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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)1 and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Enokihara et al (2022/0238855).
Enokihara et al disclose an electrode production method comprising passing an electrode material supplied between a first roll and a second roll, and transferred to a current collector (claim 6). The reference further teaches that the electrode material is in the form of a paste, slurry, or granulated product, preferably a granulated product in a wet granulated product form (granulated containing a small amount of solvent; [0029]), wherein the particle size may be larger than the gap width between the first and second rollers ([0030]). The solid content is 55 wt% to 90wt % ([0033], claim 7).
The reference teaches that the rollers have a textures shape and are ceramic materials, which are known to be inherently porous ([0010], [0044], [0045], claim 2). These materials, preferably zirconia, alumina, chromium nitride, aluminum nitride, titania, and chromium oxide (preferably alumina or chromium oxide), are included in the preferred materials of the instant invention (alumina, zirconia, aluminum nitride, specification [0024]) and would possess similar properties including porosity and ability to absorb solvents as required by the instant claims 1 and 2. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the materials to possess similar porosity and pore size absent evidence to the contrary, and inherently meet the limitations of the instant claim 3.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokihara et al.
Enokihara et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches that the solid content is 55 wt% to 90wt % ([0033], claim 7) which overlaps the range as set forth by the instant claim 4. While the range taught by the reference is broader than that claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use any amount, and would have arrived at an amount of solid content falling within the claimed range through routine experimentation to achieve optimal film-forming properties ([0033]).
Therefore, given the teachings of the reference, it would have been obvious to ne of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention, choosing to prepare the wet granulate having a solid content falling within the claimed range set forth by the instant claim 4.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enokihara et al in view of Wang et al (2016/0006018).
Enokihara et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a method of preparing an electrode sheet wherein the particle slurry/ wet granulated material is passed through a pair of rollers to form a film or sheet. The reference is silent with respect to the rollers being dry at the time of film formation, but Wang et al disclose a method of forming an electrode sheet wherein the wet slurry comprising a solvent and an active material particle is passed through heated rollers to dry the solvent quickly and decrease the surface roughness of the electrode film. Sheet which degrades the electrode density ([0018]-[0021]). The rollers are heated to temperature prior to the film forming step of passing and pressing the wet slurry material through the rollers to form the sheet and dry / remove the solvent. The pre-heated rollers would have a dry surface to absorb and dry the solvent in the slurry.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the material and perform the method of Enokihara et al, choosing to pre-heat the rollers for the film forming step (which would dry any moisture on the rollers prior to film-forming) as taught by Wang et al to quickly dry the solvent to achieve improved surface roughness and electrode density.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami et al (2016/0082467).
Mikami et al disclose a method of preparing a wet mixture and its use in a method of forming an electrode sheet. The wet mixture comprises particles in a solvent ([0003], [0017], [0066]), and is passed through a gap between a first and second roller ([0018]), then transferred to a coating object ([0039]). The rollers have a surface roughness, wherein the uneven surface would absorb solvent ([0046], [0068], [0095]).
The rollers are made with a material having excellent transferability, including alumina, titania, chromium nitride, zirconia, and tungsten carbide, wherein alumina and zirconia ([0040]) are suggested by the instant invention (specification, [0040), wherein the materials would possess similar properties including porosity and ability to absorb solvents as required by the instant claims 1 and 2. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the materials to possess similar porosity and pore size absent evidence to the contrary, and inherently meet the limitations of the instant claim 3.
The reference teaches that to aid in transferability, the solvent content should be between 20 to 62 vol %, thus the solid content of 38 to 80 vol % ([0059]. It can be estimated that the wet mixture to active material and solvent should have a higher solid content than solvent content to improve the transferability depending on the roller material. Examples use solid contents of 60%, thus greater than the solvent. Therefore, given the broad teachings of the reference, and the aim to adjust the solvent content to an amount which results in good transferability from the roller(s), one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed weight percentage of solid material in the wet mixture through routine experimentation and optimization.
Given the teachings of Mikami et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to prepare the material and perform the method of the reference, choosing as the rollers, those having a surface roughness and porous ceramic material such as alumina or zirconia as taught to be known and useful for the material of the rollers. The resultant rollers and would possess a solvent absorbing portion as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikami et al in view of Wang et al.
Mikami et al has been discussed above. The reference teaches a method of preparing an electrode sheet wherein the wet mixture comprising active material particles is passed through a pair of rollers to form a film or sheet.
The reference is silent with respect to the rollers being dry at the time of film formation, but discusses controlling the solvent to improve transferability of the mixture to the coating object.
Wang et al disclose a method of forming an electrode sheet wherein the wet slurry comprising a solvent and an active material particle is passed through heated rollers to dry the solvent quickly and decrease the surface roughness of the electrode film. Sheet which degrades the electrode density ([0018]-[0021]). The rollers are heated to temperature prior to the film forming step of passing and pressing the wet slurry material through the rollers to form the sheet and dry / remove the solvent. The pre-heated rollers would have a dry surface to absorb and dry the solvent in the slurry.
Therefore, given the teachings of the references, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the material and perform the method of Mikami et al, choosing to pre-heat the rollers for the film forming step (which would dry any moisture on the rollers prior to film-forming) as taught by Wang et al to quickly dry the solvent to achieve improved surface roughness and electrode density.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Enohara et al (JP 2018-063776), as cited by applicant, teaches a similar method, but teaches that the rollers are coated with a silicon or fluororesin, which are known water/ liquid-repellent materials, which would not fairly teach or provide the claimed solvent absorbing portion on the rollers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA C WALKE whose telephone number is (571)272-1337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 5:30am to 4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/AMANDA C. WALKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights