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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/3/26. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the negative-electrode drying space and vent must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 2/3/26, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2-3, 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is arguing that the features of claim 1 and 7 integrated into practical application by cooling air and measurement outside of the manufacturing space. Further, applicant argues that based on the measurements the humidity can be controlled/regulated.
These argued limitations are not in the claims nor do they appear to be supported by the disclosure: i.e. cooling air by physically moving the air from one location to another, the controller regulating the humidity. Additionally, the limitations discussed are well understood, routine, and conventional. The “lower temperature” of the second location is created for the dew point sensor and is well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., using a dew point sensor with a corresponding cooling element: US20080317089, US20180052126, US5816704, US4579462); controlling humidity based on measured humidity when manufacturing electrodes (US2022/0297154, US10254043, US20170263388).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, page 7-9, regarding the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The arguments are directed towards new claim limitations which have not yet been considered “a temperature of the second location is lower than a temperature of the first location”. This is taught by et al. (JP2015230742): outside air is taken in from the vent 3a to cool the internal battery cell 10 therefore the air/temperature is cooler than the position of the other sensor, end pg. 2 and middle pg. 6.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 10-11 are objected to because “the negative-electrode drying space” does not have antecedent basis and should be changed to “a negative-electrode drying space”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation (claim 12) “wherein the first location is a negative electrode-drying space configured to dry an electrode active material applied on an electrode collector of the battery, wherein the second location is outside of the negative electrode- drying space, and wherein exhaust air from the first location is vented to the second location.” in the application as filed. The original disclosure does not discuss a second location outside of the drying space. Each of the manufacturing spaces have a vent/vent duct for discharging air to the outside [0036-0037], and the second measurement unit may be located in the vent duct [0045], but there is no discussion that the second location is outside of the drying space. Claims 13-15 depend from rejected claim 12.
Applicant has not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation (Claim 16) wherein the controller is further configured to control the absolute humidity in the first location of the battery manufacturing space. The controller is disclosed as configured to calculate and to display, not to control a humidity.
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.
Claims 12-15 are 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 12 states “wherein the first location is a negative electrode-drying space configured to dry an electrode active material applied on an electrode collector of the battery, wherein the second location is outside of the negative electrode- drying space, and wherein exhaust air from the first location is vented to the second location.” However, the specification states that the manufacturing spaces 11, 12, 13 have a vent for discharging air to the outside published [0036-0037, 0045] but there is no teaching that the vent moves air from a drying space to a second location outside of the drying space. The vent only moves air outside of the manufacturing spaces 11, 12, 13 and therefore the second location would not be within the manufacturing space. Claims 13-15 depend from claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine whether a claim is patent eligible and not directed to a judicial exception, one skilled in the art must first determine whether the claims can be classified in one of the four recognized statutory categories, i.e., a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter. See MPEP 2106(I). In the instant case claims 1-6, 12-16 recite an apparatus in the preamble, and claims 7-11recite a method in the preamble, therefore are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Next, a two-part analysis, as discussed in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), is used to determine whether the subject matter recited in the claims are directed to a recognized judicial exception, and if so, is there additional limitations in the claims that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination, so as to render the claims patent eligible. This two-part analysis is the subject of the 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance. In part one of the analyses, one skilled in the art must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a judicial exception, i.e., laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites acquir[ing] temperature data, acquir[ing] dew point data, and calculat[ing] absolute humidity based on the temperature data and dew point data. Claim 7 recites measuring a temperature, measuring a dew point, and calculating absolute humidity based on the temperature and dew point data. The measuring and acquiring data is merely data gathering using routine and conventional sensors and calculating is merely analyzing the data using a computer. Therefore, claims 1-16 are directed to an abstract idea as they are directed to mathematical calculation and a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitations, as drafted, are a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance limitations of the mind. For example, the claim limitations encompass a person looking at data collected and determining information from the collected data. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person looking at the obtained data could generate or identify the various values and data therefrom, either mentally or using a pen and paper. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by circuitry (a computer) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical calculation.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the sensors are recited at a high level of generality and are merely defined by what they gather (a temperature sensor to measure temperature, a dew point sensor to measure dew point) and amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, the controller is merely a generic computer used to carry out the mathematical and mental process steps of calculating, the battery manufacturing space merely limits the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and is recited at a high level of generality, the placement of the sensors does not amount to significantly more because the “lower temperature” of the second location is created for the dew point sensor and is well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e., using a dew point sensor with a corresponding cooling element: US20080317089, US20180052126, US5816704, US4579462). Therefore, the additional limitations of respective claims 1 and 7 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As for dependent claims 2-6 and 8-16:
Claims 2-3, 8-9 are directed to controller calculating and therefore further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more.
Claims 4-5, 10-12 are directed to the location of the sensors and these limitations merely limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not amount to significantly more.
Claims 13 is directed to extra-solution activity, a temperature of the drying oven, which further limits the abstract idea but does not amount to significantly more.
Claims 14-15 are directed to well-understood, routine and conventional activity when using a dew point sensor (US20080317089, US20180052126, US5816704, US4579462) but does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 is directed to the displaying data which is routine, conventional activity and does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 16 is directed to broadly controlling humidity based on measured humidity which is well-understood, routine, and conventional when manufacturing electrodes (US2022/0297154, US10254043, US20170263388).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Onishi et al. (US20220297154) in view of Mihashi et al. (JP2015230742, translation provided) further in view of Sasaki (US20200101941).
Claim 1: Onishi teaches a device and method for manufacturing a negative battery electrode [0004] including a main body 30 having a humidity controller 31 and an exhaust 30b, Fig. 3. Onishi teaches that the humidity is controlled by adjusting the dew point temperature of the workspace [0057-0058, 0069-0070].
Onishi fails to teach a first sensor configured to measure a temperature in a first location of a battery manufacturing space and acquire temperature data; a second sensor configured to measure a dew point in a second location of the battery manufacturing space and acquire dew point data, wherein a temperature of the second location is lower than a temperature of the first location ; and a controller configured to calculate absolute humidity in the battery manufacturing space based on the temperature data and the dew point data.
Mihashi teaches an absolute humidity calculation apparatus comprising: a first sensor (temperature/humidity sensor 21, Fig. 1) configured to measure a temperature in a first location (in the battery case 3 away from the vent) of a battery space and acquire temperature data; a second sensor (temperature/humidity sensor 21; temperature is expressed as °C and humidity is expressed in relative humidity [%], pg. 6, third full paragraph) in a second location (in the vicinity of the vent 3a, last full paragraph, pg. 8) of the battery space; and a controller (absolute humidity calculation unit ECU 20) configured to calculate absolute humidity (S4 the absolute humidity calculation process; pg. 7, third paragraph; the saturated water vapor pressure is obtained from the temperature, the saturated water vapor pressure is multiplied by the relative humidity to obtain the water vapor pressure of the measurement air, and the volumetric absolute humidity is further calculated based on this.) in the battery space based on the sensors data, wherein the temperature of the second location is lower than a temperature of the first location (outside air is taken in from the vent 3a to cool the internal battery cell 10 therefore the air/temperature is cooler than the position of the other sensor, end pg. 2 and middle pg. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Mihashi with the device of Onishi in order to detect the humidity of the air entering the battery space and detect the humidity of the air within the space which may experience different temperatures and humidities (Mihashi, pg. 8, last full paragraph).
Mihashi fails to teach the second sensor configured to measure a dew point, and calculate an absolute humidity based on the temperature data and the dew point data.
However the relationship between dew point, vapor pressure, and relative humidity is known in the art as evidenced by Sasaki. Sasaki teaches that the dew point temperature can be found from relative humidity and temperature(Fig. 2, [0040-0042]) or alternatively from a dew point sensor (Fig. 6, [0061]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that absolute humidity can be found from measurements of temperature and humidity, or directly from a dew point sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a dew point sensor in lieu of a temperature and humidity, as taught by Sasaki, because it has been shown that the sensors can be substituted to obtain predictable results.
Claim 2: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Onishi fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate vapor pressure data in the battery manufacturing space based on the dew point data.
Mihashi teaches calculating an absolute humidity (S4 absolute humidity calculation step) using the relationship between temperature and relative humidity (Fig. 4), further the saturated water vapor pressure is obtained from the temperature, the saturated water vapor pressure is multiplied by the relative humidity to obtain the water vapor pressure of the measurement air, and the volumetric absolute humidity is further calculated based on this (pg. 7, third paragraph).
Sasaki teaches the relationship between dew point, relative humidity, temperature, and vapor pressure- the Tetens formula [0040-0042]. Sasaki teaches that the vapor pressure can be calculated from the temperature [0042] Dew point temperature is a temperature at which the water vapor pressure is a saturated water vapor pressure. Therefore, by using the Tetens formula inversely with respect to the above, the dew point temperature can be calculated. Vice versa, the Tetens formula can be used to determine the vapor pressure from the dew point. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention can use various measurements and/or calculations in order to determine vapor pressure, as evidenced by the prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Sasaki in order to calculate the vapor pressure in the battery space of Onishi in view of Mihashi in order to determine the absolute humidity using an alternative measurement known to provide the required information.
Claim 7: Onishi teaches a device and method for manufacturing a negative battery electrode [0004] including a main body 30 having a humidity controller 31 and an exhaust 30b, Fig. 3. Onishi teaches that the humidity is controlled by adjusting the dew point temperature of the workspace [0057-0058, 0069-0070].
Onishi fails to teach measuring a temperature in a first location of a battery manufacturing space to acquire temperature data; measuring a dew point in a second location of the battery manufacturing space to acquire dew point data, wherein a temperature of the second location is lower than a temperature of the first location; and calculating absolute humidity in the battery manufacturing space based on the temperature data and the dew point data.
Mihashi teaches an absolute humidity calculation apparatus comprising: a first sensor (temperature/humidity sensor 21, Fig. 1) configured to measure a temperature in a first location (in the battery case 3 away from the vent) of a battery space and acquire temperature data; a second sensor (temperature/humidity sensor 21; temperature is expressed as °C and humidity is expressed in relative humidity [%], pg. 6, third full paragraph) in a second location (in the vicinity of the vent 3a, last full paragraph, pg. 8) of the battery space; and a controller (absolute humidity calculation unit ECU 20) configured to calculate absolute humidity (S4 the absolute humidity calculation process; pg. 7, third paragraph; the saturated water vapor pressure is obtained from the temperature, the saturated water vapor pressure is multiplied by the relative humidity to obtain the water vapor pressure of the measurement air, and the volumetric absolute humidity is further calculated based on this.) in the battery space based on the sensors data, wherein the temperature of the second location is lower than a temperature of the first location (outside air is taken in from the vent 3a to cool the internal battery cell 10 therefore the air/temperature is cooler than the position of the other sensor, end pg. 2 and middle pg. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teaching of Mihashi with the device of Onishi in order to detect the humidity of the air entering the battery space and detect the humidity of the air within the space which may experience different temperatures and humidities (Mihashi, pg. 8, last full paragraph).
Mihashi fails to teach the second sensor configured to measure a dew point, and calculate an absolute humidity based on the temperature data and the dew point data.
However the relationship between dew point, vapor pressure, and relative humidity is known in the art as evidenced by Sasaki. Sasaki teaches that the dew point temperature can be found from relative humidity and temperature(Fig. 2, [0040-0042]) or alternatively from a dew point sensor (Fig. 6, [0061]). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would know that absolute humidity can be found from measurements of temperature and humidity, or directly from a dew point sensor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a dew point sensor in lieu of a temperature and humidity, as taught by Sasaki, because it has been shown that the sensors can be substituted to obtain predictable results.
Claim 8: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the method of claim 7. Onishi fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate vapor pressure data in the battery manufacturing space based on the dew point data.
Mihashi teaches calculating an absolute humidity (S4 absolute humidity calculation step) using the relationship between temperature and relative humidity (Fig. 4), further the saturated water vapor pressure is obtained from the temperature, the saturated water vapor pressure is multiplied by the relative humidity to obtain the water vapor pressure of the measurement air, and the volumetric absolute humidity is further calculated based on this (pg. 7, third paragraph).
Sasaki teaches the relationship between dew point, relative humidity, temperature, and vapor pressure- the Tetens formula [0040-0042]. Sasaki teaches that the vapor pressure can be calculated from the temperature [0042] Dew point temperature is a temperature at which the water vapor pressure is a saturated water vapor pressure. Therefore, by using the Tetens formula inversely with respect to the above, the dew point temperature can be calculated. Vice versa, the Tetens formula can be used to determine the vapor pressure from the dew point. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention can use various measurements and/or calculations in order to determine vapor pressure, as evidenced by the prior art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Sasaki in order to calculate the vapor pressure in the battery space of Onishi in view of Mihashi in order to determine the absolute humidity using an alternative measurement known to provide the required information.
Claim 16: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the absolute humidity calculation apparatus of claim 1. Onishi teaches wherein the controller is further configured to control the absolute humidity in the first location of the battery manufacturing space (the humidity controller 31 controls the moisture in the partition portion 30 [0062-0065]).
Claims 3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki further in view of Oh et al. (US20200182206).
Claim 3: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the apparatus of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate the absolute humidity based on the temperature data and the vapor pressure data and an absolute humidity conversion formula.
However, Oh teaches an absolute humidity formula [0040] A=C x Pw x (100/T) [g/m3] wherein A is absolute humidity, C is a constant 2.16679[gK/J], Pw is water vapor pressure on intake air flowing through predetermined positions, and T is absolute temperature at predetermined positions. Therefore, the formula for absolute humidity is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the formula as taught by Oh with the measurements of claim 2 for the obvious benefit of calculating the absolute humidity.
Claim 9: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the method of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to calculate the absolute humidity based on the temperature data and the vapor pressure data and an absolute humidity conversion formula.
However, Oh teaches an absolute humidity formula [0040] A=C x Pw x (100/T) [g/m3] wherein A is absolute humidity, C is a constant 2.16679[gK/J], Pw is water vapor pressure on intake air flowing through predetermined positions, and T is absolute temperature at predetermined positions. Therefore, the formula for absolute humidity is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the formula as taught by Oh with the measurements of claim 8 for the obvious benefit of calculating the absolute humidity.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki further in view of Leneel et al. (US20130160518).
Claim 6: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the absolute humidity calculation apparatus of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the controller is configured to display the absolute humidity.
However, Leneel teaches relative humidity sensor calibration wherein the humidity sensor controller 101 and sensing IC 05 operate to display the humidity to a user ([0018], claim 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a display, as taught by Leneel, with the device of Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki for the obvious benefit of visually providing sensor information to a user.
Claims 4-5, 10-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki further in view of applicant-cited Ito et al. (JP2000106175, translation provided by examiner).
Claim 4: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Onishi teaches a device an method for manufacturing a negative battery electrode [0004] including a main body 30 having a humidity controller 31 and a drying portion 5.
Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki fails to explicitly teach wherein the first sensor is configured to measure a temperature in the negative electrode-drying space for the battery.
However, Ito teaches an electrode drying furnace 18, Fig. 1, including a temperature which is controlled by a heater fan 22 (top pg. 6 and top pg. 7). Therefore, in order for the heater fan 22 to control the temperature, the temperature inside of the drying furnace 18 must be measured.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor the temperature, as taught Ito, in order to control the drying temperature within the drying space (Ito, top pg. 6).
Claim 5: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but fail to teach wherein the second sensor is configured to measure the dew point data of the exhaust air discharged from the negative electrode-drying space for the battery.
However, Ito teaches that the absolute humidity outside of the drying oven is typically higher than the absolute humidity within the drying oven (pg. 7: inside the oven is 6-8g/m3, outside 2-24g/m3 or 4-10g/m3. The absolute humidity of the air outside of the drying furnace is a result-effective variable (effecting peel strength, preparing a positive or negative electrode) and therefore would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the humidity of the exhaust air, and therefore the air outside of the drying furnace, in order to be able to effectively control the absolute humidity and thereby improve the binding property of the electrode (Ito, bottom pg. 3).
Claim 10: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the method of claim 7. Onishi teaches a device an method for manufacturing a negative battery electrode [0004] including a main body 30 having a humidity controller 31 and a drying portion 5.
Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki fails to explicitly teach wherein the first sensor is configured to measure a temperature in the negative electrode-drying space for the battery.
However, Ito teaches an electrode drying furnace 18, Fig. 1, including a temperature which is controlled by a heater fan 22 (top pg. 6 and top pg. 7). Therefore, in order for the heater fan 22 to control the temperature, the temperature inside of the drying furnace 18 must be measured.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor the temperature, as taught Ito, in order to control the drying temperature within the drying space (Ito, top pg. 6).
Claim 11: Onishi in view of Mihashi further in view of Sasaki teaches the method of claim 7, but fails to teach wherein the second sensor is configured to measure the dew point data of the exhaust air discharged from the negative electrode-drying space for the battery.
However, Ito teaches that the absolute humidity outside of the drying oven is typically higher than the absolute humidity within the drying oven (pg. 7: inside the oven is 6-8g/m3, outside 2-24g/m3 or 4-10g/m3. The absolute humidity of the air outside of the drying furnace is a result-effective variable (effecting peel strength, preparing a positive or negative electrode) and therefore would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to measure the humidity of the exhaust air, and therefore the air outside of the drying furnace, in order to be able to effectively control the absolute humidity and thereby improve the binding property of the electrode (Ito, bottom pg. 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JEAN MORELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-6583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-4.
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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/JEAN F MORELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2855 5/21/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights