DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received September 11, 2025:
Claims 1-7 have been canceled as per Applicant’s request. Claims 10-12 have been added. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn as being drawn to an unelected species.
The previous claim objection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous 112 rejection is withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The core of the previous prior art rejection is made with slight changes made in light of the amendment. Additionally, a new reference is relied upon to render obvious the claimed invention.
All changes to the rejection are necessitated by the amendment. Thus, the action is final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 8-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022077014 (Umizumi) in view of US 2020/0243834 (Ban et al.) and US 2002/01066560(Ban et al.).
As to claim 8, Umizumi teaches a method for producing an electrode of a battery cell comprising:
producing an electrode powder mixture by:
providing a powdered active material with a powdered first polymer binder by means of electrostatic coating (para 0017, 0021, 0031, 0041), and
providing powdered first conductive additive by means of electrostatic coating (para 0021, 0031-0032, 0041).
Regarding melting the first polymer binder, Umizumi teaches the first polymer binder can either be melted during electrostatic coating or after the coating the conductor (para 0021, 0041).
Umizumi also teaches applying the electrode powder mixture to a conductor (para 0020).
Accordingly Umizumi et al. do not teach (a) mixing the active material coated with the first polymer binder with a further polymer binder, or (b) that the melting of the first binder occurs after the electrostatic coating but prior to applying the electrode powder mixture to a conductor.
With respect to (a): Ban et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for forming an electrode (para 0096). Ban specifically teaches that at least one binder may be used (polymeric material set forth) (para 0104, 0106), which appreciates the use of a first polymer binder mixed with a further binder. The substitution of using a singular polymer binder (recognized by both Umizumi and Ban et al.) for the use of a mixture of two binders (one of them a polymer) (recognized by Ban et al.) would yield the predictable result of acting as a binder. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute using a singular polymer binder for the use of a mixture of two binders (one of them a polymer), as the substitution would yield the predictable result of acting as a binder . “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b): Kolb et al., in the same field of endeavor, teach of mixing binder with active material, and melting the binder prior to applying to a conductor (para 0094). The substitution of melting of the first binder occurs after the electrostatic coating but prior to applying the electrode powder mixture to a conductor for melting either during electrostatic coating or after application to the conductor would yield the predictable result of providing a melted binder product on active material (wherein the timing of the melting is known in the art). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) melting of the first binder occurs after the electrostatic coating but prior to applying the electrode powder mixture to a conductor for melting either during electrostatic coating or after application to the conductor would yield the predictable result of providing a melted binder product on active material (wherein the timing of the melting is known in the art). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 9, Umizumi teach the electrode powder mixture applied to the conductor is heated and pressed and/or calendared (para 0069).
As to claim 12, Umizumi teaches the grain size of the powdered first polymer binder has an average particle size of 0.1-100 µm, exemplifying 18 µm (para 0048-0049, 0067), wherein a thickness of the PTFE coating is several microns (para 0067; figs. 4-6). As seen in figs. 4-6, the binder [7] appears to be smaller in diameter upon deposition than the active material [6] (to address the anticipatory interpretation).
Although an indication of size is given by the figures, figures are not always to scale, and thus, at the very least, obviousness of the grain size of the powdered first polymer binder is selected to be smaller than or equal to the grain size of the powdered active material, as the several microns is the thickest that the binder may be, wherein the average particle size is exemplified to be 18 µm but embodied to be up to 100 µm (para 0067) (which could larger than several micrometers). Thus, at the very least, the teaching of Umizumi regarding the grain sizes overlaps the claim. “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant requests rejoinder of claims 10-11.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As independent claim 8 is not allowable, no rejoinder is appropriate at this time.
Applicant argues that the amendment to the claim is not within Umizumi et al. (specifically regarding the timing of the melting of the first polymer claimed).
Examiner submits that in light of the amendment, Kolb et al. is relied upon to render the claimed invention obvious. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
Applicant argues claims 9-10 regarding Ban et al., specifically that the Ban adds binders at the same and does not provided the claimed method.
Examiner submits for clarification – there appears to be a typographical error in the claims addressed. It is interpreted that claims 8-9 are meant instead (as claim 9 is not independent, and claim 10 is withdrawn). Regarding the argument, Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim language is broader than Applicant is interpreting. As long as the method includes electrostatically coating an active material with a first polymer binder (achieved by Umizumi), the timing at which a second binder is added is not specifically limited. Nothing in the claim language precludes that both binders may be added at the same time; as long as electrostatic coating of the first polymer binder is achieved on any active material, then a mixture of a second binder therewith applies to the claimed invention. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
EXAMINER NOTE (regarding remarks for rejoinder, for clarity and compact prosecution): The nonelected species and the elected species are distinct. Any future rejoinder would result in new matter issues (specifically the current generic claim requires a first conductive material, while the non-elected species only has a second conductive additive without having the first conductive additive).
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:30 -7:30(AM) and 9:00-4:30 ET.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759