DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments to the specification and claims, filed on December 11, 2023, have been entered in the above-identified application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Examiner’s Comments
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 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.
Regarding the limitation(s) “drying agent” in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, any material capable of facilitating drying can meet this limitation; e.g. air, super-heated steam, a solid desiccant, etc.
Regarding the limitation(s) “mixer” in the claims, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, there is nothing specified in the claims about what a ‘mixer’ comprises, so any location where the ‘drying agent’ can be collected, be it a supply pipe, a separate apparatus station, or even the building/room housing the rest of the apparatus is deemed reading on the term ‘mixer’.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 8 and 17 – 20) in the paper filed July 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 3 – 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 10, especially claims 1, 3 and 4, of U.S. Patent No. 12,704,324 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because US ‘324 B2 claims a substantially identical method as outlined below.
Regarding claim 1, US ‘324 B2 claims a battery manufacturing method (claim 1: electrode drying system) comprising: providing a battery part (electrode) in a dryer (drying oven); providing a drying agent (air) in a mixer (air supply member); controlling, by the mixer, at least one of humidity or temperature of the drying agent (see claims 3 and 4); and feeding the drying agent from the mixer to the dryer (claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, US ‘324 B2 claims recirculating the drying agent (air) meeting the claimed limitations (claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, US ‘324 B2 claims measuring the temperature and/or humidity of the drying agent (air) (claims 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, while not explicit, the Examiner notes that the recirculated air (taken as the ‘external gas’) is mixed with non-recirculated air (i.e. ‘drying agent’) in the mixer, which necessarily impacts the temperature and humidity as the recirculated air has been heated and has absorbed humidity in the drying oven.
Regarding claim 6, while not explicit, the Examiner takes Official Notice that measuring temperature and/or humidity of various air streams in the drying process of electrodes is conventional in the art and a skilled artisan would have been well versed in measuring the temperature and/or humidity of the recirculated air stream prior to introducing it into the fresh air stream to know its impact on the overall temperature and humidity of the air to be injected into the drying oven. For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see the art applied below in the 102 and 103 rejections.
Regarding claim 7, similar to the above, the Examiner notes that a skilled artisan would view controlling how much recirculated air based on how it would impact the entering air flow as routine and obvious because one would not want to introduce air that would result in the air entering the drying oven being too hot, too cold or having too much (too little) humidity.
Regarding claim 8, US ‘324 B2 disclose heating the drying agent (air) prior to it entering the dryer (drying oven) (see claim 4).
Claims 2 and 17 – 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 12,704,324 B2 as applied above, and further in view of Heo et al. (KR 2017-0109912 A). See provided Machine generated translation/Abstract summary.
US ‘324 B2 is relied upon as described above.
US ‘324 B2 fails to disclose adding a drying agent (air) and water vapor into the mixer (and then dryer).
However, KR ‘912 A teaches a similar electrode drying method wherein both superheated steam and air are introduced into/from a superheated steam supply unit 120 and heating unit 121 into the dryer inorder to provide an inert atmosphere that is able to control any potential explosion risk from generated solvent vapors (pages 3 and 4, page 5, 4th Paragraph (beginning “The superheated …”), and Paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of US ‘324 B2 to use both a drying agent (air) and water vapor (superheated steam) as taught by KR ‘912 A, since such an atmosphere allows for drying while insuring an inert atmosphere that minimizes any potential explosion risk.
Regarding claims 17 – 20, these limitations are met for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 3 (for claim 17), claim 5 (for claim 18), claim 7 (for claim 19) and claim 8 (for claim 20).
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.
(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1 and 3 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (KR 20210050721 A). See provided Machine generated translation/Abstract summary.
Regarding claim 1, Park et al. discloses a battery manufacturing method (Title; Abstract: method for drying electrode plate) comprising: providing a battery part (electrode plate) in a dryer (drying chamber 100); providing a drying agent (air) in a mixer (building/room via supply fan 500); controlling, by the mixer, at least one of humidity or temperature of the drying agent (Title; Abstract: measuring temperature and/or humidity inside and outside the dryer; see page 3 and relevant disclosure of heater 700 as controlling at least temperature); and feeding the drying agent from the mixer to the dryer (via supply fan and supply damper 600; see page 3).
Regarding claim 3, Park et al. discloses recirculating the drying agent (air) meeting the claimed limitations (page 3, circulating fan 910 and circulating damper 920).
Regarding claim 4, Park et al. claims measuring the temperature and/or humidity of the drying agent (air) (as above, but see also pages 3 and 4, controller first mode, etc.).
Regarding claim 5, while not explicit, the Examiner notes that the recirculated air (taken as the ‘external gas’) is mixed with non-recirculated air (i.e. ‘drying agent’) in the mixer, which necessarily impacts the temperature and humidity as the recirculated air has been heated and has absorbed humidity in the drying oven (see also pages 3, 4, wherein the controller adjusts the circulation damper 920 to control how much of the circulated air, which has different temperature and humidity, is used).
Regarding claim 6, while not explicit, the Examiner takes Official Notice that measuring temperature and/or humidity of various air streams in the drying process of electrodes is conventional in the art and a skilled artisan would have been well versed in measuring the temperature and/or humidity of the recirculated air stream prior to introducing it into the fresh air stream to know its impact on the overall temperature and humidity of the air to be injected into the drying oven (ibid; and see also pages 4 – 5). For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see the art applied below in the 102 and 103 rejections.
Regarding claim 7, similar to the above, the Examiner notes that a skilled artisan would view controlling how much recirculated air based on how it would impact the entering air flow as routine and obvious because one would not want to introduce air that would result in the air entering the drying oven being too hot, too cold or having too much (too little) humidity.
Regarding claim 8, Park et al. disclose heating the drying agent (air) prior to it entering the dryer (drying oven) (page 3, heater 700).
Claims 1 – 8 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Heo et al. (KR ‘912 A). See provided Machine generated translation/Abstract summary.
Regarding claim 1, Heo et al. discloses a battery manufacturing method (Title; Abstract) comprising: providing a battery part (electrode plate) in a dryer (drying furnace 110; page 3); providing a drying agent (super-heated steam; page 3) in a mixer (super-heated steam supply unit 120); controlling, by the mixer, at least one of humidity or temperature of the drying agent (see, for example, page 3, last two paragraphs); and feeding the drying agent from the mixer to the dryer (via supply pipe 110C).
Regarding claim 2, Heo et al. teaches adding both superheated steam and air into/from a superheated steam supply unit 120 and heating unit 121 into the dryer in order to provide an inert atmosphere that is able to control any potential explosion risk from generated solvent vapors (pages 3 and 4, page 5, 4th Paragraph (beginning “The superheated …”), and Paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Heo et al. claims recirculating the drying agent (air) meeting the claimed limitations (see at least page 4, 3rd and 4th paragraphs).
Regarding claim 4, Heo et al. claims measuring the temperature and/or humidity of the drying agent (air) (ibid; see also text about temperature sensor 112).
Regarding claim 5, while not explicit, the Examiner notes that the recirculated air (taken as the ‘external gas’) is mixed with non-recirculated air (i.e. ‘drying agent’) in the mixer, which necessarily impacts the temperature and humidity as the recirculated air has been heated and has absorbed humidity in the drying oven. Heo et al. teaches mixing the air and super-heated steam, for example, including measuring/controlling the temperature and/or humidity of each (see for example page 4, 2nd to last paragraph and page 5, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, while not explicit, the Examiner takes Official Notice that measuring temperature and/or humidity of various air streams in the drying process of electrodes is conventional in the art and a skilled artisan would have been well versed in measuring the temperature and/or humidity of the recirculated air stream prior to introducing it into the fresh air stream to know its impact on the overall temperature and humidity of the air to be injected into the drying oven (see also Heo et al. citations immediately referenced above with regard to claim 5). For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, see the art applied below in the 102 and 103 rejections.
Regarding claim 7, similar to the above, the Examiner notes that a skilled artisan would view controlling how much recirculated air based on how it would impact the entering air flow as routine and obvious because one would not want to introduce air that would result in the air entering the drying oven being too hot, too cold or having too much (too little) humidity. See also control and mixing teachings in at least Heo et al., page 6, which appears to read on the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Heo et al. disclose heating the drying agent (air) prior to it entering the dryer (drying oven) (see, for example, the pages 4 – 6 citations above).
Regarding claims 17 – 20, these limitations are met for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 3 (for claim 17), claim 5 (for claim 18), claim 7 (for claim 19) and claim 8 (for claim 20).
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 5 – 7, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heo et al. (KR ‘912 A) as applied above. See provided Machine generated translation/Abstract summary.
Heo et al. is relied upon as described above.
While the Examiner maintains that these limitations would be necessarily met by the knowledge of a skilled artisan when viewed in light of the Heo et al. teachings, the Examiner acknowledges that Heo et al. fails to explicitly ‘spell out’ these limitations.
However, with regard to claims 5 - 7, should it be shown that these limitations are not necessarily present/anticipated by Heo et al., the Examiner maintains that they would still have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize that when you mix two gas streams (super-heated steam and air or heated air and recirculated air), the temperature and humidity of the mixed stream will depend on the feed stream temperatures and humidity. It would have therefore been obvious to measure and control the input of each as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize that the final stream would be impacted by the feed stream conditions.
With regard to claims 18 and 19, these limitations are met for the same reasons as applied above with regard to claims 5 and 7.
Claims 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR ‘721 A) as applied above. See provided Machine generated translation/Abstract summary.
Park et al. is relied upon as described above.
While the Examiner maintains that these limitations would be necessarily met by the knowledge of a skilled artisan when viewed in light of the Park et al. teachings, the Examiner acknowledges that Heo et al. fails to explicitly ‘spell out’ these limitations.
However, with regard to claims 5 - 7, should it be shown that these limitations are not necessarily present/anticipated by Park et al., the Examiner maintains that they would still have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize that when you mix two gas streams (super-heated steam and air or heated air and recirculated air), the temperature and humidity of the mixed stream will depend on the feed stream temperatures and humidity. It would have therefore been obvious to measure and control the input of each as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize that the final stream would be impacted by the feed stream conditions.
Claims 2 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR ‘721 A) as applied above, and further in view of Heo et al. (KR ‘912 A). See provided Machine generated translation/Abstract summaries for both references.
Park et al. is relied upon as described above.
Park et al. fails to disclose adding a drying agent (air) and water vapor into the mixer (and then dryer).
However, KR ‘912 A teaches a similar electrode drying method wherein both superheated steam and air are introduced into/from a superheated steam supply unit 120 and heating unit 121 into the dryer inorder to provide an inert atmosphere that is able to control any potential explosion risk from generated solvent vapors (pages 3 and 4, page 5, 4th Paragraph (beginning “The superheated …”), and Paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Park et al. to use both a drying agent (air) and water vapor (superheated steam) as taught by KR ‘912 A, since such an atmosphere allows for drying while insuring an inert atmosphere that minimizes any potential explosion risk.
Regarding claims 17 – 20, these limitations are met for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claim 3 (for claim 17), claim 5 (for claim 18), claim 7 (for claim 19) and claim 8 (for claim 20).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR ‘721 A) in view of Heo et al. (KR ‘912 A) as applied above. See provided Machine generated translation/Abstract summaries.
Park et al. and Heo et al. are relied upon as described above.
While the Examiner maintains that these limitations would be necessarily met by the knowledge of a skilled artisan when viewed in light of the Park et al. teachings, the Examiner acknowledges that Heo et al. fails to explicitly ‘spell out’ these limitations.
However, with regard to claims 18 and 19, should it be shown that these limitations are not necessarily present/anticipated by Park et al., the Examiner maintains that they would still have been obvious to a skilled artisan, as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize that when you mix two gas streams (super-heated steam and air or heated air and recirculated air), the temperature and humidity of the mixed stream will depend on the feed stream temperatures and humidity. It would have therefore been obvious to measure and control the input of each as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize that the final stream would be impacted by the feed stream conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 ET).
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
September 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights