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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejection of claims 5-6 and 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of ‘rechargeable’ in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and thus is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitsuta JP2021184983A (English machine translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Yu JP2021133279A (English machine translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding claim 11, Kitsuta discloses a method for manufacturing a battery ([0018]) the method comprising: a simultaneous coating process for simultaneously coating an electrode substrate with one strip of a mixture paste and two strips of an insulation paste ([0046] electrode material equivalent to the mixture paste and the insulation material are simultaneously formed) using a dispenser (100) that dispenses the mixture paste and the insulation paste on the electrode substrate so that each widthwise end of the one strip of the mixture paste is adjacent to a different one of the two strips of the insulation paste (see Fig. 1 formation of electrode sheet 300 and where tube 210 forms the electrode material flanked by tubes 220 that provides the insulating material). Kitsuta further discloses a flowrate adjustment process changes the flowrate of the insulation paste (Yu [0028 and [0031]) dispensed from the dispenser (Kitsuta 100).
Kitsuta, however, does not explicitly where the flowrate adjustment process changes the flow rate from a first flowrate set when starting the simultaneous coating process to a second flowrate that is less than the first flowrate so that a coating width of the insulation paste approaches a target value.
Yu disclose a coating control system [0001] where a coating width detecting means 103 is used to detect the coating width of the insulating layer [0027]. The image is analyzed and the flow rate of the insulating paste is adjusted accordingly [0028] and [0031].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on to have modified the method of Kitsuta such that the flowrate adjustment process changes the flow rate from a first flowrate set when starting the simultaneous coating process to a second flowrate so that a coating width of the insulation paste approaches a target value as taught by Yu because it yields higher manufacturing accuracy. Furthermore, utilizing a known process step (measuring a thickness via an image inspection unit and correcting the flowrate to adjust for the desired thickness) applies a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way as well as yields predictable results and thus would be well within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 IC/D.
Regarding the limitation that the second flow rate is less than the first flowrate so that the coating width of the insulation paste approaches the target value, this is considered to be a results effective variable.
As the layer thickness and manufacturing accuracy are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said flow rate, with said thickness increasing and manufacturing accuracy decreasing as the flowrate is increased, the precise flow rate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed second flow rate being less than the first flowrate so that the coating width of the insulation paste approaches the target value cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flow rates in the method of Kitsuta to obtain the desired balance between the target thickness and manufacturing accuracy (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).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1/7, Kitsuta JP2021184983A (English machine translation provided with this Office Action) discloses a method for manufacturing a battery ([0018]) the method comprising: a simultaneous coating process for simultaneously coating an electrode substrate having an elongated shape (see Fig. 1) with one strip of a mixture paste and two strips of an insulation paste ([0046] electrode material equivalent to the mixture paste and the insulation material are simultaneously formed) using a dispenser (100) that dispenses the mixture paste and the insulation paste on the electrode substrate so that each widthwise end of the one strip of the mixture paste is adjacent to a different one of the two strips of the insulation paste (see Fig. 1 formation of electrode sheet 300 and where tube 210 forms the electrode material flanked by tubes 220 that provides the insulating material); wherein the simultaneous coating process includes a gap adjustment process for changing a distance between the dispenser and the electrode substrate [0035].
Kitsuta, however, does not explicitly disclose that the gap adjustment process is based on a coating width of the mixture paste, detected in the simultaneous coating process by an image inspection unit, so that the coating width of the mixture paste approaches a target value; a sole coating process for coating the electrode substrate with only the mixture paste prior to the simultaneous coating process; the electrode substrate is continuously coating with the mixture paste during the sole coating process and the simultaneous coating process and a leading end of the mixture paste coated when the simultaneous coating process starts is continuous, in a longitudinal direction of the electrode substrate, with a trailing end of the mixture paste coated when the sole coating process ends.
Wakai et al. (US 2007/0248745) discloses manufacturing electrodes for rechargeable batteries [0044] where the coating width is controlled by adjusting the gap between the nozzle/dispenser and the substrate [0019] based on the results obtained using an image unit [0033] so that the coating width of the mixture paste approaches a target value [0019]. This minimizes the width change caused by the change in the supply amount of the paste and higher manufacturing accuracy is obtained [0018]. The reference, however, does not cure the deficiencies of Kitsuta.
Nakayama US20210075060 discloses a method of making a secondary battery (title) where a sole coating process is done prior to the addition of the other layers which allows for a modified film to be initially formed and provides high ion diffusivity and thus improves low-temperature performance [0062]. The reference, however, does not cure the deficiencies of the other references.
The prior art whether taken alone or in combination does not disclose nor render obvious the cumulative limitations of claims 1 or 7. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10 depend on claims 1/7 and are allowable for the same reasons above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered. Arguments pertaining to claims 1/7 are persuasive and the rejections have been withdrawn. Arguments directed to claim 11 is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Yue does not disclose nor suggest ‘when the simultaneous coating process starts…’ which is piecemeal analysis. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Kitsuta was relied upon for the simultaneous coating, Yu was relied upon for the flowrate adjustment and the adjustment of the target value was identified to be a results effective variable. Note that criticality/unexpected results have not established that would render intentionally making the coating width of the insulation paste greater than the target value. As discussed above, the layer thickness and manufacturing accuracy are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said flow rate, with said thickness increasing and manufacturing accuracy decreasing as the flowrate is increased, the precise flow rate would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed second flow rate being less than the first flowrate so that the coating width of the insulation paste approaches the target value cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the flow rates in the method of Kitsuta to obtain the desired balance between the target thickness and manufacturing accuracy (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).
Conclusion
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 SUSAN D LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1487. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-4pm, 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights