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
Claims 1-12 are pending in the application, with claims 10-12 currently withdrawn. Previous grounds of rejection have been maintained.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (JP 2005/093236, see Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Noguchi discloses in Figs 1-3, a method of manufacturing ([0017]) an electrode (ref 100), the method comprising: heat-treating a metal sheet (ref 101, [0017]) for an electrode (ref 100) including a first region (refs 107, 137) and a second region (refs 105, 135) divided in a transverse direction (TD) ([0017]) under a condition in which the first region (refs 107, 137) and the second region (refs 105, 135) are heated to a temp of 80 – 200 C ([0014]) with a temperature difference therein ([0026], [0023], [0021], [0014]) is applied between the first region (refs 107, 137) and the second region (refs 105, 135); applying an electrode slurry ([0018]-[0019]) on the first region (refs 107, 137) of the heat-treated metal sheet (refs 120, 101) and forming a mixture layer thereon ([0018]-[0019]); and roll-pressing ([0020]) the heat-treated metal sheet (refs 120, 101) on which the mixture layer is formed ([0018]-[0019]).
While Noguchi does not explicitly disclose the temperature difference is 10C or more with the ranges of the first region and the second region explicitly as set forth in the claim, the change in the heating temperature difference is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Noguchi ([0026], [0023], [0021], [0014]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing the invention that varying the heating temperature difference will vary the structural integrity of said electrode. Therefore the electrode structural integrity is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the heating temperature difference between said first and second regions. For that reason, the heating temperature difference between said first and second regions, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the heating temperature difference between said first and second regions cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, heating temperature difference between said first and second regions in the method of Noguchi to obtain the desired electrode structural integrity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 2, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Noguchi does not explicitly disclose the elongation deviation with the values of the first region and the second region explicitly as set forth in the claim, the change in the elongation deviation is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Noguchi ([0026], [0020], [0016], [0014]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing the invention that varying the elongation deviation will vary the structural integrity of said electrode. Therefore the electrode structural integrity is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the elongation deviation. For that reason, the elongation deviation, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the elongation deviation cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, elongation deviation in the method of Noguchi to obtain the desired electrode structural integrity (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 4, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the heat-treating ([0026]) of the metal sheet (ref 101) includes performing the heat-treating in a state in which the first region (refs 107, 137) of the metal sheet (ref 101) is masked ([0026]) with a heat insulation material (ref 265, [0026]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal sheet has a structure in which the first region and the second region are alternately repeated in the TD. However, addition of multiple first regions and second regions in a repeated alternating configuration constitutes duplication of parts. Arranging multiple first regions and second regions in this manner would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the forming of the mixture layer includes applying the electrode slurry ([0018]-[0019]) on an electrode sheet (ref 101) and then drying ([0028]) the electrode slurry ([0018]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses after the roll-pressing of the metal sheet (refs 101, 120), cutting ([0026]) the metal sheet to correspond to a shape of an electrode (ref 100).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (JP 2005/093236, see Machine Translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bonhomme et al. (US 2020/0381699).
Regarding claim 5, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the metal sheet (ref 101) is masked ([0026]) with a heat insulation material (ref 265, [0026]), but does not explicitly disclose the heat-treating of the metal sheet includes performing the heat-treating in a chamber in a state in which the metal sheet is in a form of a wound metal sheet roll.
Bonhomme et al. discloses in Figs 1-13, a method (Fig 5, ref 500) of making a battery (ref 100) electrode (ref 101), including heat treating ([0052]) a current collector roll (ref 501) in an oven / chamber (ref 502, Fig 5, [0052]). This enhances volume of production / lowers overall production costs in the production method ([0051]).
Bonhomme et al. and Noguchi are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, electrode manufacturing for batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the heating a current collector roll in an oven as disclosed by Bonhomme et al. into the method of Noguchi to decrease overall production costs.
Regarding claim 6, modified Noguchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the heat insulation material includes a ceramic ([0016]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue Noguchi does not disclose roll pressing a heat-treated metal foil current collector, rather, it discloses heating after roll pressing, and therefore does not meet the limitations of amended instant independent claim 1. The Office does agree that heating is performed after roll pressing. However, it is noted that the metal foil materials Noguchi discloses for use in its manufacturing process, aluminum foil, stainless steel foil, nickel foil, titanium foil (see [0010]) are heat treated to begin with, as a part of their manufacturing processes. For example, aluminum foil is produced via a process including heating as evidenced by AKO Materials, “Aluminum – Aluminum Foil Production”, May 28, 2002, see P1 & P2. As such, the metal foils disclosed by Noguchi envision heat treating on their own, inherently. Further, Noguchi discloses throughout that the metal foils (namely uncoated portions) are further subject to heating at steps throughout its manufacturing process. As such, this argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725