DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-20 are pending. Claims 2, 3, and 9 have been canceled.
The foreign priority application No. 202110035611.X filed on January 12, 2021 in China has been received and it is acknowledged.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 02, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1, and recites that the electrode sheet is a positive electrode sheet or a negative electrode sheet.
However, an electrode sheet may only be a positive electrode sheet or a negative electrode sheet. Therefore, claim 4 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
5. Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 11-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Althues et al. (DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) and in further view of Chen et al. (CN 101009371 A, with machine translation made of record on January 07, 2026).
With regard to claims 1, 18, and 19, Uezono et al. teach that a conductive material, an electrode active material, a binding material and a solvent are subjected to granulation to obtain wet granules (fig.2, par.0015, par.0027). This step is equivalent to the step (1) in claim 1.
Uezono et al. further teach the electrode manufacturing apparatus of fig.4:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par.0017, par.0040), wherein an electrode mixture layer (30b) is formed on the current collector (31)(par.0043-0044).
The forming of the electrode mixture layer (30b) in the apparatus in fig.4 of Uezono et al. is equivalent to the “performing diaphragm forming on the mixed particles in step (1) and a current collector to obtain an electrode sheet” in claim 1 (see the description of “diaphragm forming” in the Examples 1 and 2 on pages 8 and 9 of the specification of the instant application).
The apparatus in fig.4 of Uezono et al. meets the limitations of claims 1 and 18 for “a laminating machine, wherein the number of rolls of the laminating machine is three”.
Uezono et al. fail to teach the claimed roll spacing and the speed of the rolls in the apparatus of fig.4.
Althues et al. teach a method wherein a dry mixture is processed into a dry film (abstract). The method is used to produce a battery electrode (par.0045).
Althues et al. further teach that a dry powder mixture is fed out of a powder conveyor into the nip between rolls, and in addition to the dry powder mixture a substrate is fed through the nip (par.0023). The substrate is a metal material in order to be able to serve as an electrode for an energy storage unit (par.0019).
Althues et al. further teach that the nip has a width of 10-300 mm (par.0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance of 10-300 mm (0.001-0.3mm) between the rolls in the apparatus of Uezono et al., because this distance between rolls is clearly taught by Althues for an apparatus comprising rolls and being used for producing electrode sheets.
The range of 0.001-0.3mm overlaps the claimed range.
Althues et al. further teach that the dry powder is processed into a dry film by a rolling device having a first roll and a second roll, so the dry film is formed on the first roll. By rotating the rolls at different rotation speeds, the mechanical stabilization and film formation on the first roll is achieved (par.0009-0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the rotation speed of the rolls of Uezono modified by Althues, in order to obtain the desired features of the electrode mixture layer (30b).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation)
Uezono et al. further teach that the electrode mixture layer (30b) is formed on the current collector (31) is subjected to drying (par.0044), but Uezono et al. and Althues et al. fail to teach the drying temperature in claim 1.
Chen et al. teach a positive electrode for a battery, wherein the positive electrode is made by coating a slurry comprising positive electrode active material, acetylene black, PVDF binder, and NMP solvent on an aluminum foil and drying at 100-300oC for 20 hours (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to perform drying by baking at 100-300oC for 20 hours.
The temperature range of 100-300oC is the same range as in claim 1, and the duration of the drying step is within the range in claim 19.
With regard to claims 4 and 11, Uezono et al. teach that the method may produce a positive electrode sheet or a negative electrode sheet (par.0045).
With regard to claim 6, Uezono et al. teach that the wet granules are obtained in a stirrer with blades (fig.3, par.0016, par.0031-0039), which is equivalent to the claimed granulator.
With regard to claim 7, Uezono et al. teach that the current collector is a metal foil (par.0044). For the positive electrode sheet aluminum may be used as current collector (par.0045, par.0060).
An aluminum foil meets the claim limitations.
With regard to claim 8, Uezono et al. does not specifically teach a temperature for the formation of the electrode mixture layer (30b) on the current collector (31), so it is considered that the electrode mixture layer (30b) is formed on the current collector (31) at room temperature (see par.0043-0044).
The room temperature is considered to be 20-22oC, which is within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 12, Uezono et al. teach a lithium-ion secondary battery comprising a positive electrode obtained by the method above (par.0061).
With regard to claim 13, Uezono et al. teach that the electrode active material may be a positive electrode active material such as lithium cobaltate (LiCoO2), lithium manganate (LiMn2O4), or LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3 O2(par.0033).
LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3 O2 is the claimed lithium nickel cobalt manganate.
With regard to claim 14, Uezono et al. teach that the conductive agent may be carbon black (par.0027).
With regard to claim 15, Uezono et al. teach that the binding material may be polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR), or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)(par.0036).
With regard to claim 16, Uezono et al. teach that the solvent may be water or N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)(par.0036).
N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) is the claimed 1-methyl pyrrolidone.
9. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) and in further view of Chen et al. (CN 101009371 A, with machine translation made of record on January 07, 2026).
With regard to claims 1, 4, 11, and 18, Akiyama teaches that a conductive material, a positive electrode active material, a binding agent, and a solvent are subjected to granulation to obtain positive electrode granular aggregate (1) (fig.1, par.0030-0033). This step is equivalent to the step (1) in claim 1.
Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is used to produce the positive electrode plate in the apparatus of fig.3:
PNG
media_image2.png
588
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0034-0036).
The positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11)(par.0036).
The forming of the positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) in the apparatus of fig.3 of Akiyama is equivalent to “performing diaphragm forming on the mixed particles in step (1) and a current collector to obtain an electrode sheet” in claim 1 (see the description of “diaphragm forming” in the Examples 1 and 2 on pages 8 and 9 of the specification of the instant application).
The apparatus in fig.3 of Akiyama meets the limitations of claims 1 and 18 for “a laminating machine, wherein the number of rolls of the laminating machine is 3”.
Akiyama fails to teach the claimed roll spacing and the speed of the rolls in the apparatus of fig.3.
Althues et al. teach a method wherein a dry mixture is processed into a dry film (abstract). The method is used for producing a battery electrode (par.0045).
Althues et al. further teach that a dry powder mixture is fed out of a powder conveyor into the nip between rolls, and in addition to the dry powder mixture a substrate is fed through the nip (par.0023). The substrate is a metal material in order to be able to serve as an electrode for an energy storage unit (par.0019).
Althues et al. further teach that the nip has a width of 10-300 mm (par.0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance of 10-300 mm (0.001-0.3mm) between the rolls in the apparatus of Akiyama., because this distance between rolls is clearly taught by Althues for an apparatus comprising rolls and being used for producing electrode sheets.
The range of 0.001-0.3mm overlaps the claimed range.
Althues et al. further teach that the dry powder is processed into a dry film by a rolling device having a first roll and a second roll, so the dry film is formed on the first roll. By rotating the rolls at different rotation speeds, the mechanical stabilization and film formation on the first roll is achieved (par.0009-0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the rotation speed of the rolls of Akiyama modified by Althues, in order to obtain the desired features of the electrode mixture layer (30b) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation).
Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode active material layer (12x) formed on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) is subjected to drying (par.0036), but Akiyama and Althues et al. fail to teach the drying temperature in claim 1.
Chen et al. teach a positive electrode for a battery, wherein the positive electrode is made by coating a slurry comprising positive electrode active material, acetylene black, PVDF binder, and NMP solvent on an aluminum foil and drying at 100-300oC for 20 hours (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to perform drying by baking at 100-300oC for 20 hours in the process of Aliyama modified by Althues.
The temperature of 100-300oC is the same range as in claim 1, and the duration of the drying step is within the range in claim 19.
The method of making a positive electrode plate of Akiyama modified by Althues and Chen is equivalent to the methods in claims 1, 18, and 19 of the instant application.
The positive electrode plate in fig.3 of Akiyama modified by Althues and Chen is equivalent to the positive electrode sheet in claim 4 and the electrode sheet in claim 11 of the instant application.
With regard to claims 5 and 13-16, Akiyama teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) comprises 22wt% N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) solvent, 73wt% lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, 3.2wt% acetylene black (AB) conductive material, and 1.17wt% polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binding agent (par.0010, par.0019). This is equivalent to a mass ratio of active material, conductive agent, solvent, and binder of 73:3.2:22:1.17.
This ratio meets the limitations of claim 5.
The lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide is the “lithium nickel cobalt manganate” in claim 13.
Acetylene black (AB) is a type of carbon black (see par.0010), and meets the limitations of claim 14.
PVDF binding agent is “polyvinylidene fluoride” in claim 15.
NMP(N-methyl pyrrolidone) is “1-methyl pyrrolidone” in claim 16.
With regard to claims 6 and 17, Akiyama teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is obtained in a granulating device (fig.2, par.0022, par.0030-par.0033), which is equivalent to the granulator in claim 6.
The rotating speed of the granulating device may be 800 rpm (par.0032) and 1200 rpm (par.0033). These speeds are within the range in claim 17.
With regard to claim 8, Akiyama does not specifically teach a temperature for forming the positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11), so it is considered that the positive electrode active material layer (12x) is formed on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) at room temperature (see par.0034-0035).
The room temperature is considered to be 20-22oC, which is within the claimed range.
With regard to claim 12, Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode is used in a battery (par.0039-0043).
10. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Chen et al. (CN 101009371 A, with machine translation made of record on January 07, 2026) and in further view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784).
With regard to claim 10, Akiyama teaches that a conductive material, a positive electrode active material, a binding agent, and a solvent are subjected to granulation to obtain positive electrode granular aggregate (1) (fig.1, par.0030-0033). The positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is obtained in a granulating device (fig.2, par.0022, par.0030-par.0033), which is equivalent to the claimed granulator.
Akiyama et al. fail to teach the mixing and granulating time in the step (1) in claim 10.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the mixing and granulating speed and time in order to obtain a positive electrode granular aggregate (1) with the desired size (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation).
Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) is used to produce the positive electrode plate in the apparatus of fig.3:
PNG
media_image2.png
588
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(par.0034-0036).
The positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11)(par.0036).
The forming of the positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) in the apparatus of fig.3 of Akiyama is equivalent to the “performing diaphragm forming on the mixed particles in step (1) and a current collector” in claim 10 (see the description of “diaphragm forming” in the Examples 1 and 2 on pages 8 and 9 of the specification of the instant application).
The apparatus in fig.3 of Akiyama meets the limitations of claim 10 for “a laminating machine, wherein the laminating machine is a three-roll laminating machine”.
The positive electrode plate comprising a positive electrode active material layer (12x) on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) is the “positive electrode sheet” in claim 10.
Akiyama teaches that the positive electrode granular aggregate (1) comprises 22wt% N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) solvent, 73wt% lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide, 3.2wt% acetylene black (AB) conductive material, and 1.17wt% polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) binding agent (par.0010, par.0019). This is equivalent to a mass ratio of active material, conductive agent, solvent, and binder of 73:3.2:22:1.17.
This ratio meets the limitations of claim 10.
The lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide meets the limitations for “the active material described in step (1) includes lithium nickel cobalt manganate” in claim 10.
Acetylene black (AB) is a type of carbon black (see par.0010), and meets the limitations of claim 10 for “the conductive agent described in step (1) includes carbon black”.
PVDF binding agent meets the limitations of claim 10 for “the binder described in step (1) includes “polyvinylidene fluoride”.
NMP(N-methyl pyrrolidone) meets the limitations of claim 10 for “the dolvent described in step (1) includes 1-methyl pyrrolidone”.
Akiyama further teaches that the positive electrode active material layer (12x) formed on the positive electrode current collector plate (11) is subjected to drying (par.0036), but fail to teach the baking in step (2) in claim 10.
Akiyama also fails to teach the claimed current collector.
Chen et al. teach a positive electrode for a battery, wherein the positive electrode is made by coating a slurry comprising positive electrode active material, acetylene black, PVDF binder, and NMP solvent on an aluminum foil and drying at 100-300oC for 20 hours (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use an aluminum foil as current collector for the positive electrode of Akiyama et al., and perform drying by baking at 100-300oC for 20 hours.
Akiyama and Chen et al. fail to teach the claimed roller spacing and rolling speed.
Althues et al. teach a method wherein a dry mixture is processed into a dry film (abstract). The method is used for producing a battery electrode (par.0045).
Althues et al. further teach that a dry powder mixture is fed out of a powder conveyor into the nip between rolls, and in addition to the dry powder mixture a substrate is fed through the nip (par.0023). The substrate is a metal material in order to be able to serve as an electrode for an energy storage unit (par.0019).
Althues et al. further teach that the nip has a width of 10-300 mm (par.0039).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have a distance of 10-300 mm (0.001-0.3mm) between the rolls in the apparatus of modified Akiyama because this distance between rolls is clearly taught by Althues for an apparatus comprising rolls and being used for producing electrode sheets.
The range of 0.001-0.3mm overlaps the range of 0.005-0.25 mm in claim 10.
Althues et al. further teach that the dry powder is processed into a dry film by a rolling device having a first roll and a second roll, so the dry film is formed on the first roll. By rotating the rolls at different rotation speeds, the mechanical stabilization and film formation on the first roll is achieved (par.0009-0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to vary the rotation speed of the rolls of modified Akiyama, in order to obtain the desired features of the electrode mixture layer (30b) (MPEP 2144.05.II.A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation).
11. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) and Chen et al. (CN 101009371 A, with machine translation made of record on January 07, 2026) as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Kihara et al. (EP 1 182 719).
With regard to claim 20, Uezono modified by Althues and Chen teach the electrode of claim 11 (see paragraph 8 above), but fail to teach the claimed thickness of the active material layer and the claimed compacted density of the electrode.
However, it is known in the art that an electrode may have an active material layer with a packing density of 2.8g/cm3 and a thickness of 0.7mm (par.0017 of Kihara et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the electrode of Uezono modified by Althues and Chen having an active material layer with a packing density of 2.8g/cm3 and a thickness of 0.7mm.
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed on June 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner would like to note the following:
-the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-9, 11-16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Althues et al. (DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 8, 9, and 11-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1;
-the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) in view of Althues et al. (DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) as applied to claim 9 and in further view of Suzuki et al. (US Patent 6.730,404) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 19; and
-the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) in view of Althues et al. DE 10 2017 208220A1, with citations from the English language equivalent US 2024/0274784) as applied to claim 11, and in further view of Kihara et al. (EP 1 182 719) is withdrawn after the applicant’s amendment to claim 1.
On page 6 of the Remarks the applicant argues that the method of instant application produces an electrode sheet with better porosity under the condition of maintaining a higher compaction density, so that the battery has better discharge capacity.
However, the examiner would like to point out that the evidence submitted in the specification of the instant application does not show any evidence of unexpected superior results of the claimed method when compared to the electrode producing methods in the closest prior art Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) and Akiyama (US 2018/0145309). The Comparative Examples 1 and 2 on pages 10-11 of the specification of the instant application only show a method of making an electrode sheet, wherein two laminating rolls are used.
Uezono et al. (US 2016/0211504) and Akiyama (US 2018/0145309) use three laminating rolls (see fig.4 of Uezono et al. and fig.3 of Akiyama).
An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential). (MPEP 716.02(e) Comparison With Closest Prior Art)
On page 7 of the Remarks the applicant further argues if the roller spacing is too large it will lead to weak adhesion between the diaphragm and the current collector, and if the spacing is too small, it will cause jamming. If the rotational speed of the rollers is too high, the uniformity of the electrode sheet will be deteriorated, and if the rotational speed is too low, it will cause material jamming.
However, the examiner would like to point out that the Examples 1-3 and Comparative Examples 1 and 2 do not have sufficient examples of roll spacing and the rotation speed of the rollers within the claimed ranges and outside the claimed ranges, in order to show the criticality of the ranges.
The Comparative Examples 1 and 2 show methods wherein the roll spacing and the rotation speed are within the claimed range (see pages 9-10 of the specification). Therefore, the results in Table 1 do not prove the criticality of the ranges for the roll spacing and the rotation speed of the rollers
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP 716.02(d).II. DEMONSTRATING CRITICALITY OF A CLAIMED RANGE)
On pages 7-8 of the Remarks the applicant argues that Althues et al. teach a nip width of 10-300 mm and rotational speeds, but the teachings pertain to a roller pressing device with 2 rollers (see fig.1 of Althues et al.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine Althues (two rollers) and Uezono et al. (three rollers).
However, the examiner would like to note that both references teach rollers for forming electrodes so the one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use the nip width between the rollers in Althues in the method of Uezono et al., and to vary the rotation speed of the rolls of Uezono modified by Althues in order to obtain the desired features of the electrode mixture layer.
On page 9 of the Remarks the applicant argues that Table 1 of the present specification shows examples with excellent results, which are the combined effects of the number of rolls, the roll spacing, and the rotation speed of the rollers.
The examiner would like to note that the specification of the instant application shows Examples 1-4, wherein:
-Example 1 shows a 3-roll laminating machine, the distance between the rolls is between 0.08mm and 0.1mm, and the roller speed is 3r/min (pages 8-9 of the specification);
-Example 2 shows a 4-roll laminating machine, the distance between the rolls is 0.1mm, and the roller speed is 3r/min (page 9 of the specification);
-Example 3 shows a 4-roll laminating machine, the distance between the rolls is 0.1mm, and the roller speed is 1r/min (page 10 of the specification); and
-Example 4 shows a 4-roll laminating machine, the distance between the rolls is 0.1mm, and the roller speed is 10r/min (page 10 of the specification).
However, the independent claim 1 allows for 3 or more rolls, roll spacing between 0.05-0.5mm, and a rotation speed of 1-10 r/min.
Therefore, the Examples 1-4 in the specification are not commensurate in scope with claim 1, and the Examples 1-4 are no sufficient to show unexpected superior results of the method in claim 1.
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.). (MPEP 716.02(d) Unexpected Results Commensurate in Scope With Claimed Invention)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANCA EOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9810. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571)272-3433. 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.
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights