DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the (d)” should state “(d)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “wherein when a 6 o'clock direction or a 12 o'clock direction is the vertical direction and the second region is disposed between a 2 o'clock direction and a 4 o'clock direction, the third region is disposed away from the second region in a direction crossing the vertical direction”. The examiner notes the clock center is not defined, such that limitation requiring that the position of the second region between 2 o’clock and 4 o’clock is not particularly limiting since a clock center may be placed anywhere such that the limitation is met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US-20200185782-A1) in view of Noda (US-20160279667-A1).
Regarding claim 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
602
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1,
Tanaka teaches a method [0002] of producing an electrode (Fig. 1, 100; [0048]) comprising:
(a) preparing granules (Fig. 1, powder 123 prepared within powder supply device 30; [0055], “powder…mixed”),
the granules (123) including an active material powder (Fig. 1, 121; [0055], “powder of…active material) and a binder (Fig. 1, 122; [0055], “binder”);
(b) supplying the granules onto a surface (Fig. 1, 15; [0057]) of a roller (Fig. 1, 10; [0057]);
(c) electrically charging ([0057], “potential difference is created…electrostatic force to act on powder”, wherein the force thereof is a direct result of the powder becoming electrically charged; the examiner notes that the charging of the particles happens separately and as a result of the potential difference being created);
(d) transferring the granules from a first region (annotated Fig. 1, “first region”) to a second region (annotated Fig. 1, “second region”) by way of rotation of the roller (Fig. 1, 10; [0051]);
and wherein the second region (annotated Fig. 1, “second region”) is positioned lower (see annotated Fig. 1) in a vertical direction than the first region (annotated Fig. 1, wherein the “second region” is lower in vertical direction than the “first region”),
Tanaka fails to teach (e) forming a first electric field between the second region and a third region to allow the granules to fly from the second region toward the third region; and (f) forming a second electric field between the third region and a substrate to allow the granules to fly from the third region toward the substrate, the third region is positioned away from the second region in a direction crossing the vertical direction, the substrate is positioned lower in the vertical direction than the third region, and the granules adhere to the substrate and thereby an active material layer is formed, wherein when a 6 o'clock direction or a 12 o'clock direction is the vertical direction and the second region is disposed between a 2 o'clock direction and a 4 o'clock direction, the third region is disposed away from the second region in a direction crossing the vertical direction.
PNG
media_image2.png
596
706
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Noda, analogous in the art of powder coating processes (see Fig. 4 and [0003] [0015]), teaches:
(e) forming a first electric field (Fig. 1, potential difference and thus electric field between 31A and 70A; [0068]) between the second region (annotated Fig. 1, “second region” positioned on the surface of 31; [0068]) and a third region (annotated Fig. 1; electric field between 70A and the substrate; wherein the third region is positioned in the vicinity of the electrode plates 70A) to allow the granules (Fig. 1, 11; [0106]) to fly (Fig. 1, wherein particles 11 fly between the regions thereof; [0095];[0106]) from the second region (annotated Fig. 1, “second region”) toward the third region (annotated Fig. 1; “third region”; see [0106]; which describes how powder is not yet transferred to the substrate 10 when upstream the slit 71A which is in the region of the first electric field [0068]) ;
and (f) forming a second electric field (Fig. 1, potential difference and thus electric field between 71A and 10; [0068]) between the third region (Noda, annotated Fig. 1, “third region”) and a substrate (annotated Fig. 1, 10; [0106]) to allow the powder to fly from the third region toward the substrate (see [0106], wherein the powder only flies to the substrate when it inside, and not above, the slit, such that the granules are within the region of the second electric field defined by [0068], such that the second electric field allows the granules to transfer, and thus fly, to the substrate),
the third region (Noda, annotated Fig. 1, “third region”) is positioned away (annotated Fig. 1, arrow between second and third region) from the second region in a direction crossing the vertical direction (i.e. wherein a down-right direction is not parallel with the vertical direction such that it intersects it),
the substrate (Fig. 1, 10; [0106]) is positioned lower (see Fig. 1) in the vertical direction than the third region (Noda, annotated Fig. 1, substrate 10 lower than “third region” in vertical direction),
and the granules adhere ([003], “electrostatically adhere”) to the substrate (Fig. 1, 10; [0106]) and thereby an active material layer is formed (Fig. 1, 11A; [0055]),
wherein when a 6 o'clock direction or a 12 o'clock direction is the vertical direction (annotated Fig. 1, wherein the vertical direction) and the second region (annotated Fig. 1, “second region”) is disposed between (annotated Fig. 1, wherein at least a portion of the “second region” is disposed between the two dashed arrows) a 2 o'clock direction (annotated Fig. 1, dashed arrow along 2 o’clock direction) and a 4 o'clock direction (annotated Fig. 1, dashed arrow along 4 o’clock direction) wherein, the third region (annotated Fig. 1, “third region”) is disposed away (annotated Fig. 1, arrow between second and third region) from the second region in a direction crossing the vertical direction (i.e. wherein a down-right direction is not parallel with the vertical direction such that it intersects it).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Tanaka to include the steps (e) and (f), use first electric field [0068], second electric field [0068], and a third region between the second region and the substrate (annotated Fig. 1; “third region”, wherein the third region includes the electrode terminals 70A for generating the electric fields [0068]),as taught by Noda for the benefit of advantages such as reduced unevenness (Noda, [0103]-[0104]).
Regarding claim 5,
Modified Tanaka teaches the method of producing an electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but is silent to wherein the first electric field has a first electric field strength, the second electric field has a second electric field strength, and the second electric field strength is smaller than the first electric field strength. Noda teaches wherein the first electric field (Fig. 1, between 31 and 70A; [0068]) has a first electric field strength ([0068]; wherein a first potential difference= |voltage of 31A | -|voltage of 70A |, wherein electric field strength is proportional to voltage); the second electric field (Fig. 1, field between 70A and 10, [0068]) has a second electric field strength ([0068], wherein a second potential difference= |voltage of 70A |-0, wherein the substrate is grounded and thus has a potential of 0 [0068]), and the second electric field strength is smaller than the first electric field strength ([0106]; wherein, in order for the negatively charged particles 11 to be attracted forward along a path to the substrate 10, the voltage must become progressively smaller such that there is a positive potential gradient driving the negatively charged particles forward at each step).
When incorporating the second electric fields of Noda (see modification in claim 1 above), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to also apply positive potential gradient, wherein the potential difference of the second electric field is thus less (see above), such that a potential difference drives the transfer of the negatively charged granules towards the electrode plate, such that the coating method functions as intended (Noda; [0106]). Further, Tanaka teaches modifications may be made to the device [0125].
Alternatively, modified Tanaka suggests that when the overall potential difference becomes too great, scattering occurs during coating [0104], such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the second electric field ([0095]; see rejection of claim 1 above wherein the second electric field is responsible for transferring the granules from 70A to the substrate) to be weaker than the first, such that scattering is reduced (Noda; [0104]).
Regarding claim 6,
Modified Tanaka teaches the method of producing an electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the (d) (see rejection of claim 1 above) includes spreading the granules evenly (annotated Fig. 1, wherein doctor blade 31 evenly spreads granules while they are transferred to the “second region” in (d); [0054]) on the surface of the roller (Fig. 1, 15; [0054]).
Regarding claim 7,
Modified Tanaka teaches the method of producing an electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising: (g) fixing ([0066], “bonded”) the active material layer (123) to the substrate (110) by applying at least one of pressure (Fig. 1, heated rolls 40 and 50; [0058]) and heat (Fig. 1, heated rolls 40 and 50; [0058]) to the active material layer (123).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US-20200185782-A1) in view of Noda (US-20160279667-A1) and further in view of Uezono (US20160240859A1).
Regarding claim 2,
Modified Tanaka teaches the method of producing an electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but is silent to wherein the granules have a solid fraction from 70 to 100% by mass. Uezono teaches wherein granules have a solid fraction of 75% [0092] with is within the claimed range from 70 to 100% by mass. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the particles of Uezono into the method of producing an electrode, taught by modified Tanaka, because Uezono teaches the granules as known in the art for method of forming an electrode (Fig. 2, 120X; [0108]) using rollers [0011]. Further, Tanaka teaches modifications may be made to the device [0125].
Regarding claim 3,
Modified Noda teaches the method of producing an electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the granules have a D50 of greater than 100 um, which overlaps with the claimed range from 100 to 200 um. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20200185782 A1) in view of Noda (US20160279667A1) and further in view of Isshiki (US-20230138078-A1).
Regarding claim 4,
Modified Tanaka teaches the method of producing an electrode according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the granules have an angle of repose of 50 or less. Isshiki teaches wherein granules ([0011], “composite particles…granular”) have an angle of repose of 20 to 40 [0016], which lies entirely within the claimed range of 50 or less. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the particles of Isshiki into the method of modified Tanaka because Isshiki teaches particles with the desired angle of repose above can obtain a high peel strength, improving cycle characteristics [0062]. Further, Tanaka teaches modifications may be made to the device [0125].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly amended feature is not taught by the prior art: “wherein when a 6 o'clock direction or a 12 o'clock direction is the vertical direction and the second region is disposed between a 2 o'clock direction and a 4 o'clock direction, the third region is disposed away from the second region in a direction crossing the vertical direction”. The examiner notes the clock center is not defined, such that limitation requiring that the position of the second region between 2 o’clock and 4 o’clock is not particularly limiting since a clock center may be placed anywhere such that the limitation is met. In the rejection of claim 1 above (see annotated Fig. 1 above), the clock center is placed such that:
wherein when a 6 o'clock direction or a 12 o'clock direction is the vertical direction (annotated Fig. 1, wherein the vertical direction) and the second region (annotated Fig. 1, “second region”) is disposed between (annotated Fig. 1, wherein at least a portion of the “second region” is disposed between the two dashed arrows) a 2 o'clock direction (annotated Fig. 1, dashed arrow along 2 o’clock direction) and a 4 o'clock direction (annotated Fig. 1, dashed arrow along 4 o’clock direction) wherein, the third region (annotated Fig. 1, “third region”) is disposed away (annotated Fig. 1, arrow between second and third region) from the second region in a direction crossing the vertical direction (i.e. wherein a down-right direction is not parallel with the vertical direction such that it intersects it).
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off an allowable independent claim. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20050287306-A1, relevant to a similar method of electrostatic coating [0001].
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723