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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 5 recites “a plurality of the guide bars or the guide rolls,” but claim 3 introduces “a guide bar” or “a guide roll.” While “plurality,” is treated as a singular entity which requires antecedent basis and is properly introduced with “a plurality”, “the guide bars” and “the guide rolls” lack antecedent basis. Instead, Claim 5 should read “a plurality of guide bars or guide rolls.”
Claim 9 recites “a plurality of the guide bars or the guide rolls,” but claim 7 introduces “a guide bar” or “a guide roll.” While “plurality,” is treated as a singular entity which requires antecedent basis and is properly introduced with “a plurality”, “the guide bars” and “the guide rolls” lack antecedent basis. Instead, Claim 5 should read “a plurality of guide bars or guide rolls.”
Claim 10 recites “a plurality of the guide bars or the guide rolls,” but claim 8introduces “a guide bar” or “a guide roll.” While “plurality,” is treated as a singular entity which requires antecedent basis and is properly introduced with “a plurality”, “the guide bars” and “the guide rolls” lack antecedent basis. Instead, Claim 5 should read “a plurality of guide bars or guide rolls.”
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoi, et. al. (US2019074143A1), in view of Aita, et. al. (WO 2020059225 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Naoi teaches a method (“[0002] a method for manufacturing electrodes, batteries, and capacitors”) for manufacturing a doped electrode (doped electrodes 75) including an active material layer (active material layer 95) doped with an alkali metal (“[0041] the electrode 75 is manufactured by doping the electrode precursor 73 with alkali metal in the doping tank 3”), the method comprising: conveying a strip-shaped electrode (“[0053] A configuration of the electrode precursor 73 will be described with reference to FIGS. 5 and 6. As shown in FIG. 5, the electrode precursor 73 has a stripe shape”) comprising an active material layer along a path that passes through a doping tank that stores a dope solution (“[0036] The conveying roller group conveys the electrode precursor 73 , which will be described later, along a certain path. The path is a path from the supply roll 47 to the winding roll 49 by sequentially passing through the inside of the electrolytic solution tank 203 , the inside of the electrolytic solution tank 205 , and the inside of the cleaning tank 7”) comprising ions of an alkali metal (“[0068] The alkali metal ions included in the dope solution are ions constituting the alkali metal salt”) and an aprotic organic solvent, a counter electrode unit,(“[0014] a counter electrode unit which is accommodated in at least one of the plurality of electrolytic solution tanks”). Naoi at [0002,14, 36, 41, 53, 68], Fig. 1.
Naoi teaches conveying rollers 43, 45 which guide the electrode, which is a “guide mechanism,” as this under the plain meaning of the claim includes a mechanism which guides the electrode. Id. at [0203]. Further, Naoi teaches several rollers which serve to, for example “press the electrode precursor in the direction of the conveying rollers 15 and 21.” Id. at [0104]. Further, because these rollers control the direction of the strip-shaped electrode as it follows the path shown within Fig. 1, these “maintain a distance between the strip-shaped electrode and the counter electrode unit in a fixed range in the doping tank by the guide mechanism disposed between the strip shaped electrode and the counter electrode unit.” These are electrically connected in the tank, which meets, “electrically connecting the strip-shaped electrode via the doping solution in the doping tank.” Id. at [0051] (“Since the electrode precursor 73 is in contact with the conductive conveying rollers 15 and 21 and the electrode precursor 73 and the counter electrode unit 51 are in the dope solution as the electrolytic solution, the electrode precursor 73 and the counter electrode unit 51 are electrically connected to each other”). However, Naoi is silent as to this guide mechanism being found within the electrolytic tank specifically.
Naoi is silent as to an aprotic solvent being found within the doping tank (instead, an aprotic solvent is found in the cleaning tank).
PNG
media_image1.png
495
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Naoi.
Aita teaches an electrode manufacturing device, which comprises electrolyte baths 205, 7, and 207, which “[p.8] contains an alkali metal ion and a solvent. Examples of the solvent include an organic solvent. As the organic solvent, an aprotic organic solvent is preferable . . . The dope solution may further contain a flame retardant such as a phosphazene compound. The lower limit of the addition amount of the flame retardant is preferably 1 part by mass or more with respect to 100 parts by mass of the dope solution, from the viewpoint of effectively controlling the thermal runaway reaction during doping with an alkali metal.” Aita at [p.8]. In other words, Aita teaches a benefit to an alkali metal – aprotic organic solvent – flame retardant mixture.
Further, Aita teaches “[p.3.] In the electrolytic solution tank 205, there are a partition plate 69, four counter electrode units 51, four porous insulating members 53, and a transport roller 27.” The Office notes that as Naoi indicates rollers act as a “guide mechanism,” this is a guide mechanism disposed within the electrolytic tank. Naoi finally indicates its mechanism improves the ease of re-supplying alkali metal-containing material.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify the method for manufacturing a doped electrode of Naoi, such that it comprises a guide mechanism disposed within the doping tank, and such that it comprises a dope solution comprising an aprotic solvent, because Naoi teaches a benefit to flame retardance and re-supply of alkali metal-containing material. Claim 1 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Naoi.
While modified Naoi teaches maintaining a distance between the strip-shaped electrode and the counter electrode unit in a fixed range by virtue of its disclosure of its rollers, Naoi is silent as to “the fixed range is in a range of 5 to 16 mm.”
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the method of Naoi such that the fixed range is in a range of 5 to 16 mm, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, there is no indication that this range would change the performance of the invention of Claim 1.
Claim 2 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Naoi.
Aita and Naoi teach a guide roll. Naoi at [0203]. Aita also teaches“[p.3] the partition plate 69 and the transport roller 27 are supported by a support rod 68 that penetrates them,” which also provides support for a guide bar. Aita at [p.3].
Claim 3 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Naoi.
Aita and Naoi teach a guide roll. Naoi at [0203]. Aita also teaches “[p.3] the partition plate 69 and the transport roller 27 are supported by a support rod 68 that penetrates them,” which also provides support for a guide bar. Aita at [p.3]. Further, Aita and Naoi teach assemblies composed of multiple rollers working together in parallel. Id. at [p.3], Naoi at [0203]. Further, these are disposed in an interval from each other. See Fig. 1 of Naoi.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the method of Naoi such that the plurality of guide rolls are disposed at an interval in a range of from 0.1 to 1.0 m in the doping tank, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, there is no indication that this range would change the performance of the invention of Claim 5.
Claim 5 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita.
Regarding Claim 6, Naoi teaches a system configured for manufacturing a doped electrode (“[0002] a method for manufacturing electrodes, batteries, and capacitors”) that manufactures a doped electrode (doped electrodes 75) including an active material layer (active material layer 95) doped with an alkali metal (“[0041] the electrode 75 is manufactured by doping the electrode precursor 73 with alkali metal in the doping tank 3”), the system comprising: a doping tank (doping tank 3) configured to store a dope solution (“[0065] The dope solution is accommodated in the doping tank 3”) comprising containing ions of an alkali metal (“[0141] the time of using the doping system 1 , the dope solution containing alkali metal ions is accommodated in the electrolytic solution tanks 203 and 205”), a counter electrode unit (counter electrode unit 51) stored in the doping tank. Naoi at [0002,14, 36, 41, 53, 65-68, 0141], Fig. 1.
Naoi teaches conveying rollers 43, 45 which guide the electrode, which is a “guide mechanism,” as this under the plain meaning of the claim includes a mechanism which guides the electrode. Id. at [0203]. Naoi teaches conveying rollers 9, 11, 13, any of which are “a conveyer unit configured to convey a strip-shaped electrode comprising the active material layer along a path that passes through the doping tank.” Further, Naoi teaches several rollers which serve to, for example “press electrode precursor in the direction of the conveying rollers 15 and 21.” Id. at [0104]. Further, because these rollers control the direction of the strip-shaped electrode as it follows the path shown within Fig. 1, these read upon “the guide mechanism is disposed between the strip-shaped electrode including the active material layer and the counter electrode unit, wherein the guide mechanism is configured to maintain a distance between the strip-shaped electrode comprising the active material layer and the counter electrode unit in a fixed range in the doping tank.” Finally, Naoi teaches a “connection unit which electrically connects the electrode precursor and the counter electrode unit,” wherein “[0167] As shown in FIG. 4, a negative terminal of the DC power supply 61 is connected to the conveying rollers 15 and 21 , respectively, via a cable 87 . In addition, a positive terminal of the DC power supply 61 is connected to a total of four counter electrode units 51 , respectively, via a cable 89”, which reads upon “and a connection unit configured to electrically connect a conveyor roller comprised in the conveyer unit and the counter electrode unit”
However, Naoi is silent as to this guide mechanism being found within the electrolytic tank specifically.
Naoi is silent as to an aprotic solvent being found within the doping tank (instead, an aprotic solvent is found in the cleaning tank).
Aita teaches an electrode manufacturing device, which comprises electrolyte baths 205, 7, and 207, which “[p.8.] contains an alkali metal ion and a solvent. Examples of the solvent include an organic solvent. As the organic solvent, an aprotic organic solvent is preferable . . . The dope solution may further contain a flame retardant such as a phosphazene compound. The lower limit of the addition amount of the flame retardant is preferably 1 part by mass or more with respect to 100 parts by mass of the dope solution, from the viewpoint of effectively controlling the thermal runaway reaction during doping with an alkali metal.” Aita at [p.8.] In other words, Aita teaches a benefit to an alkali metal – aprotic organic solvent – flame retardant mixture.
Further, Aita teaches “[p.3.] In the electrolytic solution tank 205, there are a partition plate 69, four counter electrode units 51, four porous insulating members 53, and a transport roller 27.” The Office notes that as Naoi indicates rollers act as a “guide mechanism,” this is a guide mechanism disposed within the electrolytic tank. Naoi finally indicates its mechanism improves the ease of re-supplying alkali metal-containing material.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify the method for manufacturing a doped electrode of Naoi, such that it comprises a guide mechanism disposed within the doping tank, and such that it comprises a dope solution comprising an aprotic solvent, because Naoi teaches a benefit to flame retardance and re-supply of alkali metal-containing material. Claim 6 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 2. Claim 2 is obvious over modified Naoi.
Aita and Naoi teach a guide roll. Naoi at [0203]. Aita also teaches “[p.3] the partition plate 69 and the transport roller 27 are supported by a support rod 68 that penetrates them,” which also provides support for a guide bar. Aita at [p.3].
Claim 7 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 7. Claim 7 is obvious over modified Naoi.
Aita and Naoi teach a guide roll. Naoi at [203]. Aita also teaches“[p.3] the partition plate 69 and the transport roller 27 are supported by a support rod 68 that penetrates them,” which also provides support for a guide bar. Aita at [p.3]. Further, Aita and Naoi teach assemblies composed of multiple rollers working together in parallel. See Fig. 1 of Naoi. Further, these are disposed in an interval from each other. See Fig. 1 of Naoi.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the method of Naoi such that the plurality of guide rolls are disposed at an interval in a range of from 0.1 to 1.0 m in the doping tank, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, there is no indication that this range would change the performance of the invention of Claim 9.
Claim 9 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita.
Claims 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoi, et. al. (US2019074143A1), in view of Aita, further in view of Huan, et. al. (CN111725496A).
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 3. Claim 3 is obvious over modified Naoi.
Aita and Naoi teach a guide roll. Naoi at [0203]. Aita also teaches“[p.3] the partition plate 69 and the transport roller 27 are supported by a support rod 68 that penetrates them,” which also provides support for a guide bar. Aita at [p.3]. Here, the “surface” may be treated as the surface of the roller 27, and the “main body portion” is the support rod 68. Id.
Naoi teaches “[0305] (2) In each embodiment, the surface of the conveying roller may be made of elastomer, and parts other than the surface thereof may be made of other materials. Examples of other materials may include metals, ceramics, hard resins and the like.” The “parts other than the surface” read upon a main body portion, wherein the main body portion comprises a metal. However, modified Naoi is silent as to “the surface portion is formed on a surface of the main body portion and made from a material comprising an organic matter.”
Huan teaches a roller for producing ultra-thin lithium foil, wherein “[p.3.] the roll of the rolling mill is provided with an anti-sticking coating, which can effectively prevent the problem of the lithium strip from sticking to the roll, so that the lithium strip can be rolled thinner. The material of the anti-stick coating can be selected from one or more of polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, silicone polymer, ceramics, etc.; polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, and silicone polymer are preferred because these organic coatings have A certain degree of flexibility helps to reduce or eliminate the damage or wrinkles on the surface of the rolled lithium belt that may be caused by uneven force.” Huan at p.3.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the method of modified Naoi, such that it comprises utilizing the anti-stick coating of Huan, such that “the surface portion is formed on a surface of the main body portion and made from a material comprising an organic matter,” because Huan teaches this provides a benefit to preventing wrinkling, as well as the anti-stick properties of the coating.
Claim 4 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita, further in view of Huan.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 relies upon Claim 7. Claim 7 is obvious over modified Naoi.
Aita and Naoi teach a guide roll. Naoi at [0203]. Aita also teaches “[p.3] the partition plate 69 and the transport roller 27 are supported by a support rod 68 that penetrates them,” which also provides support for a guide bar. Aita at [p.3]. Here, the “surface” may be treated as the surface of the roller 27, and the “main body portion” is the support rod 68. Id.
Naoi teaches “[0305] (2) In each embodiment, the surface of the conveying roller may be made of elastomer, and parts other than the surface thereof may be made of other materials. Examples of other materials may include metals, ceramics, hard resins and the like.” The “parts other than the surface” read upon a main body portion, wherein the main body portion comprises a metal. However, modified Naoi is silent as to “the surface portion is formed on a surface of the main body portion and made from a material comprising an organic matter.”
Huan teaches a roller for producing ultra-thin lithium foil, wherein “[p.3] the roll of the rolling mill is provided with an anti-sticking coating, which can effectively prevent the problem of the lithium strip from sticking to the roll, so that the lithium strip can be rolled thinner. The material of the anti-stick coating can be selected from one or more of polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, silicone polymer, ceramics, etc.; polyethylene, polyoxymethylene, and silicone polymer are preferred because these organic coatings have A certain degree of flexibility helps to reduce or eliminate the damage or wrinkles on the surface of the rolled lithium belt that may be caused by uneven force.” Huan at p.3.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the method of modified Naoi, such that it comprises utilizing the anti-stick coating of Huan, such that “the surface portion is formed on a surface of the main body portion and made from a material comprising an organic matter,” because Huan teaches this provides a benefit to preventing wrinkling, as well as the anti-stick properties of the coating.
Claim 8 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita, further in view of Huan.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 8. Claim 8 is obvious over modified Naoi.
Aita and Naoi teach a guide roll. Naoi at [0203]. Aita also teaches“[p.3.] the partition plate 69 and the transport roller 27 are supported by a support rod 68 that penetrates them,” which also provides support for a guide bar. Aita at [p.3]. Further, Aita and Naoi teach assemblies composed of multiple rollers working together in parallel. Naoi at [0203], Aita at p.3, Naoi at [Fig. 1]. Further, these are disposed in an interval from each other. See Fig. 1 of Naoi.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the method of Naoi such that the plurality of guide rolls are disposed at an interval in a range of from 0.1 to 1.0 m in the doping tank, because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A). Here, there is no indication that this range would change the performance of the invention of Claim 10.
Claim 10 is obvious over Naoi, in view of Aita, further in view of Huan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights