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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/3/26. The objection to the drawings dated 5/28/26 with moot in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims. The objection to the drawings is withdrawn. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the objection to claims 4-5 and 10-11 have been fully considered. The objection is moot in view of applicant’s amendment to claims 4-5, 10-11. The objection to claims 4-5, 10-11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, page 7, with respect to the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that there is support for claim 16 wherein the controller is configured to control the humidity in the first location of the battery manufacturing space. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The identified paragraphs discuss that “the humidity in the electrode drying oven has to be controlled” [0030]; the controller includes a display and may calculate and display the absolute humidity [0053]; the absolute humidity may be calculated in real time [0054]; and the apparatus 100 calculates the absolute humidity in real time… the absolute humidity may be rapidly controlled [0055]. These paragraphs do not provide support for a controller configured to control the humidity in the first location of the batter manufacturing space. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are moot in view of applicant’s amendment to the claims. The rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/26, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that newly amended claim recites “a second sensor configured to measure a dew point of air that has been relocated from the first location to in a second location of the battery manufacturing space and acquire dew point data, wherein a temperature of the second location of the battery manufacturing space is configured to lower the temperature of the air that has been relocated from the first location”. Applicant states that the problem of measuring relative humidity when determining absolute humidity is addressed and therefore a practical, technical improvement.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvement that applicant teaches is known in the art and is routine and conventional. The instant invention places a second sensor in a second location, but the location does not provide a different environment that would improve the measurement(s)/calculation(s). The location of the second measurement unit does not contribute to a new environment, rather a cooler is used to cause a change in temperature [0045, 0052, 0062]. Therefore, the lower temperature is a function of the dew point sensor, not of the environment. 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, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument because the references (Mihashi and Sasaki) are no longer referenced in the current rejection.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 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 disclosure discusses that “the humidity in the electrode drying oven has to be controlled” [0030]; the controller includes a display and may calculate and display the absolute humidity [0053]; the absolute humidity may be calculated in real time [0054]; and the apparatus 100 calculates the absolute humidity in real time… the absolute humidity may be rapidly controlled [0055]. However, there is no support for the controller configured to control the absolute humidity.
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 1-20 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 7-11, 17-20 recite 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 1-20 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 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 8-20:
Claims 2-3, 8-9 are directed to controller performing calculations using well-known equations and therefore further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. See attached “Calculating Dew Point and Absolute Humidity”, and US20200182206 [0040], equation (3); WO 2022071809, eq. (5), (9); US20220099521, eq. (5) and (9); US20210022430, eq. (1-4); US20180291926, eq. (3); US20110267410 eq. (1-3).
Claims 4-5, 10-12, 17 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, 18-19 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.
Claims 16, 20 are 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, 4-5, 7, 10-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over previously cited Onishi et al. (US20220297154) in view of Nishimoto et al. (US4677416) in view of Oh et al. (US20200182206).
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 of air that has been relocated from the first location to a second location of the battery manufacturing space and acquire dew point data, wherein the second location of the battery manufacturing space is configured to lower the temperature of the air that has been relocated from 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.
However, Nishimoto teaches humidity sensing including a dew point hygrometer and a temperature sensor 32 (Fig. 1, 3). Nishimoto teaches detecting a dew point temperature using a dew point hygrometer configured to lower the temperature in the region (see Figs. 1-4) with a Peltier cooling means/unit (elements 24-27l unit 2 Fig. 7). The dew point temperature defines the water vapor saturation pressure such that the absolute humidity can be determined. A cooled mirror surface is employed, which is cooled by means such as Peltier cooling. Water droplets are thereby formed on the cooled mirror surface, causing that surface to become clouded, thereby producing changes in the degree of reflection of light from the mirror surface, and these changes are detected. In this way, the dew point temperature is detected as the temperature at which the mirror surface becomes clouded. By thus determining the dew point temperature, the water vapor saturation pressure at a specific temperature can be defined. From this the water vapor saturation pressure of the ambient atmosphere, i.e., the absolute humidity, can be obtained. Col. 1, lines 25-42. Nishimoto teaches a separate temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
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 sensor of Nishimoto with the device of Onishi for the obvious benefit of detecting the humidity in the battery manufacturing space.
Onishi in view of Nishimoto fails to teach a controller configured to calculate absolute humidity in the battery manufacturing space based on the temperature data and the dew point data.
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 mathematical formula as taught by Oh with the device of Onishi in view of Nishimoto for the obvious benefit of calculating the absolute humidity.
Claim 4: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the device of claim 1. Onishi teaches that the battery manufacturing space includes heating (drying portion 5 including infrared heater [0045]) and exhaust (exhaust port 30b, Fig. 3). Onishi fails to teach wherein the first sensor is configured to measure a temperature in a first battery manufacturing space that is configured for negative electrode-drying.
Nishimoto teaches a separate location for the temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the temperature sensor in separate location from the humidity sensor in order to detect the temperature in an ambient area and thereby be able to calculate relative humidity for location not integral with the humidity sensor (Nishimoto, col. 1, lines 39-42).
Claim 5: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the device of claim 1. Onishi teaches that the battery manufacturing space includes heating (drying portion 5 including infrared heater [0045]) and exhaust (exhaust port 30b, Fig. 3). Onishi fails to teach wherein the second sensor is configured to measure the dew point data of air being discharged from a first battery manufacturing space that is configured for negative electrode-drying.
Nishimoto teaches a separate location for the temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the temperature sensor in separate location from the humidity sensor in order to detect the temperature in an ambient area and thereby be able to calculate relative humidity for location not integral with the humidity sensor (Nishimoto, col. 1, lines 39-42).
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 dew point of air that has been relocated from the first location to in a second location of the battery manufacturing space to acquire dew point data, the second location of the battery manufacturing space is configured to lower the temperature of the air that has been relocated from the first location; and calculating absolute humidity in the battery manufacturing space based on the temperature data and the dew point data.
However, Nishimoto teaches humidity sensing including a dew point hygrometer and a temperature sensor 32 (Fig. 1, 3). Nishimoto teaches detecting a dew point temperature using a dew point hygrometer (Figs. 1-4) configured to lower the temperature in the region (see Figs. 1-4) with a Peltier cooling means/unit (elements 24-27l unit 2 Fig. 7). The dew point temperature defines the water vapor saturation pressure such that the absolute humidity can be determined. A cooled mirror surface is employed, which is cooled by means such as Peltier cooling. Water droplets are thereby formed on the cooled mirror surface, causing that surface to become clouded, thereby producing changes in the degree of reflection of light from the mirror surface, and these changes are detected. In this way, the dew point temperature is detected as the temperature at which the mirror surface becomes clouded. By thus determining the dew point temperature, the water vapor saturation pressure at a specific temperature can be defined. From this the water vapor saturation pressure of the ambient atmosphere, i.e., the absolute humidity, can be obtained. Col. 1, lines 25-42. Nishimoto teaches a separate temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
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 sensor of Nishimoto with the device of Onishi for the obvious benefit of detecting the humidity in the battery manufacturing space.
Onishi in view of Nishimoto fails to teach calculating absolute humidity in the battery manufacturing space based on the temperature data and the dew point data.
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 mathematical formula as taught by Oh with the device of Onishi in view of Nishimoto for the obvious benefit of calculating the absolute humidity.
Claim 10: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the method of claim 7. Onishi teaches that the battery manufacturing space includes heating (drying portion 5 including infrared heater [0045]) and exhaust (exhaust port 30b, Fig. 3). Onishi fails to teach wherein measuring the temperature in the battery manufacturing space comprises measuring a temperature in a first battery manufacturing space that is configured for negative electrode-drying.
Nishimoto teaches a separate location for the temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
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 temperature in a separate location from the humidity sensor in order to detect the temperature in an ambient area and thereby be able to calculate relative humidity for location not integral with the humidity sensor (Nishimoto, col. 1, lines 39-42).
Claim 11: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the method of claim 7. Onishi teaches that the battery manufacturing space includes heating (drying portion 5 including infrared heater [0045]) and exhaust (exhaust port 30b, Fig. 3). Onishi fails to teach wherein measuring the dew point in the battery manufacturing space is based on acquiring the dew point data of air being discharged from a first battery manufacturing space that is configured for negative electrode-drying.
Nishimoto teaches a separate location for the temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
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 temperature in a separate location from the humidity sensor in order to detect the temperature in an ambient area and thereby be able to calculate relative humidity for location not integral with the humidity sensor (Nishimoto, col. 1, lines 39-42).
Claim 12: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Onishi teaches that the battery manufacturing space includes heating (drying portion 5 including infrared heater [0045]) and exhaust (exhaust port 30b, Fig. 3).
Onishi fails to teach wherein the first location is a first battery manufacturing space configured to dry an electrode active material applied on an electrode collector of the battery, wherein the second location receives the air that is being relocated from of the first battery manufacturing space.
Nishimoto teaches a separate location for the temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the temperature sensor and humidity sensor in separate locations in order to detect the temperature in an ambient area and thereby be able to calculate relative humidity for location not integral with the humidity sensor (Nishimoto, col. 1, lines 39-42).
Claim 14: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Onishi fails to teach wherein the temperature of the second location is sufficiently low for the air that has been relocated to form dew.
However, Nishimoto teaches the humidity sensor (a dew point hygrometer; Figs. 1-4) configured to lower the temperature in the region (see Figs. 1-4) with a Peltier cooling means/unit (elements 24-27l unit 2 Fig. 7) such that the temperature is sufficiently low to form dew (condensation; col. 7, lines 45-52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to lower the temperature in order to form dew for the obvious benefit of measuring dew point with a hygrometer.
Claim 15: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Onishi fails to teach a cooler positioned in the second location and configured to actively sufficiently cool the air that has been relocated so as to form dew.
However, Nishimoto teaches the humidity sensor (a dew point hygrometer; Figs. 1-4) configured to lower the temperature in the region (see Figs. 1-4) with a Peltier cooling means/unit (elements 24-27l unit 2 Fig. 7) via microcomputer 10 (col. 8, lines 6-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control a cooler (Peltier) to lower the temperature, as taught by Nishimoto, in order to form dew for the obvious benefit of measuring dew point with a hygrometer.
Claim 16: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the device of claim 1. Onishi teaches 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]).
Claim 17: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the method of claim 7. Onishi teaches that the battery manufacturing space includes heating (drying portion 5 including infrared heater [0045]) and exhaust (exhaust port 30b, Fig. 3).
Onishi fails to teach wherein the first location is a first battery manufacturing space configured to dry an electrode active material applied on an electrode collector of the battery, wherein the second location receives the air that is being relocated from of the first battery manufacturing space.
Nishimoto teaches a separate location for the temperature sensor (top col. 6) because it does not need to be integral with the humidity sensing element and therefore in a second location.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to place the temperature sensor and humidity sensor in separate locations in order to detect the temperature in an ambient area and thereby be able to calculate relative humidity for location not integral with the humidity sensor (Nishimoto, col. 1, lines 39-42).
Claim 18: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the method of claim 17. Onishi fails to teach wherein the temperature of the second location is sufficiently low for the air that has been relocated to form dew.
However, Nishimoto teaches the humidity sensor (a dew point hygrometer; Figs. 1-4) configured to lower the temperature in the region (see Figs. 1-4) with a Peltier cooling means/unit (elements 24-27l unit 2 Fig. 7) such that the temperature is sufficiently low to form dew (condensation; col. 7, lines 45-52).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to lower the temperature in order to form dew for the obvious benefit of measuring dew point with a hygrometer.
Claim 19. Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the method of claim 18. Onishi fails to teach controlling a cooler positioned in the second location that is configured to actively sufficiently cool the air that has been relocated so as to form dew.
However, Nishimoto teaches the humidity sensor (a dew point hygrometer; Figs. 1-4) configured to lower the temperature in the region (see Figs. 1-4) with a Peltier cooling means/unit (elements 24-27l unit 2 Fig. 7) via microcomputer 10 (col. 8, lines 6-26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control a cooler (Peltier) to lower the temperature, as taught by Nishimoto, in order to form dew for the obvious benefit of measuring dew point with a hygrometer.
Claim 20: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Onishi teaches controlling the absolute humidity in the first location of the battery manufacturing space based on the absolute humidity that has been calculated (the humidity controller 31 controls the moisture in the partition portion 30 [0062-0065]).
Claims 2-3, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh further in view of Moriyama (US20180291926).
Claim 2: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh 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.
However, Nishimoto teaches that the dew point data is directly related to absolute humidity (col. 1, lines 36-39). Therefore, it is known in the art to obtain the vapor pressure from the dew point data.
This is evidenced by Moriyama and the Tetens equation [0051], eq. (3).
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 Nishimoto in view of Moriyama with the device of Onishi in order to determine vapor pressure since it is known in the art to calculate vapor pressure from dew point data using the Tetens equation.
Claim 3: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh further in view of Moriyama teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Onishi in view of Nishimoto 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.
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 mathematical formula as taught by Oh with the device of Onishi in view of Nishimoto for the obvious benefit of calculating the absolute humidity.
Claim 8: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Onishi fails to teach calculating vapor pressure data in the battery manufacturing space based on the dew point data, wherein calculating the absolute humidity is based on the vapor pressure data.
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 mathematical formula as taught by Oh with the device of Onishi in view of Nishimoto for the obvious benefit of calculating the absolute humidity.
Oh fails to teach calculating vapor pressure data in the battery manufacturing space based on the dew point data.
However, Nishimoto teaches that the dew point data is directly related to absolute humidity (col. 1, lines 36-39). Therefore, it is known in the art to obtain the vapor pressure from the dew point data. This is evidenced by Moriyama and the Tetens equation [0051], eq. (3).
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 Nishimoto in view of Moriyama with the device of Onishi in order to determine vapor pressure since it is known in the art to calculate vapor pressure from dew point data using the Tetens equation.
Claim 9: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh further in view of Moriyama teaches the method of claim 8. Onishi in view of Nishimoto fails to teach wherein calculating the absolute humidity is based on inputting the temperature data and the vapor pressure data to an absolute humidity conversion formula.
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 mathematical formula as taught by Oh with the device of Onishi in view of Nishimoto 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 Nishimoto further in view of Oh further in view of previously cited Leneel et al. (US20130160518).
Claim 6: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh 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 Nishimoto further in view of Oh for the obvious benefit of visually providing sensor information to a user
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh further in view of Koji et al. (JP 4831804, translation provided).
Claim 13: Onishi in view of Nishimoto further in view of Oh teaches the apparatus of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein the temperature of the first location is between 130°C to 150 °C.
However, Koji teaches an electrode drying container 25 wherein the temperature is 0-300°C (pg. 5, second to last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use an electrode preparation temperature in the range of 0-300 °C, as taught by Koji, with the device of claim 12 for the obvious benefit of drying an electrode within an appropriate temperature range to optimize time and energy (Koji, pg. 5, second to last paragraph).
Conclusion
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 8/13/26
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights