DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed August 25, 2025 were received. Claim 1 was amended. Claim 6 was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4 in the reply filed on April 18, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 18, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 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 1 recites “a backup roll and a second backup roll each configured to support a current collector to be carried; a first die configured to form a first coating layer by coating the current collector on the backup roll with a first slurry” in lines 5-6.
The limitation “the backup roll” in lines 5-6 is indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to the “backup roll” or “second backup roll” previously recited in the claim. Claim 1 will be interpreted as “a first backup roll and a second backup roll each configured to support a current collector to be carried; a first die configured to form a first coating layer by coating the current collector on the first backup roll with a first slurry” for clarity.
A claim which contains identical elements may be considered indefinite if it has not been clearly distinguished as to which elements reference is being made. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “backup roll” in the recitation “the second backup roll is disposed above the backup roll in a vertical direction” in claim 6 is deemed definite since the claim language clearly distinguishes as to which backup roller reference is being made.
However, it is suggested to refer to the “backup roll” as “first backup roll” in claim 6 for consistency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirai (US 20200295345).
The claimed arrangements have been interpreted in light of para [0015] of the specification: “upon expressing an embodiment of arranging one member with respect to the other member, when it is expressed simply “on” or “below”, both of when the other member is directly arranged on or below the one member so as to contact with each other, and when the other member is arranged above or below the one member interposing an additional member, can be included unless otherwise described.”
Regarding claim 1, Hirai teaches a production device (see for example Fig. 4) of an electrode member to be used for a battery, the production device comprising:
first and second backup rolls (16, 16) configured to support a current collector (9) to be carried (para 0073; Figs. 4 and 7a-f).
a first die (15c) configured to form a first coating layer (a1) by coating the current collector (9) on the first backup roll (16) with a first slurry (para 0073; Figs. 4 and 7a-f); and
a second die (15d) configured to form a second coating layer (a2) by coating the first coating layer (a1) on the second backup roll (16) with a second slurry (para 0073; Figs. 4 and 7a-f), wherein
each of the first die (15c) and the second die (15d) are independent (para 0073; Figs. 4 and 7a-f); and
a discharge angle of the second slurry in the second die (15d) is 0° (i.e., −90° or more and +60° or less) (Figs. 4 and 7a-f), wherein a horizontal direction is regarded as a reference 0°, perpendicular downward is regarded as +90°, and perpendicular upward is regarded as −90°.
Regarding claim 2, Hirai further shows a discharge angle of the first slurry (131) in the first die (15c) is 0° (Figs. 4 and 7a-f).
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “the second slurry contains an active material and a binder; a shear viscosity of the second slurry in a shear velocity of 1 s−1 is 5 Pa∙second or less” does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed since the manner or method in which such machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself (see MPEP 2115). The slot dies (15c, 15d) of Hirai would be capable of depositing various compositions, including compositions with the claimed composition and shear viscosity, since there is no structural difference between the apparatus of Hirai and the claimed invention (see MPEP 2114(I)).
The limitation “a thickness of the second coating layer is 200 μm or more” merely recites an intended use of the claimed apparatus and thus does not further structurally limit the apparatus as claimed. Since the apparatus of Hirai teaches all the necessary structure to apply coatings of various thicknesses, including the claimed thickness, the apparatus of Hirai is fully capable of applying a second coating layer with the claimed thickness. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 6, Hirai further shows the second backup roll (16) is disposed above the first backup roll (16) in a vertical direction (Fig. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai (US 20200295345) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of McAleavey (USP 5496407, already of record).
Regarding claim 4, Hirai does not explicitly teach first and second sensors.
However, McAleavey teaches, in a carrying direction of a current collector (25a), a first sensor (45) configured to measure a state of a surface of a first coating layer (25b), on a downstream side of a first die (39) and on an upstream side of a second die (51) (col. 4, lines 17-29; see for example Fig. 1); and a second sensor (32) configured to measure a state of a surface of a second coating layer (23), in a downstream side of the second die (51) (col. 3, lines 43-63; see for example Fig. 1), for the benefit of controlling the thickness of a laminate (see Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine first and second sensors downstream of the first and second dies, respectively, in the apparatus of Hirai, as taught by McAleavey, for the benefit of controlling the thickness of the formed electrode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ohata (US20190103598) discloses an electrode manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1 (para 0076-0079; Fig. 10).
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 CHARLES CAPOZZI whose telephone number is (571)270-3638. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAH-WEI YUAN can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717