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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 1, it is suggested to amend “weaving of the woven film includes” to - -weaving the fiber into a woven film includes- - to conform to prior recitation.
In claim 11, line 1, it is suggested to amend “weaving of the woven film includes” to - -weaving the fiber into a woven film includes- - to conform to prior recitation.
In claim 11, it is suggested to amend “the first group” and “the second group” to - -the first group of the plurality of fibers- - and - -the second group of the plurality of fibers- - to conform to prior recitation.
In claim 11, line 5, it is suggested to amend “the first and second groups” to - -the first and second group of the plurality of fibers- - to conform to prior recitation.
In claim 12, line 1, it is suggested to amend “the plurality of fibers” to - -the tilted first and second group of the plurality of fibers- - to conform to prior recitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-9 and 17 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 3 recites the limitation “a fiber”. It is not clear if “a fiber” is the same or different from “a fiber” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the extruded fiber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend “the extruded fiber” to - -extruded fiber- -.
Regarding dependent claims 5-9, these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim 3 noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 17 recites the limitation "the mixing ratio". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend “the mixing ratio” to - -a mixing ratio- -.
Claims 17 recites the limitation "the range". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to amend “the range” to - -a range- -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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(s) 1-8, 10-11, 13 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0336241), and further in view of Sotzing et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0224247) and Yang et al. (KR101984852B1).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of KR101984852B1. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refer to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches a method for manufacturing a battery electrode (paragraph [0002]), the method comprising:
forming a mixture of a polymer powder (i.e., binder powder) and an active material (i.e., active material powder) (paragraph [0058]) into a fiber (i.e., fibrillated mixture is discharge) (paragraph [0071]).
Song does not teach weaving the fiber into a woven film.
Sotzing, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the extrusion of fibers (paragraph [0083]) used for electrodes (paragraph [0002], [0014], [0018]). Further, Sotzing teaches weaving the fiber into a woven film (i.e., woven sheet) (paragraph [0018], [0059]) (see figure 2). Sotzing teaches such configuration provides desired properties such as flexibility, electrochromic behavior and stretchability (paragraph [0027], [0059])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider using the fibrillated mixture discharge from Song to produce a woven film as taught by Sotzing in order to have an electrode woven film with desired properties such as flexibility, electrochromic behavior and stretchability.
Song does not teach carbonizing the woven film.
Yang, directed to an electrode (paragraph [0001]), teaches an electrode film (i.e., nanofiber net structure) (paragraph [0014]) that is subjected to a carbonizing step (paragraph [0014]) in order to increase mechanical rigidity and secure large surface area (paragraph [0017]).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carbonizing step in the method of Song in order to increase mechanical rigidity and secure large surface area of the film.
Regarding claim 2, Song teaches forming of the mixture into the fiber is performed by an extrusion device (i.e., mixing unit) (paragraph [0037], [0057]-[0068]) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 3, Song teaches the extrusion device includes: a driver (i.e., drive motor) configured to provide a driving force to the extrusion device (paragraph [0015], [0065]); and
an extruder (i.e., rotation member) (paragraph [0065]) configured to be driven by the driver and configured to extrude the mixture into a fiber (i.e., fibrillated mixture is discharge) (paragraph [0065], [0071]).
Regarding claim 4, Song teaches the extrusion device further includes a winder (i.e., outlet) configured to wind the extruded fiber (i.e., fibrillated mixture is discharge through the outlet) (paragraph [0062]-[0063], [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Song teaches the fiber extruded by the extruder is cooled by a cooler (i.e., cooling portion) (paragraph [0111]).
Regarding claim 6, Song teaches the extruder includes: a barrel (i.e., mixing chamber) (paragraph [0060]); a hopper (i.e., rear end portion formed in a tapered shape) (paragraph [0061]) (see figure 2) through which the mixture is supplied into the barrel (paragraph [0058]); a screw rotatably disposed within the barrel (paragraph [0068], [0071]) (see figure 2); and a fiber die (i.e. slot) (paragraph [0015]) configured so that the mixture passing through the screw is drawn out to a preset diameter (i.e., predetermined width) (paragraph [0071]-[0082]).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches the extruder further includes a heating jacket mounted on the barrel (i.e., preheating chamber) (paragraph [0017], [0074], [0077]), and wherein the temperature of the heating jacket is set to be substantially equal to the melting point of the polymer powder (i.e., transforms the powder mixture to the fibrillated mixture) (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding claim 8, Song as modified by Sotzing, teaches a plurality of fibers (paragraph [0097]) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Song, as modified by Sotzing, teaches tilting a first group of a plurality of fibers in a first direction (paragraph [0098]-[0099]) (see figure 2); tilting a second group of the plurality of fibers in a second direction different from the first direction (paragraph [0098]-[0099]) (see figure 2); and inserting a first fiber between the tilted first and second groups (i.e., entangle) (see figure 2) (paragraph [0098]-[0099]).
PNG
media_image2.png
356
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Song, as modified by Sotzing, teaches tilting the first group in the second direction after inserting the first fiber (paragraph [0098]-[0099]) (see figure 2); tilting the second group in the first direction (paragraph [0098]-[0099]) (see figure 2); and inserting a second fiber between the tilted first and second groups (paragraph [0098]-[0099]) (see figure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
687
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Song, as modified by Sotzing, teaches the first fiber and the second fiber are disposed perpendicularly to the first and second groups (see figure 2 above).
Regarding claim 14, Song, as modified by Yang, teaches carbonizing of the woven film is performed through heat treatment (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Song, as modified by Stozing, teaches an electrode is obtained by stacking a plurality of carbonized films (paragraph [0024], [0117]) (see figure 8).
Regarding claim 16-17, Song teaches the method as described above in claim 1 to include the polymer but does not explicitly teach the polymer being polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyacrylic acid (PAA), and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). However, Yang teaches utilizing a polymer such as PAN in the amount of 2.5-10 wt% (paragraph [0010], [0029], [0061]) which would result in the active material being 90-97.5 wt%. Yang teaches the resulted structure of the polymer exhibit high mechanical rigidity and do not collapse during carbonization process (paragraph [0037]). As such, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Song to include PAN as the polymer in the above ratio as suggested by Yong, in order to increase mechanical rigidity and decrease collapsing of the film due to the carbonization process.
Regarding claim 18, the merits have been addressed above in claims 1-2 and 14.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0336241), and further in view of Sotzing et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0224247) and Yang et al. (KR101984852B1), and further in view of Jeon (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0102217).
Regarding claim 9, Song teaches the method as described above in claim 1 including the extruder.
Song does not teach the particulars of the fiber extruded from the extruder is configured to be wound around a fiber reel.
Jeon, directed to the manufacturing of an electronically conductive fabric (abstract), teaches wounding fibers into a reel is an ordinary process for weaving fibers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Song and include a reel for wounding the fibers after they are extruded as such is an ordinary process for weaving fibers as taught by Jeon.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claims 10-12.
Applicant may consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance. The prior art is silent with regards to the combined features as recited in claims 1 and 10-12. In particular:
“A method for manufacturing a battery electrode, the method comprising:
forming a mixture of a polymer powder and an active material into a fiber;
weaving the fiber into a woven film; and
carbonizing the woven film;
wherein weaving of the fibers into a woven film includes:
tilting a first group of a plurality of fibers in a first direction; tilting a second group of the plurality of fibers in a second direction different from the first direction; and inserting a first fiber between the tilted first and second group;
tilting the first group in the second direction after inserting the first fiber; tilting the second group in the first direction; and inserting a second fiber between the tilted first and second groups; and
wherein the plurality of fibers are fixed to a rotatable film core.”.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kiryuschev et al. (U.S. Patent 6,072,619). Kiryuschev teaches fibers with a woven arrangement (C3:L45-55) for applications in electro-optical devices (C1:L5-15) (see figure 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
250
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hamedi et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2010/0163283). Hamedi teaches fabrics with electrical functions in the presence of electrolytes (paragraph [0001]) (see figure 6).
PNG
media_image5.png
522
448
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 pm.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723