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 . 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/01/2025 is entered. Claims 1-8, 11-22 remain pending in the application.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN115207267A - cited in IDS and machine translation provided by applicant) and Bulan (U.S PG Pub 20040182695A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 & 11, Wu discloses a method and apparatus containing six rollers in forming a dry-powder battery electrode (Abstract; Figures 1-3). Wu discloses the method steps as claimed and discloses the forming of a first dry film and a second dry film as claimed (see [0024-0030] & claims 1-10). Wu has disclosed the steps of bringing solvent-free dry film material (dry powder – Abstract) into a first nip between a first and second roller and then conveying the first dry film roller-borne into a second nip formed between the second roller and third roller and compressing the first dry film and then conveying the compressed film and current collector (substrate) into a third nip formed between a third and fourth roller [0025-0026 & 0029-0030].
Regarding the limitations as pertaining to the line load, the load for compression, and the line load for lamination, while these specific ranges are not disclosed by Wu.
Bulan is also drawn to the art of manufacturing electrodes [0012], and Bulan teaches that the roll nip and clamping force of the rolls, are amongst factors that affect the properties of the sheet-like structure produced by the rolls [0006]. Thus, Bulan establishes that the roll nip and clamping force directly affect the properties of the electrode produced, thus making the line load, load for compression and load for lamination result effective variables.
The courts have held that routine optimization of result effective variables is obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05(II)). Thus, it would be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the loads as disclosed, based upon the teaching of Bulan, to arrive at suitable loads, in order to obtain suitable electrode properties.
Regarding claims 7-8, Wu has not explicitly disclosed the temperature and roughness of the rolls as claimed, however, Bulan has disclosed that geometry and surface characteristics of the rolls (i.e. this would include the surface roughness and temperatures, as both are surface characteristics at least), are amongst factors that affect the properties of the sheet-like structure produced by the rolls [0006]. Thus, Bulan establishes that the geometry and surface characteristics are result effective variables and it is within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize result effective variables in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Regarding claims 21-22, Wu has disclosed the limitations of the claims (see claim 1 rejection above), with the exception of the limitations as pertaining to the temperature and surface roughness of the rollers.
However, Bulan who is also drawn to the art of manufacturing electrodes [0012], has disclosed that geometry and surface characteristics of the rolls (i.e. this would include the surface roughness and temperatures, as both are surface characteristics at least), are amongst factors that affect the properties of the sheet-like structure produced by the rolls [0006]. Thus, Bulan establishes that the geometry and surface characteristics are result effective variables and it is within the purview of an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize result effective variables in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05(II)).
Thus, it would be obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to routinely optimize the temperature and surface roughness of the rolls, based upon the teaching of Bulan, to arrive at suitable temperature and surface roughness, in order to obtain suitable electrode properties.
Claim(s) 4, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN115207267A - cited in IDS and machine translation provided by applicant) and Bulan (U.S PG Pub 20040182695A1) and Miura (JP2018129234A - cited in IDS and machine translation provided by applicant).
Regarding claims 4, 12-13, Wu has not explicitly disclosed the density as claimed, however, this limitation is known from Miura.
Miura, drawn also to the art of metal foil in the manufacture of an electrode (Abstract), discloses the density of the films to be as claimed [0032-0034]. Miura further discloses that such a film is expected to have sufficient adhesion after drying [0012]. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Wu, with the density of the films as claimed, as disclosed by Miura, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to have a film/coating that has sufficient adhesion after drying [0012].
Claim(s) 5, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN115207267A - cited in IDS and machine translation provided by applicant) and Bulan (U.S PG Pub 20040182695A1) and Kusano (JP2021159814A - cited in IDS and machine translation provided by applicant).
Regarding claims 5, 14-16, Wu has not explicitly disclosed the thickness as claimed, however, this limitation is known from Kusano.
Kusano, drawn also to the art of manufacturing films for batteries [0001-0002], discloses the thickness of the film after compression to be between 5-300 micrometers [0074], and discloses that such a coating thickness prevents scaling or cracking [0074]. The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Wu, with the thickness as claimed, as disclosed by Kusano, to arrive at the instant invention, in order to prevent scaling or cracking of the coating/film.
Claim(s) 6, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN115207267A - cited in IDS and machine translation provided by applicant) and Bulan (U.S PG Pub 20040182695A1) and Enohara (JP2022115019A - cited in IDS and machine translation provided by applicant).
Regarding claims 6, 17-20, Wu has not explicitly disclosed the circumferential speeds of the rollers being different as claimed, however, this limitation is known from Enohara.
Enohara, drawn also to the art of manufacturing an electrode (Abstract), discloses the peripheral speed of the roller farthest from the current collector (i.e. dry film in this instance) to be lowest and the peripheral speeds of the rollers increasing as it approaches the current collector, thus disclosing the second roller having a peripheral speed greater than that of a first roller and the third roller having a speed greater than the second roller (see [0035-0038] & Figure 5 of Enohara).
It would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to have modified the method of Wu, with the speeds being different as claimed, as disclosed by Enohara, to have arrived at the instant invention, in order to be able to perform multi-stage roll film formation [0038].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Amendment, filed 12/01/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wu and Bulan.
Conclusion
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 ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8431. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/ABHISHEK A PATWARDHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746