) heats a first surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second surface of the electrode substrate to which the first upper layer is applied, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer. (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see for example Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Goller does not explicitly teach that the first heater heats a first surface of the electrode substrate within the first dry, solventless application region and while the first device applies the first electrode layer to the second surface of the electrode substrate.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) heats the first (lower) surface of electrode substrate 425 within the first dry, solventless application region and while the first device applies the first electrode layer to the second surface of the electrode substrate, while a first (upper) electrode layer 204 is applied to the second (upper) surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and (upper) electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller opposite of the first (upper) electrode layer in the modified device of Goller such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and (upper) electrode layer 50. (See Mitchell ‘473, para 0041; see Fig. 2).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goller (USP 4175055) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4 and 6, as mentioned above, Goller does not explicitly teach a first heater configured to heat the first opposite, lower surface of the electrode substrate after the first upper electrode layer is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate.
However, Brooks teaches a lower induction coil 17 (first heater) configured to heat a lower surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. ( See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the first heater after the first upper electrode layer is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate in modified device of Goller, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate. ( See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see Fig. 1).
Claim 4 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goller (USP 4175055) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record).
Regarding claims 4, Goller does not explicitly teach that the lower roller of heated roll-mill is configured to heat the first lower surface of the electrode substrate that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate to which the first upper layer is applied.
However, Mitchell ‘473 teaches a lower roll heater (implicit of heated roll 215) configured to heat the first lower surface of electrode substrate 425 within a first application region, that is opposite a second upper surface of the electrode substrate 202, while a first upper electrode layer 204 is applied to the second upper surface, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 202 and upper electrode layer 204 (para 0041; see for example Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first heater at the lower roller opposite of the first upper electrode layer such that both rollers are heated, as taught by Mitchell ‘473, for the benefit of improving the pressure bond between the electrode substrate 34 and upper electrode layer.
Claims 7, and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goller (USP 4175055) and Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) and Mitchell (US 20050186473, cited in IDS) and Brooks (USP 3167442, already of record) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Mitchell (hereinafter Mitchell ‘298) (US 20050266298)
Regarding claim 7, Goller does not explicitly teach a second heater positioned to heat the first electrode layer after the first electrode layer is applied to the upper second surface of the electrode substrate.
However, Brooks teaches an upper induction coil 17 (second heater) configured to heat an upper surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange another (i.e., “second”) heater after the first upper electrode layer is applied to the second upper surface of the electrode substrate in Goller, as taught by Brooks, for the benefit of bonding the first upper electrode layer to the surface of the second upper surface of the electrode substrate. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Goller does not explicitly teach a second dry, solventless application region comprising a second device, the second device:
receiving a first layer mixture: comprising an active layer mixture, a binder, and a conductive material, and applying, via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer.
Mitchell ‘298 teaches a second dry, solventless application region comprising a second device, the second device:
receiving a first layer mixture: comprising an active layer mixture, a binder, and a conductive material, and applying, via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
Mitchell teaches multiple steps and plural containers (19, 20) can be used to dispense streams of dry particles to apply a second layer. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a second dry, solventless application region comprising a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture: comprising an active layer mixture, a binder, and a conductive material, and applying, via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, because Mitchell teaches this would reduce the defects due to swelling caused by the interactions of residues and impurities with other materials. ( See Mitchell, Figs. 2a, 2g, paragraphs 82, 99, 101-102, 104, 111, 116, and 117. )
Goller does not explicitly teach providing a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, in the same embodiment.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector); because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Therefore, in view of Goller and In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 7, Goller does not explicitly teach a third heater heating the second electrode layer.
However, Brooks teaches an upper induction coil 17 (second heater) configured to heat an upper surface of a sheet metal 6 (substrate) after a first upper powder layer 26 is applied to an upper surface of the sheet metal 6 (substrate), for the benefit of bonding the powder layer to the surface of the sheet metal. (See Brooks, col. 2, lines 58-67; col. 4, lines 33-42; see for example Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Goller and Brooks
In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Regarding claim 8, Goller does not explicitly teach a third device positioned within the first dry, solventless application region, the third device:
receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the third layer mixture to the first surface of the electrode substrate as a third electrode layer.
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a third device positioned within the first dry, solventless application region, the third device:
receiving a third layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the third layer mixture to the first surface of the electrode substrate as a third electrode layer; because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Therefore, in view of Goller and In re Harza, a case of prima facie obviousness exists to provide additional rollers (devices) and heaters to apply additional electrode layers with a reasonable expectation of success. The 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). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a second dry, solventless application region comprising: a second device, the second device: receiving a first layer mixture comprising a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof”; and a conductive material, applying via a dry dispersion application, the second layer mixture to the first electrode layer, a third heater heating the second electrode layer, for the benefit of applying additional electrode layers and obtain a desired layer thickness and density.
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Goller (USP 4175055, already of record) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Wirth (USP 3386416, already of record).
Regarding claim 10, Goller does not explicitly teach a grounding wire electrically coupled to the electrode substrate 12 when the chamber 16 (first device) applies the first electrode layer to the substrate 12.
However, Wirth teaches a grounding wire 17 electrically coupled to a substrate 2 when a container 4 (device) apples a layer to the substrate 2, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity (col. 2, lines 38-55; col. 3, lines 1-11; see for example Fig. 1). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to electrically couple a grounding wire to the electrode substrate 12 when the chamber 16 (first device) applies the first electrode layer to the substrate 12 in Goller, as taught by Wirth, for the benefit of assuring adhesive to the substrate and improving deposition uniformity.
Double Patenting
The previous rejection of claim 1-10 and 21 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11394017 (US App. No. 17/302,944) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1) is withdrawn based on the amendment to claim 1.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11394017 (US App. No. 17/302,944) in view of Porter Mitchell et al (hereinafter Porter) et al (US 20200152987 A1). With the elements from the references in parentheses
A solventless system for fabricating electrodes (A solventless system for fabricating electrodes) comprising:
a mechanism for feeding an electrode substrate comprising a current collector material through the solventless system (a mechanism for feeding a substrate comprising a current collector material through the system) ;
a first dry, solventless application region comprising a first device (a first application region comprising a first device for applying a first layer to the substrate via a dry dispersion application ) , the first device:
receiving a first layer mixture comprising:
an active material mixture comprising: a binder comprising a thermoplastic material, a thermoset material, or a combination thereof, and a conductive material (the first layer comprises an active material mixture, a binder, and a conductive material to the current collector; and the binder comprises a thermoplastic material and/or a thermoset material) ; and,
applying via a dry dispersion application, the first layer mixture to the electrode substrate as a first electrode layer (a first application region comprising a first device for applying a first layer to the substrate via a dry dispersion application), and
a first heater heating the first electrode layer and/or the electrode substrate during and/or after application of the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate to bind the first electrode layer to the electrode substrate (a first heater positioned to heat the first layer during and/or after application of the first layer to the substrate to bind the first layer to the substrate) .
U.S. Patent No. 11394017 does not explicitly teach a first dry, solventless application region comprising a first device, the first device receiving a first layer mixture comprising: an active material mixture comprising lithium titanate oxide (LTO), cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, manganese oxide, nickel cobalt manganese oxide, iron phosphate, iron oxide, silicon, or a combination thereof;
Porter teaches an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, lithium manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (conductive carbon). (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3 and paragraphs 159-162.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include “an active material mixture comprising an active material mixture comprising: cobalt oxide, a metal oxide, iron phosphate, or nickel cobalt manganese oxide; a binder comprising a thermoplastic material (PP, PE) ; a conductive material (carbon coating on a current collector); because Porter teaches this would allow electrode materials to be produced with improved consistency and homogeneity and decreased resistivity and increased specific surface area. (See Porter, Figs. 2a, 2g, 3, 10, and paragraphs 5, 9, 14-16, 34, 37-42, 98, 143, and 159-164.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-10, 16, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response, a system claim may include compositions of matter as part of the system claim. However, unless the composition of matter corresponds to a structural or mechanical difference in the claimed apparatus (i.e., system), then instant claim 1 is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 19 of the ‘017 Patent. Claims 1 and 19 of the ‘017 Patent must have all mechanical claim features of claim 1. The applicant has failed to establish that the claimed composition amounts to merely more than a manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights