Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/022,331

Secondary Battery Electrode Slurry Coating Device, and Electrode Slurry Coating Method Using Same

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 21, 2023
Examiner
OTERO, KENNETH MAX
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
50%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
4 granted / 8 resolved
-15.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
66 currently pending
Career history
74
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
53.7%
+13.7% vs TC avg
§102
18.4%
-21.6% vs TC avg
§112
13.4%
-26.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 8 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention. Response to Amendment The amendment filed on 02/21/2023 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are amended and Claims 1-9 are pending. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2023 and 04/01/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters are not mentioned in the description: 241 in Figure 3 and 341 in Figure 5. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The following reference characters are not mentioned in the description: 241 in Figure 3 and 341 in Figure 5. Appropriate correction is required. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu et al. (US 20130056092 A1), hereinafter "Wakamatsu" in view of Yagi et al. (US 20170336154 A1), hereinafter "Yagi". Wakamatsu and Yagi et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely transfer of temperature controlled materials. In regard to Claim 1, Wakamatsu et al. discloses a device for coating an electrode slurry, comprising a slurry tank configured to store an electrode slurry; a slot die configured to discharge the electrode slurry stored in the slurry tank to a current collector; and a slurry transfer pipe configured to transfer the electrode slurry stored in the slurry tank to the slot die (Wakamatsu, [0037]). Wakamatsu et al. also discloses wherein the slurry transfer pipe has a structure comprising a first pipe fluidly connected to the slurry tank and the slot die (Wakamatsu, 0038]) and a second pipe spaced apart from an outer wall of the first pipe by a predetermined interval (Wakamatsu, [0043]). While Wakamatsu et al. discloses a double pipe structure configured to maintain the temperature of the kneaded electrode material flowing in the supply pipe by providing thermal control (Wakamatsu, [0043]), it is silent as to using a vacuum double pipe to achieve the desired result. Yagi et al. discloses a first pipe configured to transport a material and a second pipe spaced apart from an outer wall of the first pipe by a predetermined interval and forming a vacuum space between the first pipe and the second pipe in an operational stage (Yagi, Abstract). The vacuum double pipe structure of Yagi et al. is taught to have the benefit of maintaining the temperature of the material in the first pipe by providing thermal control (Yagi, [0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a vacuum double pipe structure to maintain the temperature of the material in the first pipe as taught in Yagi as the double pipe structure that maintains the temperature of the material in the first pipe as disclosed in Wakamatsu, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yagi and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of a supply pipe for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In regard to Claim 2, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi et al. discloses the device of claim 1. While Wakamatsu discloses the use of an insulating member (Wakamatsu, [0015]), it is silent as the slurry transfer pipe further including an insulation member surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the first pipe. Yagi et al. discloses a preferential configuration with an insulation member surrounding an outer circumferential surface of the first pipe (Yagi, 0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a thermal insulating member around the first pipe of Wakamatsu to better maintain the temperature of the material in the first pipe which would be obvious to apply to the skilled artisan, and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In regard to Claims 3-5, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi et al. discloses the device of claim 1. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses a first pipe and a second pipe surrounding the first pipe which has a structure in which a fluid is configured to be introduced between the first pipe and the second pipe further comprising a fluid supply part fluidly connected to the second pipe and configured to supply a fluid between the first pipe and the second pipe as well as a temperature controller configured to control a temperature of the fluid supplied between the first pipe and the second pipe wherein the temperature of the fluid introduced between the first pipe and the second pipe is in the range of 25.6 °C to 32.2 °C. (Wakamatsu, [0043-0044], Table 1 (1-4)), which is the identical structure of the first and third pipes of the current application. Yagi et al. discloses a second pipe surrounding a thermally insulated supply pipe which creates a vacuum space during operation to further increase thermal stability and control over the material in the supply pipe (Yagi, [0007]). Therefore, providing an outer pipe with a vacuum space around the supply pipe as taught in Yagi wherein the supply pipe is surrounded by a fluid filled pipe providing thermal insulation as disclosed in Wakamatsu is an obvious combination of elements to try given the level of ordinary skill in the art, and doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way. In regard to Claim 7, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi et al. discloses the device of claim 1. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses the second pipe having a structure with an openable/disclosable entrance (valve) formed on one side of the second pipe (Wakamatsu, [0042]), however it is silent as to that structure functioning as an air entrance. Yagi et al. discloses wherein the second pipe has a structure having an openable/disclosable air entrance opening formed on one side of the second pipe (Yagi, [0015]), wherein that configuration has the benefit of increasing control of the vacuum and further controlling the temperature of the material (Yagi, [0016-0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide an air entrance to the second pipe when providing a vacuum double pipe as taught in Yagi et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yagi and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In regard to Claims 8-9, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi et al. discloses the device of claim 1. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses a coating roll configured to support and transfer the current collector and a drying chamber configured to dry the electrode slurry discharged to the current collector and further includes a feed pump configured to supply the electrode slurry stored in the slurry tank to the slot die (Wakamatsu, [0024, 0046, 0039]). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakamatsu et al. (US 20130056092 A1), hereinafter "Wakamatsu" in view of Yagi et al. (US 20170336154 A1), hereinafter "Yagi" as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Park et al. (KR 20150105794 A - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Park". Wakamatsu, Yagi, and Park et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely transfer of temperature controlled materials. In regard to Claim 6, Wakamatsu in view of Yagi et al. discloses the device of claim 3. Wakamatsu et al. also discloses a temperature sensor configured to measure the temperature of the slurry which is transferred into the slot die or discharged from the slot die (Wakamatsu, [0045]), however, it is silent as to a temperature sensor included with the slot die. Park et al. discloses a temperature sensor included with the slot die which has the benefit of further controlling the temperature of the die unit, which is capable of being set to a predetermined temperature (Park, [24, 26-27]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a temperature sensor on the slot die as taught in Park et as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Park and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of temperature sensing for use in the same field, based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 11, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12555864
BATTERY COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12548780
BATTERY AND LAMINATED BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12494505
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MATERIAL AND BATTERY IN WHICH SAME IS USED
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 3 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
50%
With Interview (+0.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 8 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month