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 Status
Claims 1 and 8 are amended.
Claims 2-7 are originally presented.
Claims 8-12 were previously withdrawn.
Claims 13-14 are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8, filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoshitomi et al. (JP2015013244) in view of Marra et al. (US20060068082) and Takeshi (WO2017169567A1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi et al. (JP2015013244, reference is made to previously enclosed machine translation), in view of Marra et al. (US20060068082A1), in further view of Takeshi (WO2017169567A1). Reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshitomi teaches a manufacturing method comprising: forming an electric field between a substrate and a screen by applying a first voltage to the substrate and applying a second voltage to the screen ([0009]-[0011]; [0030]; [0032]; voltage is applied to conductor mesh 13 and substrate Sb); introducing coating powder into the electric field through the screen; and manufacturing a coated substrate by causing the coating powder to adhere to the substrate ([0008]-[0009]; [0013]; [0026]), wherein: the first voltage has a polarity opposite to a polarity of the second voltage ([0024]; [0030]; negative voltage applied to mesh, positive voltage applied to substrate); when the coating powder passes through the screen, the coating powder comes into contact with the screen to apply a charge to the coating powder; the coating powder flies in the electric field by an electrostatic force to reach the substrate ([0009]-[0011]; [0024]-[0025]; [0030]).
Yoshitomi does not teach where an angle between a flight direction of the coating powder and a vertically downward direction is 90 degrees to 270 degrees.
However, Marra teaches a method of electrostatic deposition comprising passing particles through a charged mesh and depositing charged particles onto a substrate ([0021]-[0021]). Marra teaches wherein a voltage is applied to the substrate ([0021]). Marra teaches that the substrate surface is positioned upside down during deposition which makes the applied layer much less susceptible to become contaminated with foreign matter ([0028]; [0006]). The upside-down substrate position taught by Marra corresponds to an angle of 180 degrees between a flight direction of the coating powder and a vertically downward direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrostatic deposition method taught by Yoshitomi by positioning the substrate surface upside down during deposition as taught by Marra.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the electrostatic deposition method taught by Yoshitomi by positioning the substrate surface upside down during deposition as taught by Marra to reduce contamination with dust ([0028]).
Yoshitomi in view of Marra does not explicitly teach wherein the electrostatic deposition method forms an electrode.
However, Takeshi teaches a method of producing a battery electrode by electrostatic coating ([0006]; [0008]; [0003]-[0005]) wherein the particles to be deposited are charged and a voltage is applied to the substrate to be coated ([0006]; [0012]-[0016]; [0015] “the object W to be coated is negatively charged (is negatively charged)”; [0035]).
Yoshitomi and Marra teach electrostatic deposition methods. Takeshi teaches that electrostatic deposition can be used to manufacture an electrode. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the method taught by Yoshitomi in view of Marra to produce an electrode.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Modified Yoshitomi teaches wherein the flight direction of the coating powder is a vertically upward direction (Marra Fig. 6; [0028]; [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Yoshitomi teaches wherein the first voltage has a positive polarity ([0030]; substrate is positively charged).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1.
Yoshitomi does not explicitly teach a batch process.
However, Fig. 1 of Yoshitomi, Fig.1 & 6 of Marra, and Fig. 6 of Takeshi all appear to depict a batch process. Further both Marra and Takeshi teach that deposition is done in layers (Marra [0020]-[0024]; Takeshi [0009]) which meets the limitation of batch process. Therefore, in view of Yoshitomi, Marra and Takeshi one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to utilize a batch process.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi et al. (JP2015013244, reference is made to previously enclosed machine translation), in view of Marra et al. (US20060068082A1) and Takeshi (WO2017169567A1), as applied above, in further view of Umizumi (JP 2011077014 A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1.
Modified Yoshitomi does not teach wherein the coating powder contains composite particles; each of the composite particles includes an active material particle and a coating; the coating covers at least a part of a surface of the active material particle; and the coating contains a binder.
However, Umizumi teaches a method of producing a battery electrode by electrostatic coating ([0015]). Umizumi teaches that active materials may be difficult to charge by themselves and can be more easily charged by attaching an insulating binder to the surface of the active material ([0017]-[0019]). Umizumi teaches that the binder is used to impart charging and sintering properties to the active material particles ([0040]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify to method taught by modified Yoshitomi by utilizing an active material coated with binder as taught by Umizumi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to method taught by modified Yoshitomi by utilizing an active material coated with binder as taught by Umizumi for improved charging and sintering properties ([0017]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 4. Umizumi further teach wherein the binder contains a fluororesin (Umizumi [0031]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi (JP2015013244) in view of Marra (US2006068082) and Takeshi (WO2017169567A1), as applied above, in further view of Yamashiro (US 20220040706 A1). Reference is made to previously provided machine translation of foreign documents.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Yoshitomi further teaches a method of forming a film on an apparatus comprising using a carrier gas to send fine particles towards a conductive mesh, charging the particles by passing them through the conductive mesh of a first polarity, and depositing the particles on a substrate via electrostatic attraction ([0008]). Yoshitomi teaches where the carrier gas is air ([0019]). Yoshitomi further teaches where the voltage applied to the conductor mesh is -3kV and the voltage applied to the substrate is between 1-7kV ([0036]). Yoshitomi teaches that controlling the voltage difference allows for control of the film thickness produced ([0036]).
Modified Yoshitomi does not teach wherein a relationship of a following expression (1) is satisfied: Ed < f(pd) (1) where E represents an electric field strength of the electric field, d represents a distance between the substrate and the screen, p represents a gas pressure in the electric field, and f(pd) represents a spark voltage obtained based on a Paschen curve and a product of the gas pressure and the distance.
However, Yamashiro teaches an electrostatic precipitator and where in an electrostatic operation spark voltage Vs is known to be expressed by a function of a product pd, being a product of the distance d between electrodes and the pressure p of a carrier gas, referred to as Paschen's law ([0045]). Yamashiro teaches that as distance is increased the spark voltage increases and that it is desirable to prevent a spark voltage from being too low ([0045]; [0046]; [0062]). Yamashiro further teaches that dielectric breakdown results in a spark discharge which is undesirable ([0037]).
Thus Yamashiro identifies the distance between two charged surfaces as a result effective variable wherein the selection of particular values thereof would be considered a matter of routine optimization to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP §2144.05II).
Therefore, in view of Yamashiro, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the distance between the screen and substrate taught by modified Yoshitomi to prevent a spark voltage from being too low and resulting in a spark discharge.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi (JP2015013244) in view of Marra (US2006068082) and Takeshi (WO2017169567A1), as applied above, in further view of Hirabayashi (US 20220173401 A1). Reference is made to previously provided machine translation of foreign documents.
Regarding claim 13, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Modified Yoshitomi teaches that the substrate surface is positioned upside down during deposition which makes the applied layer much less susceptible to become contaminated with foreign matter (Marra [0028]; [0006]). Modified Yoshitomi teaches that a conventional orientation may result in contamination with foreign matter, such as dust, due to gravity ([0006]) and the upside-down positioning allows for control of the deposition of coating material and can avoid the influence of gravity ([0006]).
Modified Yoshitomi does not teach wherein a metal foreign substance is removed as the coating powder flies in the electric field by the electrostatic force to reach the substrate.
However, Hirabayashi teaches that metal foreign matter leads to battery performance degradation and problems related to safety such as excessive heat generation or ignition due to the occurrence of a short circuit ([0018]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize metal foreign matter is a known contaminant in electrode processing. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the method taught by modified Yoshitomi, in which a substrate is positional in an anti-gravitational configuration to prevent contamination, would remove metal foreign matter. Further, the method taught by Yoshitomi forms an electric field through which charged particles travel; metal particles are conductive and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that they would experience minimal charge and would not be deposited on the substrate.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshitomi (JP2015013244) in view of Marra (US2006068082) and Takeshi (WO2017169567A1), as applied above, in further view of Nagai (WO2010067440). Reference is made to previously provided machine translation of foreign documents.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yoshitomi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1.
Modified Yoshitomi does not teach wherein the manufacturing of the electrode by causing the coating powder to adhere to the substrate includes the step of compressing the coating powder using a heat roll or a heat plate.
However, Nagai teaches an electrode manufacturing method ([0029]) forming an electric field between a substrate and a screen ([0030]-[0031]); introducing coating powder into the electric field through the screen ([0031]); and manufacturing an electrode by causing the coating powder to adhere to the substrate ([0031]-[0033]); when the coating powder passes through the screen, the coating powder comes into contact with the screen to apply a charge to the coating powder; the coating powder flies in the electric field by an electrostatic force to reach the substrate ([0030]-[0033]; Fig. 6A & 6B). Nagai further teaches a hot-pressing step using two metal press rollers heated to a temperature at which a binder softens ([0033]-[0034]). Nagai teaches that a heated press roller step softens and deforms binder particles of the uncompressed positive electrode active material layer, and bonds the positive electrode active material particles to each other, as well as between the positive electrode active material particles and the conductive additive particles, etc., by thermal fusion of the binder ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by modified Yoshitomi to include a hot-pressing step as taught by Nagai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the method taught by modified Yoshitomi to include a hot-pressing step as taught by Nagai to bond various coating components together ([0034]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamaguchi et al. (JP2014096306A) teaches an electrode manufacturing method comprising: introducing coating powder into the electric field through the screen; when the coating powder passes through the screen, the coating powder comes into contact with the screen to apply a charge to the coating powder; the coating powder flies in the electric field by an electrostatic force to reach the substrate ([0012]; [0014]; [0019]; [0023]; [0025]; [0040]; [0049]; [0055]-[0058]). Cited on the IDS filed 03/21/2025. Reference is made to the enclosed translation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights