DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (KR20080095463 cited in the IDS mailed 7/18/2023, a machine translation is provided) in view of Wantanabe (JP2009154482A cited in the IDS mailed 7/18/2023, a machine translation is provided).
Regarding claim 1, Lim teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a slurry for an electrode (figure 1, the materials are considered intended use), the apparatus comprising: a mixer configured to mix an electrode active material, a conductive material, a binder, and a solvent to form the slurry (item 10 with item 12, while the materials are considered intended use, page 3 first paragraph of the provided machine translation in the first paragraph teaches an active material, a conductive material, a binder, and a solvent), a flow path configured to sample the slurry from the mixer to provide a sample (collecting unit 100 has a path via item 100 to item 130 via valve 120), a weigher configured to measure a weight sample (weighting unit 300). Regarding claim 1, Lim is silent to a washer configured to wash an interior of the weigher, and a gas discharger configured to circulate air in the weigher, one flow path (flow path from item 110 in item 100) in accordance with heights of the mixing part (item 110 is located in item 10 at a height at the mixer where material can be extracted from item 10) and the flow path moves the corresponding sample of the slurry to the weigher (page 7 last paragraph of the machine translation teaches material is moved from item 110 to weighing unit 300). Regarding claim 1, Wantanabe teaches a washer configured to wash an interior of the weigher (page 11, paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches testing a slurry, and then washing the surface), and a gas discharger configured to circulate air in the weigher (page 5 paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches spraying air to clean a surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing configuration of Lim with the cleaning configuration of Wantanabe to allow for multiple tests of the slurry product to determine if the desired product has been produced. Both references are considered the same field of endeavor since they involve testing slurry product.
Regarding claim 2, Lim teaches wherein the weigher comprises a plate configured to mount the sample (item 310 weighing plate).
Regarding claim 3, Lim teaches a storage part positioned at one side of the weigher configured to store one plate, configured to supply the plate to the weigher (item 310 plate is shown sitting on a base where item 320, 330, 340, and 350 are housed). Regarding claim 3, Lim is silent to multiple plates. Regarding claim 3, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to duplicate the number of plates to allow for easier weighing operation of the slurry since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 4, Lim teaches wherein the weigher comprises a dryer configured to dry the sample by supplying heat to the sample (item 400 is a heater used to dry the sample).
Regarding claim 5, Lim teaches wherein the weigher is configured to measure a weight of the sample before the sample is dried and a weight of the sample after the sample is dried (item 310 is considered capable of producing a weight signal prior to and after drying via item 400).
Regarding claim 6, Lim teaches comprising a display configured to display one or more of the weight of the sample measured before the sample is dried (page 3 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches a liquid crystal display to calculate information from the weight calculator), the weight of the sample measured after the sample is dried, and a percentage of the weights of the sample measured before and after the sample is dried (page 3 first paragraph teaches the display providing information from the weight calculator and is considered capable of providing information prior to and after drying material).
Regarding claim 8, Lim teaches one flow path (from item 110 in item 100) and one weigher (item 300). Regarding claim 8, Lim is silent to multiple flow paths and weighers. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of flow paths and weighers in order to monitor multiple samples at the same time since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 9, Lim teaches wherein the flow path is configured to move the slurry to the weigher by a pump (page 4, second to last paragraph of the translation teaches item 110 inhaler sucks or discharges the slurry which is considered reading on a pump).
Regarding claim 10, Lim teaches further comprising a controller (paragraph 3 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches a controller) configured to store a reference value related to the weight of the sample (page 8, second paragraph of the machine translation teaches a threshold value which is considered reading on a reference value and inherently needs a storage medium in order to compare the threshold value to the value of the slurry), and when the weight of the sample measured by the weigher is less than the reference value adjusts one or more of the supply amount of the one or more of the electrode active material, the conductive material, the binder, and the solvent (page 7 paragraph 2 of the machine translation teaches supplying solvent to the stirrer in response to the viscosity being lower than the threshold value which inherently relies on the amount of slurry) to the mixing part and a mixing speed of the mixing part (paragraph 7 paragraph 2 of the machine translation teaches the stirrer is rotated gradually to obtain the desired value).
Regarding claim 11, Lim is silent to the washer is configured to wash the weigher by spraying one or more washing liquid and air into the weigher. Regarding claim 11, Wantanabe teaches washer is configured to wash the weigher by spraying one or more washing liquid (page 11, paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches testing a slurry, and then washing the surface) and air into the weigher (page 5 paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches spraying air to clean a surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing configuration of Lim with the cleaning configuration of Wantanabe to allow for multiple tests of the slurry product to determine if the desired product has been produced. Both references are considered the same field of endeavor since they involve testing slurry product.
Regarding claim 12, Lim teaches comprising a hot air dryer configured to evaporate the sample by supplying heated air to the weigher (item 400 dryer with heating wire 410 works through convection and dries the sample 11 on item 310). Regarding claim 12, Lim is silent to the washing liquid. Regarding claim 12, Wantanabe teaches washing liquid (page 12, paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches testing a slurry, and then washing the surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing configuration of Lim with the cleaning configuration of Wantanabe to allow for multiple tests of the slurry product to determine if the desired product has been produced. Both references are considered the same field of endeavor since they involve testing slurry product.
Regarding claim 13, Lim teaches a method of manufacturing a slurry for an electrode (page 4, paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches an electrode slurry), comprising: preparing the slurry by mixing an electrode (page 4 paragraph 4 of the machine translation teaches mixing an electrode), active material (page 3 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches an active material), a conductive material (page 3 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches a conductive material), a binder (page 3 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches a binder), and a solvent (page 3 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches a solvent), sampling the slurry to obtain a sample (item 110 is used to obtain a slurry sample item 11), measuring the weight of the sample by a weigher (item 11 is weighted by item 300). Regarding claim 13, Lim is silent to removing the sample from the weigher, and washing the weigher. Regarding claim 13, Wantanabe teaches removing a slurry sample being tested (page 11, paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches testing a slurry), and washing the holder of the sample (page 11, paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches washing the surface holding the slurry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing configuration of Lim with the cleaning configuration of Wantanabe to allow for multiple tests of the slurry product to determine if the desired product has been produced. Both references are considered the same field of endeavor since they involve testing slurry product.
Regarding claim 14, Lim teaches wherein the measuring of the weight comprises drying the sample (page 8 first paragraph of the machine translation teaches drying the slurry sample 11 using drying unit 400) and measuring the weight of the dried sample (page 8 second paragraph of the machine translation teaches measuring the weight of the of the dried sample).
Lim is silent to the language of claim 15. Regarding claim 15, Wantanabe teaches spraying one or more of washing liquid and air into an inner wall (page 11, paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches washing the surface which is considered reading on an inner wall), and discharging the one or more washing liquid and air, which have been used to wash the inner wall of the weigher to outside the weigher (page 9 paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches storing the cleaning liquid collected in a storage tank 28 via filter 16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing configuration of Lim with the cleaning configuration of Wantanabe to allow for multiple tests of the slurry product to determine if the desired product has been produced. Both references are considered the same field of endeavor since they involve testing slurry product.
Regarding claim 16, Lim teaches a weigher. Regarding claim 16, Lim is silent to washing or spraying air onto the plate. Regarding claim 16, Wantanabe teaches spraying one or more of washing liquid and air to a plate (page 11, paragraph 6 of the machine translation teaches washing the surface which is considered reading on a plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the weighing configuration of Lim with the cleaning configuration of Wantanabe to allow for multiple tests of the slurry product to determine if the desired product has been produced. Both references are considered the same field of endeavor since they involve testing slurry product.
Regarding claim 17, Lim teaches a weighing plate (item 310). Regarding claim 17, Lim is silent to multiple plates on the weigher. Regarding claim 17, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to duplicate the number of plates to allow for easier weighing operation of the slurry since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
The remarks regarding the objections of claims 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 have been considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to claims 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16. Therefore the claim objections to claims 8, 11,1 2, 15, and 16 are withdrawn.
Regarding the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that Lim (KR20080095463) does not describe a technique for positioning multiple flow paths along the height of the stirrer, as the sampling section is located at the top of the stirrer. However, the amended claim language requires one flow path since it claims “wherein the flow path is provided as one or more flow paths” and Lim shows a flow path at item 110 inhaler. Additionally, Lim item 110 inhaler is considered positioned at a height of the mixer since item 110 extracts material from the top of the mixer which is considered a height of the mixer.
Regarding the claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant additionally argues that the Watanabe (JP2009154482A) relates to a mold cleaning device and mold cleaning method and does not describe the technology and configuration regarding sample collection and sampling. However, Lim and Watanabe are both concerned with slurry testing. And Lim is relied on for the teaching of sample collection and sampling.
The remarks regarding the dependent claims are based off the remarks regarding claim 1 and are rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights