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, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/09/2023, 03/21/2025, 07/31/2025, 11/14/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 Nagai et al. (WO2010067440) hereinafter "Nagai", cited on the IDS filed 03/21/2025, and Vink et al. (US 20060276099 A1) hereinafter "Vink". Reference is made to enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Nagai teaches an electrode manufacturing method ([0029]) 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 ([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]), wherein: the first voltage has a polarity opposite to a polarity of the second voltage ([0031]); 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 does not teach wherein an angle between a flight direction of the coating powder and a vertically downward direction is 90 degrees to 270 degrees.
However, Vink teaches a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising dispersing particles in a gas stream, electrically charging particles, passing particles through a deposition electrode, and depositing the particles onto a substrate ([0006]; [0016]). Vink teaches wherein an electric field is generated between the substrate and the deposition electrode ([0006]; [0016]; [0023]). Vink teaches that it is advantageous to position the substrate in an upside-down or anti-gravitational position to limit any undesirable deposition of contaminating particles ([0006]; Fig 1 annotated below). The upside-down substrate position taught by Vink corresponds to an angle of 180 degrees between a flight direction of the coating powder and a vertically downward direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
471
635
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method taught by Nagai by utilizing a carrier gas and positioning the substrate in an upside-down position, corresponding to an angle of 180 degrees between a flight direction of the coating powder and a vertically downward direction, as taught by Vink.
One of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by Nagai by utilizing a carrier gas and positioning the substrate in an upside-down position as taught by Vink to limit any undesirable deposition of contaminating particles ([0006]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nagai teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Modified Nagai further teaches wherein the flight direction of the coating powder is a vertically upward direction (Vink [0006]; [0016]; [0023]; Fig. 1; substrate is position upside down and particles are deposited upwards onto substrate).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nagai teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Nagai further teaches wherein the first voltage has a positive polarity ([0033]; substrate is positively charged).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nagai teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Nagai further teaches wherein the electrode is manufactured in a batch system ([0034]; [0054]; [0030]; the positive electrode is manufactured by forming a first coating layer on one side then reprocessed with the same equipment to form a second coating on a second side, thereby meeting the limitation of batch process).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (WO2010067440) in view of Vink (US 20060276099 A1), as applied above, in further view of Umizumi (JP2011077014A), cited on the IDS filed 03/21/2025. Reference is made to the enclosed translation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nagai teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1. Nagai further teaches that a coating powder contains positive electrode active material, binder particles, and conductive particles ([0032]; [0008]).
Modified Nagai 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 Nagai by coating the binder on the active material as taught by Umizumi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to method taught by modified Nagai by coating the binder on the active material as taught by Umizumi for improved charging and sintering properties ([0017]-[0019]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nagai in view of Umizumi teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 4. Nagai and Umizumi further teach wherein the binder contains a fluororesin (Nagai [0008]; [Umizumi [0031]).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai (WO2010067440) and Vink (US 20060276099 A1), as applied above, in further view of Yoshitomi et al. (JP2015013244A) hereinafter “Yoshitomi”, cited on the IDS filed 03/21/25, and Yamashiro (US 20220040706 A1). Reference is made to enclosed machine translation of foreign documents.
Regarding claim 6, modified Nagai teaches the electrode manufacturing method according to claim 1.
Modified Nagai is silent as to the parameters such as electric field strength and gas pressure.
However, Yoshitomi 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]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method taught by modified Nagai by setting the first and second voltages to the range taught by Yoshitomi.
Both modified Nagai and Yoshitomi are directed toward electrostatic deposition of particles on a substrate. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the method taught by modified Nagai by setting the first and second voltages to the range taught by Yoshitomi with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a film on a substrate.
Modified Nagai in view of 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 Nagai to prevent a spark voltage from being too low and resulting in a spark discharge.
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-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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