Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/173,077

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SECONDARY CELL ELECTRODE COMPOSITE SLURRY AND MANUFACTURING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Feb 23, 2023
Examiner
TRINH, MINH N
Art Unit
3729
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Honda Motor Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
1286 granted / 1499 resolved
+15.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1547
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
33.0%
-7.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
37.8%
-2.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1499 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 II, claims 7-13 in the reply filed on 12/8/25 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 1-6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/25. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "52, 53 " and "81, 82" have both been used to designate a first and a second property measurer (see pages 26-27). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The abstract should be revised to reflect (elected) device invention. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Further, the specification is objected to because the reference characters "52, 53 " and "81, 82" have both been used to designate as first and second property measurers (see pages 26-27) and it is clearly that they are instead not the same elements or entities. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 7-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Since the claims directed to a device and the body of the claim includes a list of structural elements (e.g., 20, 51, 81, 30) but no interconnect between such elements in order to form a working device. The Examiner presumes that the claims directed to “A continuously manufacturing a secondary cell electrode device/system” bases on the claim languages of the body of base claim 7, and claims will be rejected accordingly. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is unclear as to how the list of the elements or structural elements of (e.g., a dispersion kneader, a first property measurer, a redispersion kneader, a controller) as representing in the body of the base claims 7 is/are connectively attached to one another to form a working device. Base on the present formats claim 7 appears to be incomplete for reason set forth above. Claims 8-9 appears to be in method formats since no structural element existed in these claims. It is suggested that rewrite claims 8-9 to proper structure claim formats (e.g., 81, 82, impedance measurer or sensors or meter). 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. Claim(s) 7-13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (JP 2018067433). Okamura discloses the claimed manufacturing device for continuously manufacturing a secondary cell electrode composite slurry, the manufacturing device comprising: a dispersion kneader 3 (as mixing apparatus 3) that continuously disperses and kneads a material of the electrode composite slurry (see discussion under the heading “Solution” and /or ¶ [0024], and Figs. 2-6); a first property measurer 6 (as first viscosity meter 6) that measures a property of the electrode composite slurry which has been dispersed and kneaded (see ¶ [0027], and Figs. 2-6); a redispersion kneader (as second mixing device 9) that redisperses and kneads the electrode composite slurry (see ¶ [0028], and Figs. 2-6); and a controller 11/19 that determines whether or not a redispersing-kneading step is performed based on a result of the measurement performed by the first property measurer (see ¶¶ [0031, 0057], and Figs. 3-6). PNG media_image1.png 247 350 media_image1.png Greyscale Note that in regarding to the functionally phrases after each of the elements cited above claim 7 is/are considered to be functionally intended use and clearly that no structure inventive features existed thereto. Limitations of claims 8-9, 11 are is/are also met by the above, since no further structure features existed in these claims. As applied to claim 12, refer to 8 for teaching of second viscosity measurer (see Fig. 4). Claim(s) 8-9, 13 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (JP 2018067433) in view of Sasaoka et al (JP 2015222651). As applied to claims 8-9 regarding to “wherein the first property measurer measures at least an impedance of the electrode composite slurry” is not structure limitation, however regarding to the above the Sasaoka discloses the impedance measure includes measures at least an impedance of the electrode composite slurry (see Figs. 1-2 in light of described in ¶¶¶ [0011, 0111, 0120, 0123]). Therefore, the limitation of claim 8 would be obvious to made by an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the teaching of Sasaoka et al as noted above onto the invention of Okamura in order to facilitate the operation process of impedance measuring by utilize w/ the known and available techniques. As applied to claim 13 appears to meet by references cited above (see Fig. 5 of Okamura which depicts the redispersing 8 includes tube that connected to container 9 and turned portion 18 and a flow path as indicated by arrows thereto, respectively). Claim(s)10 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okamura (JP 2018067433) in view of Takakuwa (20210155500). As applied to claim 10, regarding limitation of a magnetic separator that removes a magnetic metal by performing magnetic separation on the electrode composite slurry. The Takakuwa discloses such above (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the teaching of Takakuwa as noted above onto the invention of Okamura in order to form the device include that as mentioned above facilitate operation would result. The motivation for the combination can be found in either reference since they are in same field invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30. 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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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. /MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 23, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 23, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604397
A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A FORMED FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603395
BATTERY MODULE ASSEMBLY APPARATUS USING VISION AND ASSEMBLY METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603337
ADJUSTING METHOD OF NON-AQUEOUS ELECTROLYTIC SOLUTION AND PRODUCING METHOD OF LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY WITH REUSED ELECTRODE PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603627
Method for Manufacturing Vibration Element
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597832
METHOD FOR LAMINATED CORE OF ROTATING ELECTRIC MACHINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 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
86%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+10.0%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1499 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