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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 7/4/23, 5/20/24, and 5/27/25 have been considered by the examiner.
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 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the material attribute" and “the preset ratio range” in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, does not recite a material attribute or a preset ratio range. The claim will be interpreted as being dependent from claim 4, which does provide antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2023/0127402).
Lee teaches an apparatus for detecting a qualified rate, or dryness, of a battery sheet, comprising:
a collection module, or web gauge ([0111],[0113]);
a processing module, or oven (11) and measuring unit (12), which can be the web gauge to measure the weight after drying ([0112]-[0113]; and
a determination module, or determination unit (13) (Figure 1).
Regarding the functions of the modules, the examiner finds that, since Lee teaches the apparatus of the claims, and since the manner of operating those apparatuses is not found impart structural limitations, the teachings of Lee inherently anticipate the claimed invention. MPEP 2114
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0116011).
The teachings of Lee as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a method for detecting a qualified rate of a battery electrode sheet (based on the description of a qualified rate of [0008] of the instant published specification), comprising:
collecting a first weight corresponding to a to-be detected electrode sheet, i.e. the electrode after coating the electrode slurry ([0110]);
drying the to-be-detected sheet, or electrode, in a drying apparatus, or oven (11), for a preset time, or time determined by the specifications of the electrode ([0078]), and collecting a second weight corresponding to the dried to-be-detected electrode sheet ([0111]); and
determining a detection result, or content of the residual solid, derived from the two weights collected as discussed above ([0113]).
Lee fails to teach specifically how the detection result is derived.
Kim teaches a method of calculating the content of solvent in an electrode slurry, wherein the calculation is: ((weight measured before sample is dried)-(weight measured after sample is dried))/(weight before sample is dried) ([0045]). The examiner notes that the denominator in the equation is the weight before the sample is dried, but that the person having ordinary skill in the art will understand that the information in the equation of Kim is essentially the same as the equation of claim 1, and the person having ordinary skill in the art can use either weight in the calculation in order to determine the content of residual solid.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to use the equation as suggested by Kim in the method of Lee and the results, i.e. deriving the content of the residual solid, would have been predictable, particularly in light of the teachings of Lee at [0116] that those skilled in the art may make various modifications and variations without departing from the essential characteristics of the invention.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches determining a material attribute, or color coordinate value, and selecting a preset ratio range, or reference value, matching the material attribute; and determining the detection result based on a size relationship between the ratio of the drying difference and the preset ratio range (Figures 4-6, [0093]).
As for claim 5, Lee teaches the method of claim 4 including determining historical storage information, or color coordinate value according to solvent content, in a graph converted to a database ([0093]). While Lee does not specifically teach that the database, which is an historical storage environment, comprises a historical data storage duration, the examiner finds that a database necessarily stores information for a duration.
As for claim 6, Lee teaches that the detection result is used to determine whether or not the electrode sheet is qualified ([0096]).
With regard to claim 8, Lee teaches a measuring unit including an image sensor for taking an image of the surface of the electrode material layer, wherein color information from the image is converted into color coordinates ([0014], [0023]). It is seen in Figure 4 that Lee acquires the color coordinates (L*) prior to drying, i.e. at the start of the data. The examiner finds that the selection of the order of the steps of when the weight and the color coordinates is prima facie obviousness and can be selected by the skilled artisan based on whether one step is simpler to carry out first. It has been held that the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. MPEP 2144.04 IV C
Further regarding claim 8, Lee teaches that the color coordinates include both color and brightness (lightness) ([0058]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, since Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 12 and method of claims 1, 4-6, and 8, which includes executable instructions and processing instructions to implement a method as discussed above, the examiner finds that the apparatus of Lee inherently includes an electronic device with memory storing executable instructions, a processor, and a computer-readable storage medium. MPEP 2112
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 7, and 9 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the subject matter of the claims.
Specifically, regarding claims 2-3 and 7, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the method of acquiring a preset drying time association table and selecting the preset duration matching the first weight, i.e. setting the drying time based on the first weight.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the method of claim 1 further establishing a mapping relationship between the electrode sheet, detection result, and a corresponding separator identifier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729