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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is based on the amendment of independent claim 1 to recite “a system for evaluating a dry electrode mixture in powder form” and asserts that Nagai does not teach or suggest such a system, arguing that Nagai (i) relates to a “wet process” in which a solvent is used, and (ii) measures resistivity of MWCNTs as a conductive material and not of an “electrode mixture in powder form.” For the reasons set forth below, these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim and do not overcome the rejection.
First, as amended, claim 1 recites in relevant part: “A system for evaluating a dry electrode mixture in powder form, the system comprising: an electrical conductivity measurement device configured to measure an electrical conductivity of the dry electrode mixture; and an analysis device configured to evaluate the dry electrode mixture based on the measured electrical conductivity.”
The claim does not further limit the structure or operation of the system beyond (1) measuring electrical conductivity of a dry powder material and (2) evaluating that material based on the measured conductivity. The claim language does not require any particular manufacturing sequence, does not exclude the use of solvent elsewhere in the overall electrode-manufacturing process, and does not structurally distinguish between measuring an electrode mixture powder and measuring a component powder that forms part of such a mixture.
Second, Nagai expressly discloses measuring the powder resistivity of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) using a four-point probe system under a load of 9.8 MPa, employing 100 mg of powdered sample. Nagai describes that the MWCNTs are synthesized, purified, and then evaluated in powder form by measuring powder resistivity, Raman D/G ratio, and particle-size distribution, and that these powder properties are used to select conductive materials that yield desired electrode conductivity and battery performance. Thus, Nagai clearly teaches a system including (i) an electrical conductivity measurement device configured to measure the electrical conductivity of a dry powder material related to an electrode, and (ii) an analysis of that material based on the measured conductivity and related parameters, which falls within the scope of claim 1 as presently drafted.
Third, applicant’s argument that Nagai is directed to a “wet process” is not persuasive. While Nagai describes preparation of a conductive composition or electrode slurry using solvent, Nagai separately and explicitly measures properties of the MWCNTs in powder form prior to slurry preparation. The fact that later processing steps may involve solvent does not negate the clear disclosure of a powder-resistivity measurement system used to evaluate electrode-related materials. Claim 1 is directed to a system and its functional capabilities, not to the entire electrode-manufacturing process flow. Accordingly, Nagai’s powder-resistivity measurement and associated evaluation of the MWCNT powder are directly relevant to the claimed “system for evaluating a dry electrode mixture in powder form.”
Fourth, applicant asserts that Nagai only measures “resistivity of MWCNTs … not a mixture,” and therefore does not teach measuring the electrical conductivity “of the dry electrode mixture.” However, claim 1 does not require that all constituents (electrode active material, conductive additive, and binder) be present in the powder during the conductivity measurement, nor does it exclude evaluation of only the conductive component powder that will be used in such a mixture. The broad term “dry electrode mixture in powder form,” when read in light of the specification, encompasses powders used as constituents for an electrode and prepared without solvent; Nagai’s MWCNT powder, which is expressly designed and evaluated for use in an electrode conductive composition, falls within this broad functional context. In addition, applicant has not introduced any claim language that affirmatively requires that the measurement be performed only after all constituents are combined, or that structurally excludes the type of powder-resistivity system disclosed in Nagai.
Even assuming that one were to interpret “dry electrode mixture in powder form” more narrowly to require a combined active-material / conductive-additive / binder powder, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Nagai’s four-point probe powder-resistivity measurement system, which is already used to evaluate the powder properties of conductive material for electrodes, to measure the conductivity of a combined dry powder mixture including active material and binder, in order to more directly correlate powder properties to electrode-level performance. Nagai emphasizes that powder resistivity and dispersion characteristics of the MWCNTs strongly affect electrode resistance and battery capacity/output characteristics; extending the same measurement technique from the conductive powder alone to the overall dry powder mixture is a predictable use of the known system to achieve improved evaluation of electrode formulations. Thus, even under applicant’s characterization of Nagai, the claimed system would have been obvious.
Accordingly, the amendment adding “in powder form” to the preamble of claim 1 and the arguments presented do not overcome the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Nagai continues to disclose, either expressly or at least in an obvious manner, a system comprising an electrical conductivity measurement device configured to measure electrical conductivity of a dry electrode-related powder and an analysis device configured to evaluate that powder based on the measured conductivity, as broadly recited in claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Nagai is therefore maintained
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai (US 2019/0198879 A1, previously cited)
Regarding claim 1, Nagai et al. disclose a system for evaluating a dry electrode mixture in powder form (see table 2, Example 1 & [0053-0054], characterizing MWCNTs in powder form by volume converted median diameter D50 per JIS Z 8825 and powder resistivity under 9.8 MPa load, where MWCNTs are constituents of a dry electrode composition comprising active material, conductive material (CB + MWCNTs), and binder per), the system comprising: an electrical conductivity measurement device configured to measure an electrical conductivity of the dry electrode mixture (see [0053]–[0056], four-probe method under applied pressure), and an analysis device configured to evaluate the dry electrode mixture based on the measured electrical conductivity (see [0057]–[0061], analysis of dispersion state and binder fibrous degree).
PNG
media_image1.png
684
1090
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nagai et al. disclose that the dry electrode mixture is prepared by mixing electrode active material, conductive additive, and binder without a solvent (see [0008] & [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Nagai et al. disclose that the analysis device analyzes mixture information of the dry electrode mixture based on the measured electrical conductivity (see [0057]–[0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Nagai et al. disclose that the mixture information includes a proportion of each constituent, a dispersing speed, and a dispersing time (see [0045]–[0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Nagai et al. disclose evaluating a fibrous degree of the binder based on mixture information derived from conductivity (see [0060]–[0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Nagai et al. disclose that electrical conductivity is measured while applying a pressure to the dry electrode mixture and changing the pressure (see [0053]–[0056]).
Regarding claim 7, Nagai et al. disclose that the electrical conductivity measurement device comprises: a probe configured to measure the electrical conductivity (see [0053]); a support on which the dry electrode mixture is placed ([0053]–[0055]); and a pressure applicator configured to apply pressing force to the dry electrode mixture ([0054]–[0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Nagai et al. disclose that the electrical conductivity measurement device further comprises: a measurement space disposed to enclose the support (see [0055]); and a feeder configured to supply the dry electrode mixture to the support ([0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Nagai et al. disclose that the electrical conductivity measurement device further comprises a remover configured to remove the dry electrode mixture from the support (see [0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Nagai et al. disclose that the electrical conductivity measurement device further comprises a cleaner configured to remove the dry electrode mixture remaining in the measurement space (see [0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Nagai et al. disclose a battery produced by the system (see [0070]–[0074]).
Regarding claim 20, Nagai et al. disclose a vehicle comprising the battery (see [0070]–[0074]).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagai et al. (U.S. 2019/0198879 A1, previously cited) in view of Otaki et al. (U.S 2021/0305556 A1, previously cited).
Nagai et al. disclose in [0042]–[0046] a system for evaluating a dry electrode mixture, comprising: an electrical conductivity measurement device (see [0053]–[0056]) configured to measure an electrical conductivity of the dry electrode mixture, and an analysis device (see [0057]–[0061]) configured to evaluate the dry electrode mixture based on the measured electrical conductivity, including mixture information such as dispersion and binder fibrous state.
Nagai et al. do not explicitly disclose that the analysis device is configured to machine-learn information on a plurality of dry electrode mixture samples through an artificial intelligence model, and output estimated information on the dry electrode mixture through the machine-learned artificial intelligence model.
In related art, Otaki et al. (U.S. 2021/0305556 A1) disclose employing machine learning/artificial intelligence models to analyze electrochemical cell data, including mixture characteristics, conductivity, and performance prediction (see [0058]–[0060]), wherein the machine learning system receives empirical data, trains an artificial intelligence model, and outputs estimated values for material characteristics and performance .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the analysis device of Nagai et al. to incorporate the predictive machine learning techniques of Loveridge et al., in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of evaluating dry electrode mixtures (see Otaki et al. [0058-0059], which emphasize the importance of predictive modeling and artificial intelligence in analyzing electrochemical performance), wherein the combination would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, and would not have altered the overall operation of Nagai’s evaluation system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 & 16-18 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 11-14 & 16-18 were allowed in previous Office Action mailed 08/27/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 2017/0098818 A1 to Cheng et al. disclose electrostatic dry powder spray processes are disclosed for making battery electrodes. The electrodes made by dry powder coating processes are conventional lithium ion battery electrodes and unconventional electrodes of gradient in composition and structure, large thicknesses, free-standing, and flexible.
U.S. 2024/0372139 A1 to Molinski et al. disclose dry gel polymer electrolytes as well as their methods of manufacture and use in electrochemical cells are disclosed. In some embodiments, a dry gel polymer electrolyte may include sulfolane, a high molecular weight polyethylene oxide, and a lithium salt. In embodiments in which the dry gel polymer electrolyte is included in the electrochemical cell, at least one layer of the dry gel polymer electrolyte may be disposed between an anode and a cathode of the electrochemical cell.
U.S. 2024/0322112 A1 to Nam et al. discloses a method of preparing a dry electrode film involves: providing frozen first dry binder particles; pulverizing the frozen first dry binder particles to prepare second dry binder particles; mixing a dry electrode active material and the second dry binder particles to prepare a dry electrode mixture; and processing the dry electrode mixture into a dry electrode film comprising a dry binder through a rolling device comprising a calendar roll, where a second particle diameter of the second dry binder particles is less than a first particle diameter of the frozen first dry binder particles.
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 TRUNG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1966. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon- Friday 8AM - 4:00PM Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy Phan can be reached on 571-272-7924. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Examiner: /Trung Q. Nguyen/- Art 2858
March 6, 2026
/HUY Q PHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858