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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-5 are currently pending;
Claims 2-3 are canceled;
Claims 1 and 5 are amended.
Status of Rejections Pending Since the Office Action of 09/10/2025
The 102(a)(1) rejections of claims 1 and 5 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and replaced with the previously presented 103 rejections of claims 2 and 3;
The 103 rejection of claim 4 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “Yasuda does not disclose “pressing the active material layer so that the active material layer has a predetermined thickness””, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant points out in Remarks, pg. 5, paragraph 2, Yasuda discloses determining a predetermined coating amount of slurry and a predetermined density. Specifically, Yasuda discloses the predetermined density is achieved by pressing the mixture, including a predetermined coating amount of slurry, therefore adjusting the thickness to a singular particular thickness corresponding to the predetermined density. As such, the thickness is considered predetermined.
In regards to Applicant’s argument concerning Yasuda failing to teach that “the mixture applied to the current collector has a weight per unit area based on a specific surface area of the active material used in the mixture and a tapped density of the active material used in the mixture”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant points towards the composite density as being the same at 1.2 g/cm3. However, the claim language is not pointed towards the composite density, but rather the tapped density and specific surface area. The examiner recognizes that the tapped density and specific surface area vary in examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4 while maintaining the same coating amount per unit area. However, the examiner disagrees that this means that the weight per unit area is not based on a specific surface area and tapped density of the active material. In contrast, there is variation in the initial conditions of the active material in examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4, and as a result the other parameters including specific surface area and tapped density vary in order to maintain the predetermined weight per unit area and density in Table 9. As such, weight per unit area must be based at least in part on the tapped density and specific surface area.
In regards to the 103 rejection of claims 3-4, the examiner agrees that the incorporation of the subject matter of claim 3 into claims 1 and 5 make the 102 rejection moot. In regards to Applicant’s argument on pg. 6, paragraph 6 that “Shen’s disclosure showing an inverse relationship between surface area and tapped density fails to remedy the deficiencies of Yasuda with respect to the subject matter of claim 3”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. When the specific example of comparative example B1 is taken against examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4, it can be seen that comparative example B1 has a smaller weight per unit area of and larger specific surface area as compared to the larger weight per unit area and smaller specific surface areas of examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4. As such, there is an inverse relationship displayed between specific surface area and weight per unit area. Shen teaches an inverse relationship between tapped density and specific surface area. By combining the teaching of Shen into the specific example of Yasuda, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that there would be a direct correlation between tapped density and weight per unit area as claimed when given a constant specific surface area between the comparative example B1 and the examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4.
The claim language of “when” does not necessitate the presence of the actual “mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a first density” and “mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a second density” to be present, but rather that when these mixtures are present the claimed relationship between tapped density and wight per unit area would exist such as is evident in the combination of Yasuda and Shen.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda et al. (WO-2016104024-A1), hereinafter Yasuda (as cited and translated in the IDS) in view of Shen et al. (US-20190363344-A1), hereinafter Shen (as cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yasuda teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode plate including a current collector and an active material layer (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7 preparation of a negative electrode plate for Example B), the method comprising: preparing a mixture by kneading an active material (pg. 18, paragraph 7; active material and binder were added to a dispersion solvent and kneaded to form a slurry); forming the active material layer on the current collector by applying the mixture to the current collector (pg. 18, paragraph 7; a predetermined amount of slurry was applied to both sides of a rolled copper foil current collector); and pressing the active material layer so that active material layer has a predetermined thickness (mixture was dried and pressed to a predetermined density (and therefore thickness)), wherein the mixture applied to the current collector has a weight per unit area based on a specific surface area of the active material used in the mixture and a tapped density of the active material used in the mixture (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7; tables 9-11 show that the negative electrode plate has a weight per unit area shown in g/m2 in table 9, and further shows tapped density and specific surface area in tables 10-11), when the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is a first area, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7; tables 9-11; comparative example B1 using non-graphitizable carbon is shown in the last column of tables 9 and 10 to have a weight per unit area of 60 g/m2 and a specific surface area of 5.1 m2/g) than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is a second area that is smaller than the first area (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7; tables 9-11; examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4 using graphitizable carbon is shown in the second column of table 9 to have a weight per unit area of 80 m2/g and is shown in tables 10 and 11 to have a specific surface area in the range of 1.6-3.1 m2/g; the overall smaller specific surface area of examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4 yielded a larger weight per unit area of 80 m2/g than the comparatively larger specific surface area of comparative example B1 wherein the weight per unit area was 60 m2/g).
Yasuda fails to teach that the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a first density, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a second density that is greater than the first density.
Shen is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode plates with specific physical properties ([0006]). Shen teaches that the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a first density, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a second density that is greater than the first density ([0028] the pressing (tap) density of the electrode plate affects the specific surface area of the plate such that when the tap density is larger, the electrode plate is more dense with smaller porosity, resulting in the specific surface area to be smaller, therefore showing an inverse relationship).
When considered with the inverse relationship between specific surface area and weight per unit area shown in Yasuda, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that given a constant specific surface area, it would yield the predictable result that increasing the tap density would result in an increase in weight per unit are in a direct correlation as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Yasuda teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Yasuda fails to teach that the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is the second area and the tapped density is a first density, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is the second area and the tapped density is a second density that is greater than the first density.
Shen is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode plates with specific physical properties ([0006]). Shen teaches that the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is the second area and the tapped density is a first density, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is the second area and the tapped density is a second density that is greater than the first density ([0028] the pressing (tap) density of the electrode plate affects the specific surface area of the plate such that when the tap density is larger, the electrode plate is more dense with smaller porosity, resulting in the specific surface area to be smaller, therefore showing an inverse relationship).
When considered with the inverse relationship between specific surface area and weight per unit area shown in Yasuda, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that given a constant specific surface area, it would yield the predictable result that increasing the tap density would result in an increase in weight per unit are in a direct correlation as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda teaches a method for manufacturing a battery (pg. 19, paragraph 4) including an electrode plate that includes a current collector and an active material layer (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7 preparation of a negative electrode plate for Example B), the method comprising: preparing a mixture by kneading an active material (pg. 18, paragraph 7; active material and binder were added to a dispersion solvent and kneaded to form a slurry); forming the active material layer on the current collector by applying the mixture to the current collector (pg. 18, paragraph 7; a predetermined amount of slurry was applied to both sides of a rolled copper foil current collector); and pressing the active material layer so that active material layer has a predetermined thickness (mixture was dried and pressed to a predetermined density (and therefore thickness)), wherein the mixture applied to the current collector has a weight per unit area based on a specific surface area of the active material used in the mixture and a tapped density of the active material used in the mixture (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7; tables 9-11 show that the negative electrode plate has a weight per unit area shown in g/m2 in table 9, and further shows tapped density and specific surface area in tables 10-11), when the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is a first area, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7; tables 9-11; comparative example B1 using non-graphitizable carbon is shown in the last column of tables 9 and 10 to have a weight per unit area of 60 g/m2 and a specific surface area of 5.1 m2/g) than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is a second area that is smaller than the first area (pg. 18, paragraphs 6-7; tables 9-11; examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4 using graphitizable carbon is shown in the second column of table 9 to have a weight per unit area of 80 m2/g and is shown in tables 10 and 11 to have a specific surface area in the range of 1.6-3.1 m2/g; the overall smaller specific surface area of examples B1-B9 and comparative examples B2-B4 yielded a larger weight per unit area of 80 m2/g than the comparatively larger specific surface area of comparative example B1 wherein the weight per unit area was 60 m2/g).
Yasuda fails to teach that the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a first density, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a second density that is greater than the first density.
Shen is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of electrode plates with specific physical properties ([0006]). Shen teaches that the electrode plate is manufactured with the mixture using the active material of which the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a first density, the weight per unit area of the mixture is less than that when the electrode plate is manufactured with a mixture using the active material where the specific surface area is the first area and the tapped density is a second density that is greater than the first density ([0028] the pressing (tap) density of the electrode plate affects the specific surface area of the plate such that when the tap density is larger, the electrode plate is more dense with smaller porosity, resulting in the specific surface area to be smaller, therefore showing an inverse relationship).
When considered with the inverse relationship between specific surface area and weight per unit area shown in Yasuda, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that given a constant specific surface area, it would yield the predictable result that increasing the tap density would result in an increase in weight per unit are in a direct correlation as claimed.
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 MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722