DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kurihara is not an anticipatory reference (see Remarks filed 8/15/2025).
While Kurihara does not expressly disclose performing plasma treatment on the granulated material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the steps, since it has been held that changes in sequence is prima facie obvious in the absence of any new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)). Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Further, with respect to claim 1 reciting “the first roll and the second roll are arranged such that a gap between the first roll and the second roll is between 50 µm to 10 mm”, Kurihara discloses a hot roll press, and that an electrode active material layer having a thickness of 70 µm is produced ([0300]) such that the gap between the pair of rolls is within the claimed range. Accordingly, claim 1 is not obvious over Kurihara.
Further regarding applicant’s arguments that Miura does not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Kurihara (see Remarks filed 8/15/2025), Miura is not relied upon to teach the alleged deficiencies.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. (US 2005/0064096A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kurihara discloses a method of manufacturing an electrode (Title, Abstract), comprising:
obtaining a granulated material by mixing an electrode active material, a binder, and a solvent (see Title, Abstract; granulating step to make a composite particle containing electrode active material, binder [0025], solvent [0058]),
performing plasma treatment on the granulated material (plasma processing step [0056]),
preparing the electrode active material such that at least one type of functional group selected from hydroxy group, carbonyl group, and carboxyl group is included on a surface of the electrode active material by the plasma treatment on the granulated material (minute amounts of oxygen and hydrogen react with the surface of the carbon material, whereby new functional groups are introduced [0056], i.e., hydroxy groups);
performing compression molding on the granulated material with a first roll and second roll that is positioned parallel to the first roll to form an electrode composite layer (sheet forming step by heating and pressing, such as a hot roll press by a pair of hot rolls [0096], [0098]); and placing the electrode composite layer on an electrode current collector (active material containing layer arranged step of arranging the sheet as the active material containing layer on the collector [0096]), wherein the first roll and the second roll are arranged such that a gap between the first roll and the second roll is between 50 µm to 10 mm (hot roll press, electrode active material layer having a thickness of 70 µm is produced [0300] such that the gap between the pair of rolls is within the claimed range).
Further regarding claim 1, while Kurihara does not expressly disclose performing plasma treatment on the granulated material, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the steps, since it has been held that changes in sequence is prima facie obvious in the absence of any new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)). Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In reBurhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In reGibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
Regarding claim 5, Kurihara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kurihara further discloses the electrode active material comprises a positive-electrode active material, the positive-electrode active material comprising at least one of lithium-containing metal oxides and lithium-containing phosphates ([0189]), and the average particle diameter of the positive-electrode active material is 1 to 25 µm (5 to 20 µm [0192]).
Regarding claim 6, Kurihara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kurihara further discloses the electrode active material comprises a negative-electrode active material, the negative-electrode active material comprising at least one of graphite, easily graphitizable carbon, and hardly graphitizable carbon ([0180]), and the average particle diameter of the negative-electrode active material is 1 to 25 µm (1 to 30 µm [0192]; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed 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. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.).
Regarding claim 7, Kurihara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Kurihara further discloses the further comprises a conductive material, and the conductive material includes at least one of acetylene black (AB), thermal black, and furnace black ([0181], acetylene black [0296]-[0297]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. (US 2005/0064096A1), as applied to claims 1, 5-7 above, in view of Miura (US 2018/0287138A1).
Regarding claim 3, Kurihara discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Kurihara does not further disclose the granulated material has a solid content percentage that is equal to or greater than 75 mass % and is equal to or less than 90 mass %.
Miura discloses a method of producing an electrode including preparing wet granules by mixing polymer, solvent and active material particles (see Title, Abstract). Because Miura teaches a solid content proportion in the range of 80 mass % or greater and less than 100 mass % forms wet granules, wherein wet granules are formed within the above range and a higher density of the active material film is obtained leading to higher battery capacity ([0004], [0040]-[0042]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the solid content in the granulated material in order to arrive at desired electrode density and battery capacity (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 11/29/2025