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 .
The pending claims are claims 1-15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Borkenhagen et al., CN 109074961 (translation Raman et al., US 2021/0193398).
Regarding claim 1, Raman et al., teaches a manufacturing method of a dry electrode (abstract; 0006-0009) comprising: fiberizing a mixture (fibrillized; fibrillization) (0006-0009) comprising an active material (0006-0009), a conductive material, (0007; 0009; 0030) and a binder (abstract; 0006-0009) into a fiberized dry powder (0009; 0051); first crushing (0008) and second crushing the dry powder into a minute powder (0008); and calendering the minute powder (0008; 0057-0058; 0060) into a free-standing film (0006-0009; 0026; 0052).
Regarding claim 2, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method (0024) of the dry electrode (0006-0009) as claimed in claim 1, wherein: in the minute powder, an amount of particles having a particle size of 50 μm (0058) is at least 95 wt% (0027).
Regarding claim 7, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 6, wherein: the active material comprises a metal oxide, the conductive material comprises a carbon black (0030; 0043; 0046), and the binder (abstract) comprises polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (0040; 0044; 0046; 0056).
Regarding claim 10, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 9, wherein: the first crushing (first fibrillied) (0009) is performed for a crushing time of 10 min/ (0047).
Regarding claim 11, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode (abstract; 0006-0009) as claimed in claim 10, wherein: the second crushing (second fibrillized) (0009) is performed for a crushing time of 10 min/kg (0047).
Regarding claim 13, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the crushing (fibrillization step; 0006-0009; 0025) time of the second crushing is the same as the crushing time of the first crushing (0051).
Regarding claim 14, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: pressing the free-standing film (abstract; 0025-0026; 0028); and laminating the free-standing film to a current collector (0049; 0060).
Regarding claim 15, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1 (0006-0009), wherein: the calendaring (0052; 0057-0060) of the minute powder (0009; 0051) into the free-standing film (0006-0009; 0026) comprises: pressing the free-standing film (0026; 0047; 0049-0050) and laminating the free-standing film to a current collector (0009; 0024; 0036; 0060).
Thus, the claims are anticipated.
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.
Claim(s) 3-6, 8, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borkenhagen et al., CN 109074961 (translation Raman et al., US 2021/0193398), in view of Hah Hoe-Jin et al., CN 116547826.
Regarding claim 3, Raman et al., does not teach manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: in the minute powder, a sum of an amount of particles having a particle size of less than 45 μm and an amount of particles having a particle size of greater than 1000 μm is 1 wt% to 6 wt% based on 100 wt% of the minute powder.
Hah Hoe-Jin et al., teaches a sum of an amount of particles having a particle size of less than 45 μm (10 um; 0082) and an amount of particles having a particle size of greater than 1000 μm (1 mm; 0066; 0108) is 1 wt% to 6 wt% (0082; 0084) based on 100 wt% of the minute powder (0045).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Hah Hoe-Jin into the teachings of Raman because Hah Hoe-Jin teaches a claimed amount of particles, and a claimed particle size, and the method of crushing or fiberization, “may play a more important role in improving the durability of the electrode.” (0004).
Regarding claim 4, Raman et al., does not teach manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: in the minute powder, an amount of particles having a particle size of 45 μm to 1000 μm is 96 wt% to 98 wt% based on 100 wt% of the minute powder.
Hah Hoe-Jin et al., teaches an amount of particles having a particle size of 45 μm to 1000 μm (0108) is 96 wt% to 98 wt% based on 100 wt% of the minute powder (0082).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Hah Hoe-Jin into the teachings of Raman because Hah Hoe-Jin teaches a claimed amount of particles, and a claimed particle size, and the method of crushing or fiberization, “may play a more important role in improving the durability of the electrode.” (0004).
Regarding claim 5, Raman et al., does not teach manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 4, wherein: in the minute powder, a sum of an amount of particles having a particle size of less than 45 μm and an amount of particles having a particle size of greater than 1000 μm is 2 wt% to 4 wt% based on 100 wt% of the minute powder.
Hah Hoe-Jin et al., teaches in the minute powder, a sum of an amount of particles having a particle size of less than 45 μm (0108) and an amount of particles having a particle size of greater than 1000 μm (0108) is 2 wt% to 4 wt% based on 100 wt% of the minute powder (0082; 0084).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Hah Hoe-Jin into the teachings of Raman because Hah Hoe-Jin teaches a claimed amount of particles, and a claimed particle size, and the method of crushing or fiberization, “may play a more important role in improving the durability of the electrode.” (0004).
Regarding claim 6, Raman et al., does not teach manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the active material is 96 wt% to 98 wt% of the mixture, the conductive material is 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% of the mixture, and the binder is 1 wt% to 3 wt% of the mixture.
Hah Hoe-Jin et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the active material is 96 wt% to 98 wt% of the mixture (0082), the conductive material is 0.1 wt% to 2 wt% of the mixture (0084), and the binder is 0.5 wt% to 5 wt% of the mixture (0019; 0054).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to insert the teachings of Hah Hoe-Jin into the teachings of Raman because Hah Hoe-Jin teaches a claimed amount of particles, and a claimed particle size, and the method of crushing or fiberization, “may play a more important role in improving the durability of the electrode.” (0004).
Regarding claim 8, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: in the calendering (0008; 0052; 0058-0060) of the minute powder (0051) into the free-standing film (0007; 0026; 0044), the free-standing film is formed into the free-standing film (0052; 0060).
Raman does not teach a calendering speed of 15 m/min to 30 m/min.
However, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955. Moreover, "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Regarding claim 9, Raman et al., teaches manufacturing method of the dry electrode (abstract; 0006-0009) as claimed in claim 1, and teaches the first crushing (first fibrillied) (0009) and the second crushing (second fibrillized) (0009).
Raman does not teach performed for a crushing time (fibrillation; fibrosis) (0004; 0042).
However, although Raman and Hah Hoe-Jin do not teach a crushing time of 30 min/kg to 45 min/kg, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 12, Raman et al., does not teach a manufacturing method of the dry electrode as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the crushing time of the second crushing is 100% to 300% of the crushing time of the first crushing.
However, Raman teaches “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights