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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected tool, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/23/2026.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yotsumoto et al. (US 2013/0014625).
Regarding claim 1, Yotsumoto discloses forming a stack which includes an active material coated on a current collector (Figure 3, S1-S3) whereby said stack is then pressed and cut simultaneously (Figure 3, S4; Figure 8a) to form the final product which includes a tab on the electrode off the current collector (interpreted as current collector tab - see [0033], [0060]). Figure 4 also shows a schematic of the sheets being fed in and then punched simultaneously with the pressing. Note in particular, figure 8 which discloses the upper presses (391 and 392), which bias the stack against the lower support (i.e. press). While Yotsumoto does not disclose the final product as a “finished” electrode, this is either implicit or highly obvious, as the goal is to produce a suitable electrode blank for use in a battery ([0010]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yotsumoto discloses that a drive mechanism (31) is used to press the pressing unit down (figure 6b). The finished product would need to be removed from the apparatus so as to be used in a battery system. It would have been obvious to have removed it from either the top or bottom as there is no third choice. The courts have generally held that it is “Obvious to try” when choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143). In this case it would have been predictably successful to remove the finished product from either the top or bottom.
Regarding claim 4, Yotsumoto discloses the active material is dried (figure 3, S2) and also displays the material as a layer (figure 8, 153). Both of these teachings evidence the film nature.
Regarding claim 5, Yotsumoto discloses that a drive mechanism (31) is used to press the pressing unit down (figure 6b). This reads on actuating.
Regarding claim 6, Yotsumoto discloses the upper die (391/392), the lower die (20 or 90) and cutting into a surface of the lower die (figure 8c), there being no further orientation direction in the claim. Yotsumoto does not discloses the blade as slideable, but the courts have generally held that making things adjustable does not represent a patentably distinction (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 7, Yotsumoto discloses a closed polygonal cross section on the cutting tool (figure 8, 37); however, the examiner notes, for the sake of expediting prosecution, that changes in shape don’t generally represent patentably distinctions (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claims 8-15, Yotsumoto generally discloses the claimed features, as provided above. The primary differences in claims 8-15 relate to duplicating the cutting portions and changing the size of the layer. The examiner notes that the courts have generally held that changes in size, duplications of parts, and rearrangement of parts are not patentably distinguishing (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 17, Yotsumoto discloses a system containing rollers and tension (figure 6b), which satisfies the claimed dancer system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yotsumoto et al. (US 2013/0014625) and optionally further in view of Koga (US 2022/0037713).
Regarding claim 16, Yotsumoto fails to explicitly teach heating the press, but heating during cutting and consolidation to facilitate processing is well known in the battery art. See Koga, for example, drawn also to the battery art, which discloses that heated press dies can be used to help in consolidation ([0114]). In light of the foregoing, it would have been obvious to have used to heat to predictably assist with pressing and cutting to form the final product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WU et al. (CN11207165) - provides a coated current collector (5) with electrode tabs (6), a conveying means (3), a compression press (22/21) and a cutter (21/22) (figures 1 and 2).
XU et al. (WO2018024203) - discloses that it was known to form an electrode by coating an active material on a current collector, drying it, pressing it and die cutting it (comparative example 1). While the foregoing doesn’t combine pressing and die cutting into one step, the order of steps is generally considered a non-obvious distinction.
Kuhara et al. (US 2018/031642) discloses a similar manufacturing method which utilizes a electrodes, current collectors, active materials, roll presses (i.e. vertical presses) and cutting means (see figure 8. Kuhara fails to combine the pressing and cutting operations, but the courts have generally held that the order of performing process steps is not patentably distinguishing.
Jamadar et al. (US 2021/0288302) discloses a similar manufacturing method which utilizes a electrodes, current collectors, active materials, roll presses (i.e. vertical presses) and cutting means (see figure 1). Jamadar fails to teach the tab and cutting through, but does teach that it was known to blend pressing and cutting operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL N ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-5038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
