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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/28/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 includes the grammatically incorrect phrase “by irradiating laser on the electrode sheet”. Appropriate correction is required. A suggested correction is the phrasing “by irradiating a laser onto the electrode sheet”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 includes the incorrect phrase “by irradiating a later” which has been assumed to be “by irradiating a laser” for purposes of claim interpretation. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida (EP 2,424,010 B1, hereafter Uchida).
With regard to claim 1, Uchida teaches a method for controlling an electrode shape, the method comprising:
molding a shape (planar) of an electrode slurry (compound 3) disposed on at least part of an electrode sheet (collector 2) by irradiating a laser onto the electrode sheet causing the electrode slurry of the irradiated portion of the electrode sheet to move to an adjacent portion (local heating would cause movement due to thermal expansion) [0019, 0042-0043, fig. 1-2].
With regard to claim 2, Uchida teaches the electrode slurry (compound 3) is in a non-solidified state when the molding is performed (the compound 3 is dried in furnace 30 in a later step) [0048].
With regard to claim 12, Uchida teaches a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising:
coating a sheet shaped current collector (collector 2) by applying an electrode slurry (compound 3) thereon [0019, 0042-0043, fig. 1-2];
molding the electrode sheet to which the electrode slurry is coated by irradiating a laser onto at least a part thereof, causing the electrode slurry in the irradiated portion of the electrode sheet to move to adjacent portions (local heating would cause movement due to thermal expansion), thereby molding the electrode slurry [0019, 0042-0043, fig. 1-2]; and
drying the electrode sheet (in furnace 30) [0048]
With regard to claim 13, Uchida teaches the electrode slurry (compound 3) is in a non-solidified state when the molding is performed (the compound 3 is dried in furnace 30 in a later step) [0048].
With regard to claims 14-15, Uchida teaches the molding is performed before drying the electrode sheet (the compound 3 is dried in furnace 30 in a later step) [0048].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to claims 1-2 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Kudo et al. (US 2012/0234810 A1, hereafter Kudo).
With regard to claim 3, Uchida teaches types of lasers including infrared lasers [0055] but does not explicitly teach near-infrared lasers. However, in the same field of endeavor, Kudo teaches the use of a near-infrared laser with a wavelength of 650 to 1100 nm (which falls within the definition of ultra-high frequency in the specification [0074]) [0019, 0028]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the near-infrared laser of Kudo with the method of Uchida for the benefit of efficient heating of materials [Kudo 0021].
Claim(s) 4-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to claims 1-2 and 12-15 above, and further in view of Sweetland (US 2020/0039000 A1, hereafter Sweetland).
With regard to claim 4, Uchida teaches a laser module comprises a laser oscillator that generates a laser [0042]. Uchida does not explicitly teach a masking member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sweetland teaches the use of a mask (227) with an aperture (open aperture 231) that allows at least part of a laser to pass through [0060, fig. 11]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the mask and aperture of Sweetland with the method of Uchida for the benefit of allowing for laser scanning and trapping fumes [0052, 0063].
With regard to claims 5 and 7, Uchida does not explicitly teach a masking member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sweetland teaches the use of a mask (227) with an aperture (open aperture 231) that allows at least part of a laser to pass through [0060, fig. 11]. Uchida further teaches increasing the length of the mask aperture (which would increase the area, claim 7) and changing the position of the mask aperture (which would adjust the position) [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the mask and aperture of Sweetland with the method of Uchida for the benefit of allowing for laser scanning at high speeds and trapping fumes [0052, 0063-0064].
With regard to claim 6, Uchida does not explicitly teach a masking member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sweetland teaches the use of a mask (227) with an aperture (open aperture 231) that allows at least part of a laser to pass through [0060, fig. 11]. Uchida further teaches shifting the position of the mask aperture (which would adjust the position) [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the mask and aperture of Sweetland with the method of Uchida for the benefit of allowing for laser scanning at high speeds and trapping fumes [0052, 0063-0064]. When combined with the method of Uchida the shiftable mask aperture of Uchida would be configured to adjust based on a transverse direction of the electrode sheet.
With regard to claim 8, Uchida does not explicitly teach a masking member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sweetland teaches the use of a mask (227) with an aperture (open aperture 231) that allows at least part of a laser to pass through [0060, fig. 11]. Uchida further teaches shifting the position of the mask aperture (which would adjust the position) [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the mask and aperture of Sweetland with the method of Uchida for the benefit of allowing for laser scanning at high speeds and trapping fumes [0052, 0063-0064]. When combined with the method of Uchida the shiftable mask aperture of Uchida would allow for controlling movement of electrode slurry by adjusting a position of the aperture.
With regard to claim 11, Uchida does not explicitly teach a masking member. However, in the same field of endeavor, Sweetland teaches the use of a mask (227) with an aperture (open aperture 231) that allows at least part of a laser to pass through [0060, fig. 11]. Uchida further teaches shifting the position of the mask aperture (which would adjust the position) [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the mask and aperture of Sweetland with the method of Uchida for the benefit of allowing for laser scanning at high speeds and trapping fumes [0052, 0063-0064]. When combined with the method of Uchida the shiftable mask aperture of Uchida would allow for reciprocal movement along a direction perpendicular to a plane of the electrode sheet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record, alone or in combination does not appear to teach, suggest, or render obvious the invention of claim 9 or claim 10.
Claim 9 is drawn to a method for controlling an electrode shape comprising the steps recited therein. Notably claim 9 requires the use of a plate shaped masking member with through holes and an opening and closing member slidably coupled to the plate shaped member. The prior art of record such as Uchida teaches a method for controlling an electrode shape with a laser [Uchida 0019, 0042-0043, fig. 1-2] and Sweetland teaches the use of masks with laser systems [Sweetland 0052, 0063-0064] but would not teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed plate shaped masking member with through holes and an opening and closing member slidably coupled to the plate shaped member.
Claim 10 is drawn to a method for controlling an electrode shape comprising the steps recited therein. Notably claim 10 requires the use of a masking member with a plurality of plate shaped blocks and a block driver to horizontally move each of the plurality of plate shaped blocks. The prior art of record such as Uchida teaches a method for controlling an electrode shape with a laser [Uchida 0019, 0042-0043, fig. 1-2] and Sweetland teaches the use of masks with laser systems [Sweetland 0052, 0063-0064] but would not teach, suggest, or render obvious the claimed masking member with a plurality of plate shaped blocks and a block driver to horizontally move each of the plurality of plate shaped blocks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)270-5256. 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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights