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 claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 6 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 05/15/2023 has been considered by the Primary Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 05/15/2023 are acceptable. See MPEP § 608.02(b)(I).
Specification
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stein et al. Mechanistic Understanding of the Role of Evaporation in Electrode Processing. Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 164 (7) A1616-A1627 (2017) (“Stein”).
Claim 1
Stein teaches a process for manufacturing an electrode for a lithium-ion battery (rechargeable battery). The process comprising applying an electrode slurry that includes and electrode active material (LiNi1/3Mn1/3Co1/3) to an aluminum substrate (current collector); and drying the applied electrode mixture. Stein at A1618, col. 1-2, §Method:Experimental:Electrode preparation.
The Primary Examiner interprets the claimed “adjusting the electrode plate specific surface area after the drying the applied electrode mixture by setting a drying condition of the electrode mixture in accordance with the obtained specific surface area” as selecting a drying condition such that, given an initial surface area (“obtained specific surface area”) of the electrode active material, drying will result in a desired final surface area (“electrode plate specific surface area”) of the dried electrode active material. One way in which that surface area is controlled is through migration of binder/additive material toward the surface of the electrode layer.
Here, Stein teaches that, by controlling the temperature and staging during the drying process, one can control binder/additive migration. Stein at A1618, col. 2, §Method:Experimental:Electrode preparation and A1619-20, §Results and Discussion:Experiments:Effect of solvent evaporation during drying. In controlling the binder/additive migration during drying one, by extension, necessarily controls the electrode plate specific surface area. Independent claim 1 does not require that the claimed “adjusting” be done to achieve any particular surface area result.
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) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stein.
Claim 4
Here, the Primary Examiner interprets the claimed “wherein the drying condition is set based on a change amount of the electrode plate specific surface area that varies in accordance with the drying condition so as to correct a difference of the obtained specific surface area and a predetermined standard specific surface area” as controlling the drying conditions such that the final, electrode plate specific surface area ends up at a predetermined, standard specific value.
In teaching quantifying the impact of drying on the microstructure of the electrode, Stein is inherently teaching comparing the outcome on the microstructure (i.e., migration of binder/additive to electrode active material). While not expressly taught, this mechanism directly allows one of ordinary skill in the art to make the comparison claimed and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so as a means of assessing the electrical properties of the finished electrode.
Claim 5
As noted above, Stein teaches the blending of materials into a slurry. While Stein does not teach kneading, this step is common and conventional in the art as a means of evenly distributing the electrode materials.
While Stein does not explicitly state the initial surface area is determined before blending, the method of Stein is not strictly limited. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have made an initial reference determination at any suitable point in the process, including on the raw material before mixing, as long as it can be compared to the dried electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Stein specific ally investigates the effect of single-stage and two-stage drying, with elevated temperatures being at 70°C and 120°C. Stein does not teach or suggest setting the drying temperature to be higher or the drying time longer as the obtained specific surface area (i.e., the initial surface area) becomes smaller.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H10-116604 A teaches a process including control of the surface area of an electrode by application of pressure via a compression molding roller to crush the electrode active particles into smaller pieces, thereby increasing surface area.
JP 2011-129400 A teaches a process whereby the distribution of binder and solvent is kept uniform throughout the electrode during drying by the application of IR radiation at 40-200°C for 1-40 mins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM P FLETCHER III whose telephone number is (571)272-1419. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
WILLIAM PHILLIP FLETCHER III
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/WILLIAM P FLETCHER III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
06 March 2026
Prosecution Insights