Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/176,136

MANUFACTURING METHOD AND MANUFACTURING APPARATUS OF ELECTRODE STRUCTURE

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Feb 28, 2023
Examiner
WEST, ROBERT GENE
Art Unit
1721
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
76 granted / 99 resolved
+11.8% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+24.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
155
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
55.4%
+15.4% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 99 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Status of Claims Claims 1 & 4-9 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1-9 were rejected in the 11/20/2025 office action. Applicant cancelled claims 2-3. Response to Amendment / Arguments The amendment filed 2/19/2026, in response to the 11/20/2025 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame all 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to additional prior art, CN110010847A (Wang). Wang was presented in the 12/30/2025 information disclosure statement. The allowable subject matter in the 11/20/2025 office action is retracted. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 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. The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses. Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2015090805A machine translation (Fujita) in view of CN110010847A machine translation (Wang). Fujita teaches the following claim 1 limitations: A manufacturing method (page 3, lines 6-9; figure 1: electrode manufacturing apparatus 10 which can be used for the method) of an electrode structure comprising: conveying (page 3, lines 31-32; figure 1: unwinding unit 100) a belt-like member (page 3, lines 35-36; figure 1: belt-shaped base sheet) in which a surface of a current collector (page 4, lines 2-4: base material sheet) is coated with an active material-containing layer (page 4, lines 4-10: active material), and an uncoated region (page 3, lines 43-45; figure 1: non-coating region A2) not coated with the active material-containing layer is formed in one of a pair of long edges along the longitudinal direction and a vicinity thereof in the current collector; rolling (page 4, lines 12-14; figure 1: press unit 300) the active material-containing layer in the conveyed belt-like member; pulling the belt-like member toward a downstream side, on the downstream side of a rolling unit configured to roll the active material-containing layer, thereby applying a tension in the longitudinal direction to the belt-like member between a pulling unit configured to pull the belt-like member and the rolling unit (page 4, lines 21-24; figure 1: winding unit 500 - the winding driving mechanism must function by pulling); and enlarging the uncoated region of the current collector in the longitudinal direction by pushing the uncoated region against the belt-like member to which the tension is applied, by a projection projecting toward an outer peripheral side (page 4, lines 26-35; figure 2: curvature correction unit 400 with a cylindrical large-diameter portion 421) on a roller (page 4, lines 26-27; figure 2: correction roller 420) between the rolling unit (300) and the pulling unit (500), the uncoated region being pushed by the projection (page 1, lines 16-17: “tension is applied to the non-coated region”) Claim 1 also recites: a projection length to a projection end is larger than a thickness of the active material-containing layer rolled by the rolling unit Fujita doesn’t state with words that the cylindrical large-diameter portion 421 projection is larger than active material thickness. Fujita does, however, illustrate this projection being multiple times thicker than active material thickness: Figure A: Annotated Partial Fujita Figure 2 PNG media_image1.png 360 1062 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the projection to be thicker than the active material, based on Fujita’s Figure 2, and by Fujita’s teaching of applying tension to the non-coated region (page 1, lines 16-17). Fujita also teaches the following claim 1 limitations: the belt-like member is conveyed in a state in which a rotational axis of the roller is taken along a widthwise direction of the belt-like member (Figure B below), in the projection (large-diameter portion 421), a projection end face as the projection end is formed over a predetermined width in an axial direction along the rotational axis of the roller (Figure B below), in the projection (large-diameter portion 421), a projection amount changing portion, in which a projection amount reduces in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, is formed adjacent to the projection end face from one side in the axial direction (Figure B below), and in a state in which the projection pushes the uncoated region of the current collector, the projection amount changing portion is positioned between the projection end face of the projection and the active material-containing layer in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member, and the projection amount in the projection amount changing portion reduces toward a side where the active material-containing layer is positioned in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member (Figure B below) Figure B: Annotated Partial Fujita Figure 2 PNG media_image2.png 385 1064 media_image2.png Greyscale Fujita, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claim 1, which are taught by Wang: a plurality of steps (Figure C below) are formed in the projection such that a step on an outer peripheral side of the roller has a larger projection amount (Figure C below: projection amount=P), and in the projection, a step on a most outer peripheral side of the plurality of steps forms the projection end face (Figure C below), and the projection amount (P) in the projection amount changing portion of the projection reduces stepwise in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, due to a step height formed by each of the plurality of steps (Figure C below), Figure C: Annotated Wang Figure 6 PNG media_image3.png 498 995 media_image3.png Greyscale Wang is directed to a roller for stretching a pole sheet / current collector during manufacture, for improved battery efficiency and safety (abstract; page 1, lines 13-39). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Fujita’s projection amount changing portion to include steps, with decreasing projection amount (P) in the axial direction away from the projection end face, as taught by Wang, for improved battery efficiency and safety. With regard to claim 5, Fujita teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as described above. Fujita also teaches the following claim 5 limitation: in the projection, the predetermined width of the projection end face is larger than 0 mm and not more than 15 mm (page 5, line 43 through page 6, line 2; figure 2: predetermined width = (Ws-Wb)/2 = (145mm-115mm)/2 = 15 mm) With regard to claim 6, Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 6 recites: in the projection, the projection length to the projection end is not less than 2 times to not more than 15 times the thickness of the rolled active material-containing layer Fujita’s projection length in figure 2 is within this range; however, Fujita doesn’t state that the drawings are to scale. Thus, Fujita fails to explicitly teach this claim limitation. Fujita does teach applying tension to the non-coated region in order to correct non-coated region curvature (page 1, lines 13-23). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust the projection length of Fujita’s curvature correction unit 400 to achieve the desired tension for correcting non-coated region curvature, as taught by Fujita, and to achieve the claimed projection length. With regard to claim 7, Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fujita also teaches the following claim 7 limitation: in the coating of the surface of the current collector with the active material-containing layer, the current collector is coated with the active material-containing layer such that a dimension of the uncoated region in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member is larger than 25 mm (page 5, line 43 through page 6, line 2; figure 2: active material dimension = Wb = 115 mm) With regard to claim 8, Fujita teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Fujita also teaches the following claim 8 limitation: forming the current collector from one or more of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, copper, zinc, stainless steel, and titanium (page 4, lines 2-4: copper foil) Fujita teaches the following claim 9 limitations: A manufacturing apparatus (page 3, lines 23-27; figure 1: electrode manufacturing apparatus 10) of electrode structure comprising: a conveyance unit (page 3, lines 31-32; figure 1: unwinding unit 100) configured to convey a belt-like member (page 3, lines 35-36; figure 1: belt-shaped base sheet) in which a surface of a current collector (page 4, lines 2-4: base material sheet) is coated with an active material-containing layer (page 4, lines 4-10: active material), and an uncoated region (page 3, lines 43-45; figure 1: non-coating region A2) not coated with the active material-containing layer is formed in one of a pair of long edges along the longitudinal direction and a vicinity thereof in the current collector; a rolling unit (page 4, lines 12-14; figure 1: press unit 300) configured to roll the active material-containing layer in the conveyed belt-like member; a pulling unit (page 4, lines 21-24; figure 1: winding unit 500) configured to pull the belt-like member toward a downstream side, on the downstream side of the rolling unit, thereby applying a tension in the longitudinal direction to the belt-like member between the pulling unit and the rolling unit (page 4, line 23: the winding driving mechanism must function by pulling); and an enlarging unit (page 4, lines 26-35; figure 2: curvature correction unit 400) including a roller (page 4, lines 26-27; figure 2: correction roller 420) and a projection (page 4, lines 26-27; figure 2: cylindrical large-diameter portion 421) projecting toward an outer peripheral side in the roller (420), and installed between the rolling unit (300) and the pulling unit (500), the enlarging unit (400) being configured to enlarge the uncoated region (page 1, lines 16-17: “tension is applied to the non-coated region”) of the current collector in the longitudinal direction by pushing the uncoated region by the projection against the belt-like member to which the tension is applied (figure 2) Claim 9 also recites: a projection length of the projection to a projection end being larger than a thickness of the active material-containing layer rolled by the rolling unit Fujita doesn’t state with words that the cylindrical large-diameter portion 421 projection is larger than active material thickness. Fujita does, however, illustrate this projection being multiple times thicker than active material thickness:. Figure A: Annotated Partial Fujita Figure 2 PNG media_image1.png 360 1062 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for the projection to be thicker than the active material, based on Fujita’s Figure 2, and by Fujita’s teaching of applying tension to the non-coated region (page 1, lines 16-17). Fujita also teaches the following claim 9 limitations: the belt-like member is conveyed in a state in which a rotational axis of the roller is taken along a widthwise direction of the belt-like member (Figure B below), in the projection (large-diameter portion 421), a projection end face as the projection end is formed over a predetermined width in an axial direction along the rotational axis of the roller (Figure B below), in the projection (large-diameter portion 421), a projection amount changing portion, in which a projection amount reduces in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, is formed adjacent to the projection end face from one side in the axial direction (Figure B below), and in a state in which the projection pushes the uncoated region of the current collector, the projection amount changing portion is positioned between the projection end face of the projection and the active material-containing layer in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member, and the projection amount in the projection amount changing portion reduces toward a side where the active material-containing layer is positioned in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member (Figure B below) Figure B: Annotated Partial Fujita Figure 2 PNG media_image2.png 385 1064 media_image2.png Greyscale Fujita, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claim 9, which are taught by Wang: a plurality of steps (Figure C below) are formed in the projection such that a step on an outer peripheral side of the roller has a larger projection amount (Figure C below: projection amount=P), and in the projection, a step on a most outer peripheral side of the plurality of steps forms the projection end face (Figure C below), and the projection amount (P) in the projection amount changing portion of the projection reduces stepwise in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, due to a step height formed by each of the plurality of steps (Figure C below), Figure C: Annotated Wang Figure 6 PNG media_image3.png 498 995 media_image3.png Greyscale Wang is directed to a roller for stretching a pole sheet / current collector during manufacture, for improved battery efficiency and safety (abstract; page 1, lines 13-39). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Fujita’s projection amount changing portion to include steps, with decreasing projection amount (P) in the axial direction away from the projection end face, as taught by Wang, for improved battery efficiency and safety. Conclusion Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 12/30/2025 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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. /R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 28, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Feb 19, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 22, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603286
CONDUCTIVE MATERIAL PASTE FOR ALL-SOLID-STATE SECONDARY BATTERY ELECTRODE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597648
BATTERY ASSEMBLY, METHOD OF PREPARATION, AND THERMAL CONTROL THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12597594
LITHIUM MANGANESE COMPOSITE OXIDE FOR A LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY CATHODE ACTIVE MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592414
SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE, AND SOLID-STATE LITHIUM METAL BATTERY, BATTERY MODULE, BATTERY PACK, AND APPARATUS CONTAINING SUCH SOLID ELECTROLYTE MEMBRANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586867
POROUS COMPOSITE SEPARATOR FOR SECONDARY BATTERY AND LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 99 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