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 with traverse of claims 7-20 in the reply filed on 12/4/2014 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because the method and apparatus claims would require a different field of search as described in the restriction requirement mailed 4/24/2026 (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Please refer to MPEP § 808.02, "Establishing Burden", "A different field of search" for more detail.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitchell (US Publication 2009/0223630).
Regarding claim 7, Mitchell teaches a method (paragraph 13 teaches a method) comprising: providing a current collector (paragraph 14 teaches a current collector); applying a support material onto a first portion of the current collector (paragraph 10 solvent considered reading on a support material); coating the current collector and the support material with an electrode material (paragraph 13 teaches coating films with a wet adhesive binder, which is considered reading on an electrode material since paragraph 13 teaches the binder can also include conduction promoting particles); calendering the current collector, the support material, and the electrode material (paragraph 52 teaches calendering the film); and removing the support material from the first portion of the current collector (paragraph 56 teaches removing the solvent).
Regarding claim 11, Mitchell teaches the solvent can be substituted with polytetrafluoroethylene (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 12, Mitchell teaches wherein applying the support material onto the first portion of the current collector comprises providing a bare foil supporting material roll positioned to apply the support material onto the first portion of the current collector prior to the current collector being coated with the electrode material (see paragraph 17 which teaches providing the wet adhesive, and the current collector may comprise aluminum foil, paragraph 10 teaches the solvent is present in the wet adhesive).
Regarding claim 13, Mitchell teaches wherein coating the current collector and the support material with the electrode material comprises: providing an active material supply comprising the electrode material (paragraph 17 teaches an active electrode material); and providing a coating roll coupled to the active material supply, the coating roll positioned to coat the current collector with the electrode material (paragraph 14 teaches lamination can be collected on a receiving roll which is considered reading on a coating roll).
Regarding claim 14, Mitchell teaches a method (paragraph 13 teaches a method) comprising: providing a current collector (paragraph 14 teaches a current collector); coating a first portion of the current collector and the support material with an electrode material (paragraph 13 teaches coating films with a wet adhesive binder, which is considered reading on an electrode material since paragraph 13 teaches the binder can also include conduction promoting particles); applying a support material onto a second portion of the current collector (paragraph 10 solvent considered reading on a support material which is considered applied on a second portion); calendering the current collector, the support material, and the electrode material (paragraph 52 teaches calendering the film); and removing the support material from the second portion of the current collector (paragraph 56 teaches removing the solvent).
Regarding claim 16, Mitchell teaches the solvent can be substituted with polytetrafluoroethylene (paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 17, Mitchell teaches wherein applying the support material onto the second portion of the current collector comprises providing a bare foil supporting material roll positioned to apply the support material onto the second portion of the current collector prior to the current collector being coated with the electrode material (see paragraph 17 which teaches providing the wet adhesive, and the current collector may comprise aluminum foil, paragraph 10 teaches the solvent is present in the wet adhesive).
Regarding claim 18, Mitchell teaches a method (paragraph 13 teaches a method) comprising: providing a current collector (paragraph 14 teaches a current collector); coating a first portion of the current collector and the support material with an electrode material (paragraph 13 teaches coating films with a wet adhesive binder, which is considered reading on an electrode material since paragraph 13 teaches the binder can also include conduction promoting particles); applying a support material onto a second portion of the current collector (paragraph 10 solvent considered reading on a support material which is considered applied on a second portion); calendering the current collector, the support material, and the electrode material (paragraph 52 teaches calendering the film); and removing the support material from the second portion of the current collector (paragraph 56 teaches removing the solvent).
Regarding claim 19, Mitchell teaches wherein removing the support material comprises providing a top support material rewind roller positioned to recover the support material from a top surface of the current collector (paragraph 42 teaches reverse roll coating, the surface on which the solvent is applied is considered a top surface).
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 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US Publication 2009/0223630).
Regarding claim 8, Mitchell teaches wherein the support material is applied at a thickness selected to (paragraph 44 teaches selecting the range of solvents, paragraph 45 teaches the thickness of the binder film can vary over a range). Regarding claim 8, Mitchel is silent to evenly distribute calendering stress across bare portions and coated portions of the current collector. Regarding claim 8, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of support material in order to obtain the desired product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, Mitchell teaches wherein the support material is applied at a thickness selected to (paragraph 44 teaches selecting the range of solvents, paragraph 45 teaches the thickness of the binder film can vary over a range). Regarding claim 15, Mitchel is silent to evenly distribute calendering stress across bare portions and coated portions of the current collector. Regarding claim 15, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the amount of support material in order to obtain the desired product since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, Mitchell is silent to collecting the support material from a bottom surface of the current collector. Regarding claim 20, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the location of the reverse roll coating of Mitchell in order to obtain the desired electrode product since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (US Publication 2009/0223630) in view of Chen (U.S. Publication 2022/0069275).
Regarding claim 9, Mitchell teaches coating a support material (paragraph 10 solvent). Mitchell is silent to an applying support material after calendering. Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches an additional coating step after a first calendering step (paragraph 23 teaches a second coating mechanism and a second calendering roller). Regarding claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering method of Mitchell with the additional coating and calendering configuration of Chen in order to obtain the desired product.
Mitchell is silent to the language of claim 10. Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches wherein the additional support material is applied directly onto the electrode material (paragraph 31 teaches an electrode plate with the lithium). Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the calendering method of Mitchell with the additional coating and calendering configuration of Chen in order to obtain the desired product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571)270-1051. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights