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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
Claims 3, 10 and 17, “source for the ionization” or “ionization source”, which have been interpreted as a laser, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s published application (paragraph 17). While the published application also notes that the source may be a plasma or corona source, no corresponding structure is taught for the plasma or corona source. The only structure for the ionization source recited in the published application is laser structure. These terms have not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in claims 2, 9 and 18 in view of the recited laser structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the spelling of “calendaring” should be corrected to --calendering--.
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 1-2, 4-9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 2005/0271798 A1) in view of Yang (CN 104993153 A, referencing machine translation) and Huang (CN 218502854 U, refencing machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhong teaches a manufacturing method of calendaring and laminating a solvent-free dry powder mixture of activated carbon, a fibrillizable binder, and conductive carbon that bind to each other, onto a metal current collector sheet to form an electrode (abstract; paragraphs 9, 36-37, 45, 47, 50, 55, and 64). Zhong fails to teach removing an oxidized layer from a surface of a metal current collector via ionization.
However, in related art Yang teaches a manufacturing method which prepares a copper foil current collector for bonding with negative electrode materials, and notes that during pre-treatment the oxide film is removed to restore surface activity of the foil (paragraph 38). Yang does not teach ionization. Conversely, in the related art of removing metal oxides from metal surfaces, Huang teaches a process by which metal oxides on a metal surface absorb laser energy, ionize, and leave the surface (paragraph 16). Huang notes that this method causes less environmental pollution and avoids damaging the metal when compared to sandblasting (paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the manufacturing step of Zhong with the claimed steps because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Yang and Huang.
Regarding claim 2, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 1, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 2 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 4, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 1, and Zhong teaches wherein the metal current collector is a foil (paragraphs 55-56).
Regarding claim 5, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 4, and Zhong teaches wherein the metal current collector is an aluminum foil (paragraphs 55-56).
Regarding claim 6, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 4, and Zhong teaches wherein the metal current collector is a copper foil (paragraphs 55-56).
Regarding claim 7, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 1, and Zhong teaches cutting the electrode into individual electrode assemblies (paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 8, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches all the limitations, see analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 8 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 9, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 8, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 9 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 11, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 8, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 4 above. Claim 11 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 12, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 11, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 5 above. Claim 12 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 13, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 11, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 6 above. Claim 13 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 14, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 8, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 7 above. Claim 14 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 15, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 8, and Zhong teaches wherein the bonding includes laminating (paragraph 64).
Regarding claim 16, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 8, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 1 above. Claim 16 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Yang and Huang as applied to claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-16 above, and further in view of either one of Wang (CN 112705525 A, referencing machine translation) or Lloyd (US 5571335 A).
Regarding claim 3, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the surface and a source for the ionization are separated at a distance with a range of 0 to 1.25m.
However, in the related art of using lasers to clean metal from rust and corrosion, Wang teaches a liquid zoom lens that can change the focal length of a liquid mirror within a certain range, allowing the focal length of the laser beam to change within a range (paragraph 13). As noted above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, a source for the ionization has been interpreted as a laser. Wang notes that as long as the distance between the laser cleaning head device and the cleaning surface is maintained within the laser focal length range, cleaning can be achieved (paragraph 13). Alternatively, in the related art of removing coatings from metal surfaces, Lloyd teaches a laser capable of damaging metal which is spaced apart from the surface of the metal between one-half to two inches, equal to 0.0381 to 0.0508 meters (column 3, lines 1-9; column 7, lines 27-30). Lloyd notes that increasing the distance from the surface of the metal changes the effect on the metal coating, causing pyrolysis separation of the coating from the metal surface rather than ablation of the coating (columns 8, lines 66-67; column 9, lines 1-3). Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to select a suitable distance for surface treatment. Where 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 MPEP 2144.05. Such general conditions are described by Wang, which includes using lenses and mirrors to vary the working distance between the laser source and metal surface, and further by Lloyd, which describes how increasing the distance from the surface will change the effect on the materials coating the surface. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified manufacturing method of Zhong with the claimed distance because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select known suitable distances in the claimed range in accordance with the teachings of Lloyd, or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a distance in the claimed range as a matter of routine experimentation to achieve the desired effects on the metal surface in accordance with the teachings of Wang or Lloyd.
Regarding claim 10, Zhong in view of Yang and Huang teaches the manufacturing method of claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the surface and a source for the ionizing are separated at a distance with a range of 0 to 1.25m. However, Wang or Lloyd teaches this limitation, see analysis from claim 3 above. Claim 10 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong in view of Ping (CN 108987858 A, referencing machine translation).
Regarding claim 17, Zhong teaches a manufacturing method of laminating a solvent-free dry powder mixture of activated carbon, a fibrillizable binder, and conductive carbon that bind to each other, onto a metal current collector sheet to form an electrode (abstract; paragraphs 9, 36-37, 45, 47, 50, 55, and 64). Zhong fails to teach oxidizing a surface of a metal current collector through exposure to an ionization source.
However, in related art Ping teaches a manufacturing method where a high-energy laser beam evaporates and ionizes the surface of a metal current collector, forming a metal plasma that is oxidized in the air and deposited on the surface of the current collector to form an oxide layer with oxygen vacancies (paragraph 20). As noted above under the “Claim Interpretation” heading, an ionization source has been interpreted as a laser. Ping notes that this layer has good adhesion and protects the current collector from corrosion (paragraph 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified manufacturing method of Zhong with the claimed manufacturing step because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Ping.
Regarding claim 18, Zhong in view of Ping teaches the manufacturing method of claim 17, and this limitation, see analysis for claim 17 above. Claim 18 is rejected for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 19, Zhong in view of Ping teaches the manufacturing method of claim 17, and Zhong teaches wherein the metal current collector is a foil (paragraphs 55-56).
Regarding claim 20, Zhong in view of Ping teaches the manufacturing method of claim 17, and Zhong teaches cutting the electrode into individual electrode assemblies (paragraph 20).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAD NAKDALI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 AM - 4:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at (571)-272-1095. 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.
/R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights