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 2 (claims 19-28) in the reply filed on June 26th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18, and 29-30 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 26th, 2026.
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.
Claim 28 is 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.
Claim 28 recites the limitation " at least one of the first compaction arrangement or the second compaction arrangement has a roller arrangement " in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner will interpret the claim as --at least one of the first compaction arrangement or a second compaction arrangement has a roller arrangement--.
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 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.
Claims 19-20, 22, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yersak et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0372155 A1), hereinafter Yersak.
Regarding claim 19, Yersak discloses an apparatus for producing an electrode which has a coating at least in sections (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0094] whereby the electroactive material particles ref. 112 may be in direct physical contact with the glass SSE ref. 114 (i.e., "coated" with SSE), etc., also see [0010], [0019], [0062], [0079], [0094], Figs. 2-3),
the apparatus comprising: a first compaction arrangement for a first mechanical compaction of the electrode (i.e., at least compacted through pair of rollers ref. 74, etc., as disclosed in [0083], also see [0005], [0008], [0010], [0079], [0083]-[0085], [0087], [0108], Figs. 2-8, ), and
a device having a thermal energy source for supplying the electrode with thermal energy (i.e., at least oven or furnace ref. 72, etc., as disclosed in [0082], etc., also see [0005], [0011], [0015], [0017], [0060], [0082]-[0083], [0089], [0098], [0102]-[0103], [0108], Fig. 2),
wherein the device is arranged upstream or downstream of the first compaction arrangement (i.e., at least oven or furnace ref. 72, etc., as disclosed in [0082], and/or compact may pass through annealing furnace ref. 76, etc., as disclosed in [0085], etc., also see [0005], [0011], [0015], [0017], [0060], [0082]-[0083], [0089], [0098], [0102]-[0103], [0108], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 20, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 19. Yersak further discloses the thermal energy source has a limiting element which is configured to supply a predetermined region of the electrode with thermal energy (i.e., at least oven or furnace ref. 72, etc., as disclosed in [0082], etc., also see [0005], [0011], [0015], [0017], [0060], [0082]-[0083], [0089], [0098], [0102]-[0103], [0108], Fig. 2), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that “limiting element” and “predetermined region” are broad in scope as claimed and are at least provided so that the powder layer ref. 70 is, for example, pre-heated in an oven or furnace ref. 72 shown in broken lines, etc., and lacking any further distinction as to said limiting element, predetermined region, etc.
Regarding claim 22, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 19. Yersak further discloses the device has at least one guide roll which is configured to convey the electrode during operation of the apparatus (i.e., at least as disclosed in [0077] the substrate ref. 50 is carried in a direction of the arrows ref. 52, for example by rollers ref. 54, into a fabrication zone, etc., such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that rollers ref. 54 as shown in Fig. 2 are at least guide rolls so as to carry said substrate in a direction of the arrows, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof, also see [0078]-[0085], etc.).
Regarding claim 25, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 20. Yersak further discloses the device has a plurality of guide rolls, and at least two guide rolls of the plurality of guide rolls are arranged on different planes with respect to a direction of movement of the electrode (i.e., at least rolls ref. 54 as shown in Fig. 2 are at least arranged on different planes, such as two different vertical planes with a respect to the horizontal direction as shown by arrows ref. 52, so as to be side-by-side, and lacking any further distinction as to different planes).
Regarding claim 28, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 19. Yersak further discloses at least one of the first compaction arrangement or a second compaction arrangement has a roller arrangement (i.e., at least as shown in Fig. 2, whereby rollers ref. 74 are at least said first compaction arrangement as discussed above in claim 19, etc., and as disclosed in at least [0083] so that one or more pairs of heated rollers ref. 74, etc., are provided).
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:
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Woo et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2020/0152962 A1), hereinafter Woo.
Regarding claim 21, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 19. However, Yersak is silent as to the thermal energy source has an infrared lamp heater or an induction device.
Woo teaches a notching apparatus and method for secondary battery (Title). Woo further teaches in [0042] as illustrated in FIG. 2, the drying unit comprises a heating body ref. 110 having an inlet through which the electrode is introduced and an outlet through the electrode ref. 1 is discharged, the heating body ref. 110 provided with a drying space ref. 116 (see FIG. 3) that is a passage, through which the electrode ref. 1 passes therein, and lamp parts ref. 120 mounted on the heating body ref. 110 to irradiate infrared rays onto a surface of the electrode ref. 1 while the electrode ref. 1 moves through the drying space ref. 116, whereby moisture contained in the surface of the electrode ref. 1 is dried by the infrared rays irradiated from the lamp parts ref. 120, and the electrode ref. 1 discharged from the drying unit ref. 110 is wound and collected by the collecting unit ref. 200, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yersak with the teachings of Woo, whereby the apparatus including the thermal energy source as disclosed by Yersak further includes the thermal energy source has an infrared lamp heater from the group as taught by Woo so that moisture contained in the surface of the electrode is dried by the infrared rays irradiated from the lamp parts, etc.
Claims 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak as applied to claims 20 and 22 above, and further in view of Uematsu et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2013/0074711 A1), hereinafter Uematsu.
Regarding claim 23, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 22. However, Yersak is silent as to the at least one guide roll is thermally coupled to a thermal heat source, as a result of which the at least one guide roll is suppliable with the thermal energy.
Uematsu teaches a press apparatus for electrode, electrode manufacturing apparatus, and electrode manufacturing method (Title). Uematsu further teaches in [0026] the guide roller ref. 36 comprises a heater ref. 36a for use as a heating device, etc., which at least provides the at least one guide roll is thermally coupled to a thermal heat source, as a result of which the at least one guide roll is suppliable with the thermal energy (also see [0037], Fig. 1), and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Uematsu further teaches in [0037] if the heat treatment temperature ref. T is adjusted to 60°C or more, the effect of reducing necessary stress for plastic deformation can be improved, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yersak with the teachings of Uematsu, whereby the apparatus including the at least one guide roll as disclosed by Yersak further includes the at least one guide roll is thermally coupled to a thermal heat source, as a result of which the at least one guide roll is suppliable with the thermal energy as taught by Uematsu so that the effect of reducing necessary stress for plastic deformation can be improved, etc.
Regarding claim 25, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 20. Yersak further discloses the device has a plurality of guide rolls, and at least two guide rolls of the plurality of guide rolls are arranged on different planes with respect to a direction of movement of the electrode (i.e., at least rolls ref. 54 as shown in Fig. 2 are at least arranged on different planes, such as two different vertical planes with a respect to the horizontal direction as shown by arrows ref. 52, so as to be side-by-side, and lacking any further distinction as to different planes).
In the alternative, Uematsu teaches a press apparatus for electrode, electrode manufacturing apparatus, and electrode manufacturing method (Title). Uematsu further teaches in [0016] the guide rollers ref. 34 to 38 are alternately arranged on the upper and lower surfaces of the electrode sheet ref. S1 so that the tension on the sheet ref. S1 is within the desired range suitable for take-up operation, etc., which at least provides the device has a plurality of guide rolls, and at least two guide rolls of the plurality of guide rolls are arranged on different planes with respect to a direction of movement of the electrode so as to be arranged on the upper and lower surfaces of the electrode sheet, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof (also see Fig. 1, [0035], [0039], [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yersak with the teachings of Uematsu, whereby the apparatus including the at least one guide roll, etc., as disclosed by Yersak further includes the device has a plurality of guide rolls, and at least two guide rolls of the plurality of guide rolls are arranged on different planes with respect to a direction of movement of the electrode, etc., as taught by Uematsu so that the tension on the sheet is within the desired range suitable for take-up operation, etc.
Regarding claim 26, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 25. However, Yersak is silent as to the plurality of guide rolls are arranged in a meandering manner within the device.
The combined teachings of Yersak and Uematsu disclose the apparatus as discussed above in claim 25. Uematsu further teaches in [0016] the guide rollers ref. 34 to 38 are alternately arranged on the upper and lower surfaces of the electrode sheet ref. S1 so that the tension on the sheet ref. S1 is within the desired range suitable for take-up operation, etc., which at least provides the plurality of guide rolls are arranged in a meandering manner within the device so as to be arranged on the upper and lower surfaces of the electrode sheet as shown in Fig. 1, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof (also see Fig. 1, [0035], [0039], [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yersak with the teachings of Uematsu, whereby the apparatus including the at least one guide roll, etc., as disclosed by Yersak further includes the plurality of guide rolls are arranged in a meandering manner within the device, etc., as taught by Uematsu so that the tension on the sheet is within the desired range suitable for take-up operation, etc.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak and Uematsu as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Bae et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2020/0403263 A1), hereinafter Bae.
Regarding claim 24, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 23. However, Yersak is silent as to the at least one guide roll has at least one thermal insulation element.
Bae teaches a method for manufacturing secondary battery (Title). Bae further teaches [0078] the outer surface of the roll ref. 42 may be made of a heat-resistant and insulating material as another example, which at least provides at least one roll has at least one thermal insulation element, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said element.
Bae further teaches in [0078] the outer surface of the roll ref. 42 may be made of, for example, silicon that is a heat-resistant and flexible material, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yersak with the teachings of Bae, whereby the apparatus including the at least one guide roll as disclosed by Yersak thermally coupled to a thermal heat source further includes the at least one roll has at least one thermal insulation element as taught by Bae so that it is a heat-resistant and flexible material, etc.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yersak as applied to claim 19 above, or in the alternative, and further in view of Hirukawa et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2019/0036104 A1), hereinafter Hirukawa.
Regarding claim 27, Yersak discloses the apparatus as discussed above in claim 19. Yersak further discloses in [0083] the powder layer ref. 70 may be heated and compacted, for example by passing through one or more pairs of heated rollers ref. 74 to form a compact ref. 70’, etc., which at least provides a range of compaction arrangement(s) that overlap and/or encompass the claimed range of first/second compaction arrangement(s) so as to provide a second compaction arrangement for a second mechanical compaction of the electrode to form a second compacted state of the electrode, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Although, Yersak is silent as to the device having the thermal energy source is arranged downstream of the first compaction arrangement and upstream of the second compaction arrangement, since Yersak discloses the thermal energy source as discussed above in claim 19 and further discloses the first/second compaction arrangements as discussed above, for example by passing through one or more pairs of heated rollers to form a compact, etc., the skilled artisan would appreciate the finite number of identified, predictable solutions such as rearranging the thermal energy source and/or first/second compaction arrangements so as to provide a device having the thermal energy source is arranged downstream of the first compaction arrangement and upstream of the second compaction arrangement so as to improve interfacial contact between the glass ref. 66’ and the electroactive material particles ref. 64, etc., as disclosed in [0083] with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to the limitation “the electrode has a higher compaction in the second compacted state than in the first compacted state”, since Yersak discloses the apparatus including the first/second compaction arrangement(s) as discussed above, this provides an apparatus that is identical and/or substantially identical to that claimed, such that the properties and/or functions such as the electrode has a higher compaction in the second compacted state than in the first compacted state, are presumed inherent, lacking any further structural distinction thereof (MPEP 2112.01, I. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
In addition, since Yersak discloses the apparatus including the first/second compaction arrangement(s) as discussed above, this provides an apparatus that is identical and/or substantially identical to that claimed, the Examiner notes MPEP 2115: "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Young, and the limitations relating to how the claimed apparatus works on the "the electrode" (i.e., the material worked upon) do not distinguish the claims from the prior art. Therefore, the limitation " the electrode has a higher compaction in the second compacted state than in the first compacted state ", etc., does not provide additional structure to the apparatus, such that material or article worked upon (i.e., the electrode) by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In the alternative, Hirukawa teaches electrode sheet manufacturing method (Title). Hirukawa further teaches in [0055]-[0060] the thermal energy source (e.g., drying apparatus ref. 70 as shown in Fig. 7) is arranged downstream of the first compaction arrangement (e.g., refs. 32-33 as shown in Fig. 7) and upstream of the second compaction arrangement (i.e., at least refs. 61-61 as shown in Fig. 8).
Hirukawa further teaches in [0069] consequently, in the positive electrode sheet ref. 19 after performing the roll pressing process (step S6), the density difference between the first positive electrode mixture layer ref. 18b and the second positive electrode mixture layer ref. 18c can be reduced compared to the positive electrode sheet ref. 19 before performing the roll pressing process, etc.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Yersak with the teachings of Hirukawa, whereby the apparatus including the thermal energy source, first/second compaction arrangement(s), etc., as disclosed by Yersak further includes the device having the thermal energy source is arranged downstream of the first compaction arrangement and upstream of the second compaction arrangement, etc., as taught by Hirukawa so that the density difference between the first positive electrode mixture layer and the second positive electrode mixture layer can be reduced compared to the positive electrode sheet before performing the roll pressing process, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shi et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2009/0072448 A1) discloses a continuous production of exfoliated graphite composite compositions and flow field plates (Title), whereby as disclosed in [0062] instead of being collected as a roll of composite precursor, the calendered composite compact may be fed into the gap between a pair of embossing rollers ref. 432 (or matched molds) inside a heated zone ref. 430 to produce bipolar plates ref. 434 on a continuous basis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights