DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 12, 2026.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that “multiple groups can be searched and examined together without undue burden. Additionally, considerable time and expense will be saved if all claims can be considered at this time, rather than pursuing multiple divisional applications.”
This is not found persuasive because as noted in the March 20, 2026 restriction requirement, one of more of the following apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; the inventions or groupings of patentably indistinct inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Rejoinder
Claims 1 and 13 are allowable. Claims 11-12, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I-II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on March 20, 2026, is hereby withdrawn and said claims are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required for:
Regarding claim 7, the specification does not appear to provide support for “the machine learning model is built by learning information on a plurality of images in which fiberization of the binder is known” (emphasis added), see e.g. ¶¶ 0048, 50-51, and 53-59 plus e.g. Figure 6.
Similarly, regarding claim 16, from which claims 17-18 depend, the specification does not appear to provide support for “the machine learning model is built by learning information on a plurality of images in which whether the binder in the dry electrode mixture is fiberized is known” (emphasis added), see e.g. Id.
Similarly, regarding claim 17, from which claim 18 depends, the specification does not appear to provide support for “the machine learning model is configured to, in the plurality of images indicated as feature vectors of the images, learn a first indication value when the binder has a thickness within a first range and a second indication value when the binder has a thickness within a second range” (emphasis added), see e.g. Id.
Similarly, regarding claim 18 depend, the specification does not appear to provide support for “the computer is configured to, by the machine learning model: determine that the binder is not fiberized when the first indication value is obtained for the target image, and determine that the binder is fiberized when the second indication value is obtained for the target image” (emphasis added), see e.g. Id.
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.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (US 2019/0305316).
Regarding independent claims 11-12, Wang teaches a lithium-ion battery and a vehicle that includes said lithium-ion battery,
wherein said battery comprises a self-supporting dry electrode film formed by a dry, solvent-free process, said dry electrode film including a microparticulate, non-fibrillizable binder
(e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 05-15, 23-25, 29-33, and 39), reading on “A battery for a vehicle…” (claim 11) and “A vehicle…” (claim 12),
wherein the process limitation “being produced by the system of claim 1” does not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art, see also e.g. MPEP § 2113, further noting that the art expressly teaches its binder is “non-fibrillizable,” while the instant claim merely claims that the computer “determine whether” the claimed binder is “fiberized,” and does not provide for whether a fiberized binder is preferred or not in the claimed “dry electrode mixture.”
Art of Record
None of the timely art of record teaches or suggests the claimed systems of independent claims 1 and 13, from which the other claims depend.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, including the specifically claimed components with the specifically claimed configured capabilities:
Specifically regarding independent claim 1, the claimed system for system for evaluating a dry electrode mixture, the system comprising:
a manufacturing apparatus configured to form a film of the dry electrode mixture,
the dry electrode mixture including an electrode active material, a conductive additive, and a binder;
a microscope configured to obtain a target image of the dry electrode mixture supplied from the manufacturing apparatus; and
a computer operably connected to the microscope,
the computer configured to analyze the target image obtained from the microscope and determine whether the binder in the dry electrode mixture is fiberized.
Specifically regarding independent claim 13, the claimed system for system for evaluating a dry electrode mixture, the system comprising:
a microscope configured to obtain a target image of the dry electrode mixture supplied thereto,
the dry electrode mixture being a mixture of an electrode active material, a conductive additive, and a binder; and
a computer operably connected to the microscope,
the computer configured to receive the target image from the microscope,
the computer being configured to analyze the target image obtained from the microscope and determine whether the binder in the dry electrode mixture is fiberized based on the received target image.
The closest art of record is Baek et al (WO 2025/263995).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights