DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: right closed bracket (]) without a left open bracket ([) at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: an “s” appears in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 10-13, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakano (JP 2017-27849), machine translation.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 12, Nakano discloses manufacturing method of electrode plate comprising:
suppling a current collector foil 110 (metal layer) at a first speed (para 0049);
supplying an active material layer 120 (dry electrode film) at a second speed (para 0029), while intermittently supplying the dry electrode film at a third speed less than the second speed (Table 1); and
forming a dry electrode active material layer by intermittently disposing the dry electrode film on at least one side of the metal layer (abstract; Table 1; Fig. 2),
wherein the dry electrode film is on the metal layer while the dry electrode film is being supplied at the second speed (abstract; Table 1; Fig. 2), and
the dry electrode film is not on the metal layer while the dry electrode film is being supplied at the third speed (abstract; Table 1; Fig. 2).
Figure 2 to Nakano is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
664
442
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Nakano discloses wherein the dry electrode film is a self-standing film, the dry electrode film further comprises at least one cutting line introduced along a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the dry electrode film, and the dry electrode film comprising the at least one cutting line is supported by a support before being applied on the metal layer (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Nakano discloses the electrode plate 100 having a uniform quality (para 0036).
Regarding claim 13, Nakano discloses pressing the active material layer onto the current collector foil (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, instant claim is proviso upon limitation measured by SAICAS not required by the dependent claim; therefore, the limitations of instant claims do not come into force.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Nakano discloses a first laminator roll (20) and a second laminator roll (30) and having opposite rotational directions (Fig. 2). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2114. In this case, at least the first roller may be varying speeds.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, instant claims are regarded as a product by process. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, Nakano teaches a dry electrode and lithium battery (para 0012).
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.
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 4-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP 2017-27849) in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0209220).
Regarding claims 4, Nakano does not teach an interlayer.
Lee, directed to an electrode, teaches an interlayer 250 disposed on an electrode current collector 200 (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an interlayer because when the electrode includes the interlayer, the force between the electrode active material layer and the electrode current collector is further improved, and the internal resistance of the electrode is reduced. Accordingly, the cycle life characteristics of a lithium battery utilizing such an electrode may be improved (para 0048).
Regarding claim 5, Nakano teaches formation region M (a plurality of first regions) and non-formation region N (one or more second regions) (Fig. 2). Lee teaches the interlayer 250 (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the interlayer on the formation region and maintain the non-formation region in order to produce the electrode with exposed surface 111.
Regarding claim 6, Nakano in view of Lee teaches while the dry electrode film is being supplied at the second speed, the dry electrode film is applied on the interlayer that is selectively disposed on the plurality of first regions, and while the dry electrode film is being supplying at the third speed, the dry electrode film is not on the second regions of the metal layer (abstract; Table 1; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Nakano teaches active material layer formed on the current collector foil with non-formation region N (Fig. 2). This is interpreted as 99% or less coverage since there is region N.
Regarding claim 8, Nakano teaches wherein the dry electrode active material layer comprises a plurality of dry electrode active material layers spaced from each other by a first distance at a substantially uniform interval along a length direction of the dry electrode, the dry electrode film comprises a plurality of cutting lines introduced along a direction perpendicular to a length direction of the dry electrode film (Fig. 2). Moreover, given the speed of the 3rd roller is 60 m/min (para 0041) and the speed of the second roller is 25 m/min (Table 1), the second distance would be between 10-100% relative the first distance.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches the interlayer includes a binder (para 0067) including a conductive binder such as PVdF (para 0069) and the thickness (e.g., total thickness) of the interlayer may be, for example, 0.01% to 30%, 0.1% to 30%, 0.5% to 30%, 1% to 25%, 1% to 20%, 1% to 15%, 1% to 10%, 1% to 5%, or 1 to 3% of the total thickness of the electrode current collector (para 0066).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches the interlayer may include, for example, a carbon-based conductive material (para 0071).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches a residual processing solvent may not be included (e.g., processing solvents may be excluded) (para 0064); the dry binder may be or include, for example, a fibrillized (e.g., fibrillated) binder (para 0059); further include a fluorinated binder (para 0060) and a carbon-based conductive material (para 0071).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP 2017-27849).
Regarding claim 9, Nakano teaches wherein the dry electrode active material layer comprises a plurality of dry electrode active material layers s spaced from each other along a length direction of the dry electrode and an interval therebetween (Fig. 2).
Nakano does not teach an interval between two adjacent dry electrode active material layers among the dry electrode active material layers spaced from each other is less than a width of the dry electrode. However, the space is viewed as a design choice. The distance between layers may be determined by one skilled in the art.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP 2017-27849) in view of Nishida (JP 4026183), machine translation.
Regarding claim 14, Nakano teaches wherein the forming of the dry electrode active material layer comprises concurrently introducing, between a first laminator roll and a second laminator roll, the dry electrode film and the metal layer, wherein the dry electrode film, while attached to the at least one of the first laminator roll or the second laminator roll, further comprises one or more cutting lines formed along a machine direction, and the at least one of the first laminator roll or the second laminator roll is free of an opening having a length formed along a transverse direction (TD) of the dry electrode film (Fig. 2).
Nakano does not further teach wherein at least one of the first laminator roll or the second laminator roll further comprises a suction hole for mechanically attaching the dry electrode film to the at least one of the first laminator roll or the second laminator roll.
Nishida, directed to a method of manufacturing, teaches a plurality of suction holes are provided over the entire peripheral surface of the transfer roller (para 0014; Figs. 6-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further comprise suction holes so that the lithium foil can be reliably attached to the peripheral surface of the transfer roller (para 0014).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano (JP 2017-27849) in view of Nishida (JP 4026183) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (US 2026/0112607).
Regarding claim 15, Nakano does not teach wherein the first laminator roll and the second laminator roll each have a first rotation speed while the first region of the metal layer and the dry electrode film are concurrently introduced between the first laminator roll and the second laminator roll, and while the second region of the metal layer is introduced between the first laminator roll and the second laminator roll and the dry electrode film is not supplied between the first laminator roll and the second laminator roll, the first laminator roll and the second laminator roll both have the first rotation speed or at least one of the first laminator roll or the second laminator roll has a second rotation speed less than the first rotation speed.
Kwak teaches two rollers 210 (Fig. 3) and both rollers may have the same rotation speed (para 0141).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have two rollers in order to apply the electrode film to both sides concurrently saving time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: novel over the closest prior art cited above to Nakano. Nakano teaches the peripheral speed of the third roller equivalent to first speed is 60 m/min and the peripheral speed of the second roller equivalent to the second speed is 25 m/min, different from the claimed limitation of the first speed and second speed are substantially the same as each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights