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 .
Claim Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim term “graphite” must be given their plain meaning (e.g., see graphite defined1 as “A soft crystalline allotrope of carbon, composed of graphene layers, having a steel-gray to black metallic luster and a greasy feel, used in lead pencils, lubricants, paints and coatings, and fabricated into a variety of forms such as molds, bricks, electrodes, crucibles, and rocket nozzles. Also called black lead, plumbago”) consistent with the specification (e.g., see “… Graphite is a crystalline form of the element carbon with its atoms arranged in a hexagonal structure. The carbon atoms are set hexagonally in a planar condensed ring system. Layers can be stacked parallel to each other. Atoms within the rings are bonded covalently, while layers are loosely linked together by van der Waals forces …” in paragraph 94).
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… As an electrode may be a relatively thin structure, graphite may be expected to be oriented as plates such that the ab directions are parallel to a substrate …” in paragraph 99) serves as a glossary for the newly added claim term “laminar graphite particles”.
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the newly added claim terms “thermal expansion coefficient” and “being negative” must be given their plain meaning (e.g., see thermal expansion coefficient defined2 as “The fractional change in length or volume of a material for a unit change in temperature” and deformation defined3 as “Any alteration of shape or dimensions of a body caused by stresses, thermal expansion or contraction, chemical or metallurgical transformations, or shrinkage and expansions due to moisture change”) consistent with the specification (e.g., see “… Crystalline silicon has … a linear thermal expansion coefficient of 2.6x10-6/K … In the c direction, it increases slowly and gradually. At 0 degrees C., the coefficient of thermal expansion averages 25x10-6/K and at 400 degrees C., it reaches 28x10-6/K. In the ab directions, the thermal expansion is negative up to approximately 400 degrees C. with a minimum at 0 degrees C …” in paragraphs 91 and 94).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 and 27-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
While the specification discloses graphite’s properties such as a basal plane’s thermal expansion coefficient that is a function of temperature (e.g., see “… Crystalline silicon has … a linear thermal expansion coefficient of 2.6x10-6/K … Graphite is a crystalline form of the element carbon with its atoms arranged in a hexagonal structure. The carbon atoms are set hexagonally in a planar condensed ring system. Layers can be stacked parallel to each other. Atoms within the rings are bonded covalently, while layers are loosely linked together by van der Waals forces … direction perpendicular to the basal plane (c direction, where ab directions are in the basal plane) … thermal expansion of the graphite crystal has a marked anisotropy. It is low in the ab directions but higher by an order of magnitude in the c direction. The increase with temperature is not linear. In the c direction, it increases slowly and gradually. At 0 degrees C., the coefficient of thermal expansion averages 25x10-6/K and at 400 degrees C., it reaches 28x10-6/K. In the ab directions, the thermal expansion is negative up to approximately 400 degrees C. with a minimum at 0 degrees C …” on pp. 21-23 cited by applicant as support), there does not appear to be any disclosure of an in-plane thermal expansion coefficient. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the material comprises particles that comprise a thermal expansion coefficient that differs from an in-plane thermal expansion coefficient of the laminar graphite particles” in the application as filed.
While the specification discloses graphite’s properties such as a negative thermal expansion coefficient in the ab directions at temperatures up to ~400°C with a minimum at 0°C (e.g., see “… The thermal expansion of the graphite crystal has a marked anisotropy. It is low in the ab directions but higher by an order of magnitude in the c direction. The increase with temperature is not linear. In the c direction, it increases slowly and gradually. At 0 degrees C, the coefficient of thermal expansion averages 25x10-6/K and at 400 degrees C, it reaches 28x10-6/K. In the ab directions, the thermal expansion is negative up to approximately 400 degrees C with a minimum at 0 degrees C. The observed negative expansion may be due to internal stress associated with large expansion in the c direction; noting that, if it were possible to measure the ab thermal expansion of a single atomic plane, this expansion would be positive. The large thermal expansion anisotropy may result in large internal stresses and structural problems such as delamination between planes …” on paragraph 96 cited by applicant as support), there does not appear to be any disclosure of imagery obtained at a temperature wherein a thermal expansion coefficient is negative. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the newly added claim limitation “wherein the controller processes the imagery to characterize internal stress of the electrode material responsive at least in part to the in-plane thermal expansion coefficient of the laminar graphite particles being negative” in the application as filed.
While the specification discloses graphite’s properties such as a negative thermal expansion coefficient in the ab directions at temperatures up to ~400°C with a minimum at 0°C (e.g., see “… The thermal expansion of the graphite crystal has a marked anisotropy. It is low in the ab directions but higher by an order of magnitude in the c direction. The increase with temperature is not linear. In the c direction, it increases slowly and gradually. At 0 degrees C, the coefficient of thermal expansion averages 25x10-6/K and at 400 degrees C, it reaches 28x10-6/K. In the ab directions, the thermal expansion is negative up to approximately 400 degrees C with a minimum at 0 degrees C. The observed negative expansion may be due to internal stress associated with large expansion in the c direction; noting that, if it were possible to measure the ab thermal expansion of a single atomic plane, this expansion would be positive. The large thermal expansion anisotropy may result in large internal stresses and structural problems such as delamination between planes …” in paragraph 96 cited by applicant as support), there does not appear to be any disclosure of imagery obtained at a temperature wherein a thermal expansion coefficient is negative in combination with the internal stress is indicative of shrinkage of the electrode material responsive to solvent evaporation. Therefore, there does not appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “wherein the internal stress is indicative of shrinkage of the electrode material responsive to solvent evaporation” in the application as filed.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above also fail(s) to comply with the written description requirement for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 15-20 and 27-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the newly added limitation “the material” in line 9. The antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim is indefinite since both “electrode material” and “a material” can be the antecedent basis for this limitation.
It should be noted that “the material” is also recited in claims 16, 18, 20, 28, and 30.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 15-20 and 27-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: “in-plane” orientation relative to the recited “laminar graphite particles”.
Claim(s) dependent on the claim(s) discussed above is/are also incomplete for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 15-20 and 27-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caruthers et al. (US 2014/0294036) in view of Haufe (US 2018/0212234), Tsang et al. (Graphite thermal expansion relationship for different temperature ranges, Carbon Vol. 43, no. 14 (Available online July 2005), pp. 2902-2906), and Yushin et al. (US 2012/0251886).
In regard to claim 15 in so far as understood, Caruthers et al. disclose a quality assessment system comprising:
(a) an infrared camera for capturing imagery of electrode material for an electrode of a lithium-ion battery (e.g., “… highspeed thermographic imaging can identify manufacturing defects in the anode and cathode sheets used in lithium-ion batteries, before the materials are further processed for battery pack assembly …” in paragraph 95), wherein the electrode material comprises laminar graphite particles (e.g., “… anode is usually coated with conductive graphite … anode composed of 80% graphite, 10% PVDF, and 10% carbon black by weight with an approximate film thickness of 70 µm … coater draw direction …” in paragraphs 81 and 118);
(b) a heat source (e.g., “… Flash thermography …” in paragraph 95); and
(c) a controller that controls the heat source and the infrared camera and that processes the imagery to characterize distribution of a second material in the electrode material at least in part via characterization of thermal stress (e.g., “… A variety of undesirable film qualities can be readily detected, including pinholes, thickness gradients, composition differences, bubbles and droplets, striations, and backside contaminants. When the imaging is combined with intelligent signal processing algorithms, quantitative results can be achieved. Flash thermography can be implemented as an on-line process for continuous product quality tracking … By examining their spatial signature using visual signal processing algorithms, the type of flaw can be assigned. Examples include … thermal deformation during the drying process … algorithm allows for specific defects to be identified automatically if their characteristics can be well-defined or classified …” in paragraphs 95, 108, 110, and 146 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that stress is4 “the action on a body of any system of balanced forces whereby strain or deformation results”), wherein each of the (e.g., “… thermal deformation during the drying process …” in paragraph 110).
The system of Caruthers et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Li-ion based battery materials …” such as particles having a thermal expansion coefficient that differs from an in-plane thermal expansion coefficient of the laminar graphite particles. However, “… Li-ion based battery materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… graphitic carbon is widespread as material for the negative electrode ("anode") of lithium ion batteries … To reduce the mechanical stress and thus to prevent electrochemical milling, the use of nano size silicon particles for anodes of lithium ion cells has frequently been recommended …” in paragraphs 3 and 6 of Haufe) and “… Li-ion based battery materials …” property details are also known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) … graphite components such as … electrodes … CTE perpendicular and parallel to the hexagonal axis …” in the abstract, section 2.1, Fig. 1, and Fig. 2 of Tsang et al. and “… carbon-based materials (e.g., graphite) are employed as the predominant anode material in Li-ion batteries … small shift in the silicon band suggests stresses caused by the difference in the thermal expansion of silicon and carbon …” in paragraphs 6 and 122 of Yushin et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional battery materials (e.g., comprising details such as “graphitic carbon” and “silicon particles” having material properties such as “difference in the thermal expansion of silicon and carbon” with “graphite” having “CTE perpendicular and parallel to the hexagonal axis”, in order to “reduce the mechanical stress”) for the unspecified battery materials of Caruthers et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional battery materials (e.g., comprising details such as the second material comprises particles that comprise a thermal expansion coefficient that differs from an in-plane thermal expansion coefficient of the laminar graphite particles) as the unspecified battery materials of Caruthers et al.
In regard to claim 16 which is dependent on claim 15, while Caruthers et al. also disclose (paragraph 95) that “… Li-ion based battery materials, the techniques are generally applicable to a variety of film coating operations, including battery chemistries other than Li-ion as well as polymeric and other material films …”, the system of Caruthers et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Li-ion based battery materials …” such as the second material comprises silicon. However, “… Li-ion based battery materials …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… graphitic carbon is widespread as material for the negative electrode ("anode") of lithium ion batteries … To reduce the mechanical stress and thus to prevent electrochemical milling, the use of nano size silicon particles for anodes of lithium ion cells has frequently been recommended …” in paragraphs 3 and 6 of Haufe). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional battery (e.g., comprising details such as “silicon particles”, in order to “reduce the mechanical stress”) for the unspecified battery of Caruthers et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional battery (e.g., comprising details such as the second material comprises silicon) as the unspecified battery of Caruthers et al.
In regard to claim 17 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the controller instructs the heat source to heat the electrode material and to capture the imagery during heating of the electrode material (e.g., “… A variety of undesirable film qualities can be readily detected, including pinholes, thickness gradients, composition differences, bubbles and droplets, striations, and backside contaminants. When the imaging is combined with intelligent signal processing algorithms, quantitative results can be achieved. Flash thermography can be implemented as an on-line process for continuous product quality tracking …” in paragraph 95).
In regard to claim 18 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the controller characterizes the distribution of the material by identifying presence of instances of the material in the imagery (e.g., “… A variety of undesirable film qualities can be readily detected, including pinholes, thickness gradients, composition differences, bubbles and droplets, striations, and backside contaminants. When the imaging is combined with intelligent signal processing algorithms, quantitative results can be achieved. Flash thermography can be implemented as an on-line process for continuous product quality tracking …” in paragraph 95).
In regard to claims 19 and 20 which are dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the controller generates output for process equipment, wherein the output instructs the process equipment to adjust at least one process parameter related to dispersal of the material with respect to a conveyed substrate (e.g., “… If the results of the analysis, which can be performed on-line with the manufacturing process, indicate that an unfavorable process event has occurred, corrective action can be taken immediately, minimizing loss of production time and product … undulations may be the result of the coating process-either a fluid mechanical instability or the interaction of the fluid with the elastomechanics of the coater assembly … process information can be used as direct feedback to the manufacturing process to improve the yield of the highest quality cells …” in paragraphs 113, 122, and 138). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller to adjust a process parameter “as direct feedback” to “the coater assembly”, in order “to improve the yield of the highest quality cells”.
In regard to claim 27 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the electrode comprises a graphite-based anode electrode (e.g., “… anode is usually coated with conductive graphite … specific materials used in the coatings determine the voltage of the battery …” in paragraph 81).
In regard to claim 28 which is dependent on claim 27, while Caruthers et al. also disclose that the controller processes the imagery to characterize distribution of a composition with respect to a different composition (e.g., “… coated film with areas of different thickness or composition …” in paragraph 95), the system of Caruthers et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… Li-ion based battery materials …” such as the material comprises silicon. However, “… Li-ion based battery …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… graphitic carbon is widespread as material for the negative electrode ("anode") of lithium ion batteries … To reduce the mechanical stress and thus to prevent electrochemical milling, the use of nano size silicon particles for anodes of lithium ion cells has frequently been recommended …” in paragraphs 3 and 6 of Haufe). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional battery (e.g., comprising details such as “silicon particles”, in order to “reduce the mechanical stress”) for the unspecified battery of Caruthers et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional battery (e.g., comprising details such as the material comprises silicon) as the unspecified battery of Caruthers et al.
In regard to claims 29 and 30 which are dependent on claim 15, while Caruthers et al. also disclose that the controller processes the imagery to characterize the thermal stress of the electrode material, wherein the thermal stress is indicative of distribution of the material in the electrode material (e.g., “… By examining their spatial signature using visual signal processing algorithms, the type of flaw can be assigned. Examples include … thermal deformation during the drying process … algorithm allows for specific defects to be identified automatically if their characteristics can be well-defined or classified …” in paragraphs 108, 110, and 146). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that stress is1 “the action on a body of any system of balanced forces whereby strain or deformation results”.
In regard to claim 31 which 1s dependent on claim 15, while Caruthers et al. also disclose that the controller processes the imagery to characterize internal stress of the electrode material responsive at least in part to a thermal expansion coefficient of the electrode material (e.g., “… By examining their spatial signature using visual signal processing algorithms, the type of flaw can be assigned. Examples include … thermal deformation during the drying process … algorithm allows for specific defects to be identified automatically if their characteristics can be well-defined or classified …” in paragraphs 108, 110, and 146), the system of Caruthers et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… thermal deformation …” such as graphite particles’ thermal expansion coefficient being negative at a temperature. However, “… Li-ion based battery materials …” property details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see Fig. 1 of Tsang et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted known conventional battery materials (e.g., comprising details such as “graphitic carbon” and “silicon particles” having material properties such as Fig. 1, in order to “reduce the mechanical stress”) for the unspecified battery materials of Caruthers et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide known conventional battery materials (e.g., comprising details such as the controller processes the imagery to characterize internal stress of the electrode material responsive at least in part to the in-plane thermal expansion coefficient of the laminar graphite particles being negative) as the unspecified battery materials of Caruthers et al.
In regard to claim 32 which are dependent on claim 31, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the internal stress is indicative of shrinkage of the electrode material responsive to solvent evaporation (e.g., “… By examining their spatial signature using visual signal processing algorithms, the type of flaw can be assigned. Examples include … thermal deformation during the drying process…” in paragraphs 108 and 110 or alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that “the drying process” comprises solvent evaporation).
In regard to claim 33 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the controller processes the imagery based on differences in thermal properties responsive to one or more of heating and cooling the electrode material (e.g., “… A variety of undesirable film qualities can be readily detected, including pinholes, thickness gradients, composition differences, bubbles and droplets, striations, and backside contaminants. When the imaging is combined with intelligent signal processing algorithms, quantitative results can be achieved. Flash thermography can be implemented as an on-line process for continuous product quality tracking …” in paragraph 95).
In regard to claim 34 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the infrared camera is positioned after one or more coating units and before one or more drying units of process equipment for coating a substrate with one or more mixtures to form the electrode (e.g., “… flash thermography method can detect poorly mixed battery coating materials …” in paragraph 134). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the infrared camera after a coating unit and before a drying unit, in order to “detect poorly mixed battery coating materials”.
In regard to claim 35 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the infrared camera is positioned after one or more drying units of process equipment for drying a substrate coated with one or more mixtures to form the electrode (e.g., “… after the sheets have been dried … IR camera are mounted in an assembly which travels …” in paragraph 137). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coating unit for a coating that is then “dried”.
In regard to claim 36 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the infrared camera is a dynamic sensor movable with respect to process equipment that comprises one or more coating units and one or more drying units (e.g., “… after the sheets have been dried … IR camera are mounted in an assembly which travels …” in paragraph 137). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coating unit for a coating that is then “dried”.
In regard to claim 37 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the infrared camera is a static sensor in a stationary position with respect to process equipment that comprises one or more coating units and one or more drying units (e.g., “… after the sheets have been dried … IR camera fixed …” in paragraphs 137 and 139). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a coating unit for a coating that is then “dried”.
In regard to claim 38 which is dependent on claim 15, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05) since the claimed “infrared, a microwave, a radiofrequency” range lie inside the “first spectrum” range disclosed by the cited prior art (e.g., see “… source of energy substantially emits in a first spectrum …” in paragraph 158).
In regard to claim 39 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that comprising a heat sink controllable by the controller to cool the electrode material (e.g., “… station can include a source of control heat (or controlled cooling) so as to provide a repeatable baseline temperature prior to the gradient measurement …” in paragraph 79). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a heat sink controllable by the controller for “controlled cooling”, in order achieve a “repeatable baseline temperature prior to the gradient measurement”.
In regard to claim 40 which is dependent on claim 15, Caruthers et al. also disclose that the imagery comprises imagery with respect to time during one or more of a heating process and a cooling process of the electrode material (e.g., “… highspeed thermographic imaging … Flash thermography …” in paragraph 95).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been fully considered but some are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant's remaining arguments filed 30 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “known” on pp. 7-8 inherently involves resorting to evidence not of record in support as a basis for combining cited prior art. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regard to applicant’s request for evidence of record, see the cited prior art such as Caruthers et al. and Haufe. It should be noted that MPEP § 2141.03 states that a “… person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time … the court has held that an invention may be held to have been obvious without a specific finding of a particular level of skill where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level. Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp., 713 F.2d 774, 218 USPQ 673 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355, 59 USPQ2d 1795, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 2001) …”. Thus the word known is clearly not “inherently” or “Official Notice” as argued by applicant because a “person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time”. In this case (e.g., see pp. 7-8 of 30 September 2025 Office Action), details of “relevant art” (e.g., see “… Li-ion based battery materials …” in paragraph 95 of Caruthers et al.) are “known” (MPEP § 2141.03) to one “of ordinary skill” such as “… graphitic carbon is widespread as material for the negative electrode ("anode") of lithium ion batteries … To reduce the mechanical stress and thus to prevent electrochemical milling, the use of nano size silicon particles for anodes of lithium ion cells has frequently been recommended …” in paragraphs 3 and 6 of Haufe. The phrase “tens of billions of dollars in current production of large format Li-ion batteries” (in paragraph 6 of Caruthers et al.) is evidence of record that “Li-ion batteries” are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, the words “widespread” and “frequently” (in paragraphs 3 and 6 of Haufe) are additional evidence of record that “lithium ion batteries” comprising “graphitic carbon” and “nano size silicon particles” are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, applicant's arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2015/0072230 teaches a battery.
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 Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
1 American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
2 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
3 McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
4 Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
Prosecution Insights