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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 13 are pending and rejected. Claims 8-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claim 13 is new.
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 1, 2, 4-7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim states “such that the powder is applied the layer to the current collector” in line 16, such that the claim is grammatically incorrect making the claim unclear. It is unclear whether the powder is applied as a layer to the current collector or whether “the layer” (from line 8) of powder formed on the second roller is applied to the current collector. For the purposes of examination, having powder transferred from the second roller to the current collector is considered to meet the claimed requirements. Since none the dependent claims remedy the clarity of claim 1, they are also rendered indefinite.
Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, KR 102359521 B1 (provided on the IDS of 7/10/2024) in view of Althues, US 2021/0320288 A1 (provided on the IDS of 9/3/2024).
The following citations for Kim, KR 102359521 B1 are in reference to the machine translation provided in the IDS of 7/10/2024.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Kim provides a method for manufacturing dry electrodes on a current collector with the aid of a roller system (a dry coating device that forms an electrode active material layer by coating a dry coating material on the surface of a current collector of an electrode, where the device uses rollers, 0001, 0007, and Fig. 1), the roller system comprising at least three rollers, the current collector is arranged between a second roller of the at least three rollers and a third roller of the at least three rollers (where the device includes a first roller (111) and a second roller (112) that rotate in different directions and are installed adjacently with a predetermined gap, 0008, 0022-0023, and Fig. 1, where the device also includes a third roller (131) and a fourth roller (132) that are installed parallel to the first roller and the second roller, but rotate in different directions and are installed adjacently with a predetermined gap, 0008, 0027, and Fig. 1, where the current collector (400) is between the second and fourth roller, 0022 and Fig. 1, therefore Kim’s first and second roller correspond to the claimed first and second roller and Kim’s fourth roller corresponds to the claimed third roller), the method comprising:
rotating a first roller of the at least three rollers and the second roller in opposite rotational directions (where the first roller and the second roller rotate in opposite directions, 0023 and Fig. 1);
pouring powder into a calender gap formed by the first rotating roller and the second rotating roller, the powder being carried on the second roller (where a first material supply unit (120) supplies the dry coating material between the first roller and the second roller, 0026 and Fig. 1, where there is a gap or interval between the first and second roller to which the material is supplied, 0008, 0022-0023, and Fig. 1, where the speed of the rollers is controlled so that the dry coating material moves smoothly in one direction to a fiberized film 300 on the second roller, 0024 and Fig. 1, and where the dry material is a powder, 0038, such that the dry or powder material will be poured into the gap between the rollers so as to be carried on the second roller to the current collector);
triggering a signal with the aid of a control unit for setting a laminating gap between the second roller and the third roller, the third roller and/or the first roller and the second roller moving toward each other in a direction of the current collector (where a gap adjustment unit is driven by a control unit to set the gap between the first roller (111) and the second roller (112) by pushing or pulling the first roller, 0031 and Fig. 1 and where a third gap adjusting unit (170) adjusts the gap between the second roller (112) and the fourth roller (132), i.e., the claimed third roller, that is controlled by a control unit so as to move rollers 111 and 112 in a direction perpendicular to their rotation axes, 0033, 0055, and Fig. 1, therefore, a triggering signal of some sort will be applied to the control unit to cause the laminating gap between the claimed second and third roller to move towards or away from each other and towards or away from the current collector to set the gap and/or the gap between the first and second roller will be set by triggering a signal of some sort to the control unit for setting the gap, where the first roller can be pushed towards the second so as to move towards the current collector);
rotating at least the third roller of the at least three rollers in the opposite direction of the second roller (where the third roller (Kim’s fourth roller) rotates in the opposite direction of the second roller, Fig. 1); and
moving the current collector through the laminating gap, the laminating gap being set such that the powder is applied as a thin layer to the current collector for forming the dry electrodes (where the process is continues for 25 hours with the current collector being between the gap between the claimed third and second rollers (rollers 132 and 112), 0062, where the material forms a layer on the current collector, 0022 and Fig. 1, such that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the current collector will move through the gap so that a layer of the dry material is applied to the current collector because it will provide a continuous process and because the rollers are moving to form the layer, 0024, 0028, and Fig. 1).
They do not teach that prior to triggering the signal to set the laminating gap such that the powder is applied as the layer to the current collector, a defective layer of the powder carried on the second roller is removed via a removal device arranged downstream from the laminating gap in the rotational direction.
Althues teaches a method for producing a dry film, wherein a dry powder mixture is processed into the dry film by a rolling devices comprising a first roller (2a) and a second roller (2b) (abstract and Fig. 2). They teach that a dry powder mixture is fed out of a powder conveyor into the nip between a first calender roll and a second calender roll (0022 and Fig. 2). They teach that the substrate is fed through between two rolling devices (0042). They teach that the substrate is a metallic material to be able to serve as an electrode for an energy storage unit (0019). They teach using an adhesion-enhancing primer layer on the substrate such that only those places where the primer is provided are layered with the dry film and excess dry film not transferred to the substrate is removed from the first calender roll to be reprocessed and reused (0025). They teach that using this process, optional geometries can be realized with good precision without reduction of the process speeds (0025). They teach that such intermittent coating is desirable in battery applications (0024).
From the teachings of Althues, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim to have used an adhesion-enhancing primer on the current collector to have intermittently deposited the dry material and to have removed the excess material from the second roller because Althues teaches that such intermittent coating is desirable in batteries and such a process provides optional geometries can be realized with good precision without reduction of the process speeds. Therefore, the process will further comprise removing the defective layer of powder (i.e., material that is not coated on to the current collector) carried on the second roller via a removal device (i.e., whatever removes the material from the roller), where it will be arranged downstream from the laminating gap in the rotation direction because it will be removed after contacting the substrate for reprocessing. Further, since they suggest removing the powder to be reprocessed and removed, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have collected the powder using the removal device so that the powder can then undergo reprocessing.
As to removing the material before triggering the signal to set the laminating gap, Kim further teaches measuring the thickness of the electrode active material layer formed every 5 hours and adjusting the gap between each roller if there is a thickness deviation (0065). Therefore, they will trigger the signal to start the process and the defective material will be removed from the second roller prior to triggering another signal to set the gap, where the gap is set to be moved toward or away from the collector such that it is considered to include the option of being moved towards each other in the direction of the current collector.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Althues suggests the process of claim 1. They further teach measuring the thickness of the electrode active material layer formed every 5 hours and adjusting the gap between each roller if there is a thickness deviation (0065). Therefore, the signal for setting a laminating gap between the second roller and the third roller is triggered after a predetermined time, i.e., after 5 hours.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Althues as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mimura, US 2022/0278307 A1.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Althues suggests the process of claim 1. Kim further teaches adjusting the gap between the first roller (111) and the second roller (112) to control the thickness of the fiberized film (300) converted from the dry coating material (0031 and Fig. 1), where the dry coating material is converted into a fiberized film (300) when passing between the first and second rollers (0038 and Fig. 1). Therefore, they teach controlling the thickness of the film on the second roller by adjusting the gap between the first and second rollers. They teach adjusting the gap between the second roller (112) and roller (132) (claimed third roller) to control the thickness of the electrode active material layer 300a formed on the current collector (0033).
They do not teach adjusting the laminating gaps based on a thickness measured on the second roller.
Mimura teaches detecting the film thickness of the mixture coated film and adjusting the ratio of the rotation speed of the third roll relative to the rotation speed of the second roll based on the film thickness of the mixture coated film (0008). They teach that film thickness sensor 40 is used to detect the film thickness of a mixture coated film B attached to the second roll 20 (0027 and Fig. 1). They teach that the information detected by the thickness sensors is sent to the controller, which controls the operations of the first, second and third roll (0027-0028 and Fig. 1). They teach that the controller controls the rotations speeds of the first roll, the second roll, and the third roll based on the results from the thickness sensors (0028). They teach that the feedback control adjusts the S3/S2 (speed of the third roll and the speed of the second roll) based on the detection results of the film thickness sensor to make the thickness uniform (0042). They teach that adjusting the speeds of the rolls makes the film thickness of the electrode mixture layer D2 uniform (0042 and Fig. 1).
They teach that the controller may have the function of adjusting the clearance between rolls by moving the rotary shafts 12, 22, and 32 of the roller (0028). They teach that the clearance between the first roll and the second roll is appropriately adjusted in consideration of the components and forms of the electrode material A so that the mixture coated film B with a desired film thickness can be formed (0032).
Therefore, Mimura teaches measuring the film thickness on the second roller and adjusting the speed of the second and third rollers to adjust the thickness of the layer formed on the current collector and they teach adjusting the gap of the first and second rollers to provide the desired thickness of the layer on the second roller.
From the teachings of Kim and Mimura, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measured the thickness of the powder that has become a thin layer on the second roller and triggered the signal for setting the laminating gas via the control unit based on the thickness to adjust the laminating gap between the third roller and/or the first roller and the second roller because Kim teaches changing the gap between the claimed third and second rollers and the gap between the first and second roller to control the thickness on the current collector and the second roller and Mimura teaches measuring the film thickness on the second roller and performing adjustments based on the thickness to provide the desired thickness on the current collector, where the gap between the first and second roller can be adjusted to provide the desired thickness such that it will be expected to provide a suitable method of controlling the thickness on the current collector and/or the second roller for forming a uniform electrode. Specifically, since Mimura teaches that measuring the film thickness on the second roller is used to adjust the process to achieve a desirable thickness on the current collector and Kim teaches adjusting roller gaps to provide the desired thickness, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have measured the thickness on the second roller as a means of determining whether the gap needs to be adjusted because Mimura teaches that such a measurement is desirable in determining if the system needs to be adjusted for quality control.
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Althues and Mimura suggests the process of claim 2.
Mimura further teaches detecting the film thickness of the mixture coated film and adjusting the ratio of the rotation speed of the third roll relative to the rotation speed of the second roll based on the film thickness of the mixture coated film (0008). They teach that film thickness sensor 40 is used to detect the film thickness of a mixture coated film B attached to the second roll 20 (0027 and Fig. 1). They teach that the information detected by the thickness sensors is sent to the controller, which controls the operations of the first, second and third roll (0027-0028 and Fig. 1). They teach that the controller controls the rotations speeds of the first roll, the second roll, and the third roll based on the results from the thickness sensors (0028). They teach that the feedback control adjusts the S3/S2 (speed of the third roll and the speed of the second roll) based on the detection results of the film thickness sensor to make the thickness uniform (0042). They teach adjusting S3/S2 by changing the speed of one or both of the second and third rolls (0066). Therefore, Mimura teaches changing the rotational speed of the second roller and/or the third roller with the aid of the control unit based on the ascertained thickness of the powder which has become a thin layer on the second roll.
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have also adjusted the rotational speed of the second roller and/or the third roller via the control unit based on the ascertained thickness of the powder because Mimura teaches that adjusting the rotational speed of such rollers helps to make the thickness uniform such that it will also be expected to help control the thickness of the electrode layer.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Althues as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda, US 2025/0108580 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Althues suggest the process of claim 1.
They do not teach the features of claim 7.
Maeda teaches a green compact forming device that includes a reservoir of powder; a first forming roll and a second forming roll structure to be adjacent to each other at a predetermined interval, the powder fed to a gap between the two rolls, the powder compressed into a sheet shape by rotation of the two rolls to form a green compact, the second forming roll supporting and conveying the green compact on a circumferential surface; a first information acquisitor structured to acquire powder information regarding an amount of the powder stored in the reservoir; and a controller structured to control a circumferential speed of the second forming roll based on the powder information (abstract and Fig. 1). They teach that the powder is a dry powder (0020), where it can be an electrode mixture for a battery (0038). They teach that the device is designed so that the green compact has a final thickness on the circumferential surface of the stretching and conveying roll adjacent to the forming roll (0026 and Fig. 1). They teach that the first information acquisitor acquires powder information regarding the amount of the powder stored in a reservoir and sends the information to the controller (0027 and Fig. 1). They teach that the controller controls the circumferential speed of the second forming roll based on the powder information received from the first information acquisitor (0028). They teach that the controller increases the circumferential speed of the second forming roll when the amount of the powder stored in the reservoir decreases so that the basis weight of the compact can be uniform (0032). They teach that when the speed of the roll is increased, the discharge rate of the powder increases and the amount of the powder fed to the gap tends to increase (0030). They teach that a second information acquisitor acquired basis weight information of a green compact on the circumferential surface of two or more rolls of the second forming roll and the conveying roll (0051-0052 and Fig. 3). They teach that when the basis weight or thickness is smaller than the design value, the circumferential speed of the second forming roll is increased so that the discharge rate of the powder can be increased (0045). They teach that the speed of the rolls can be determined by information on the basis weight on the plurality of rolls but also on the powder information (0057 and Fig. 4). Therefore, Maeda teaches determining the speed of a discharge roll based on information of the quantity of powder in a reservoir that is poured into a calender gap and the basis weight of the powder, i.e., density, or the amount of powder quantity that has been poured into the gap and travelled along the roll so as to provide a uniform thickness and basis weight.
From the teachings of Maeda, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Kim in view of Althues to have poured the powder to the gap using a reservoir as in the process of Maeda and to have ascertained the quantity of power that has been poured into the calendar gap as in the amount in the reservoir and/or the amount of powder poured to the gap and compressed by the rollers (basis weight) because Maeda teaches that determining these amounts helps to adjust process parameters for providing a uniform basis weight and thickness such that it will be expected to improve the uniformity of the process. Further, since Kim teaches changing the gap between the rollers to provide the desired thickness, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have triggered the signal to the controller to change the gap distance based on the ascertained powder quantity because Maeda teaches that such a measurement is useful in determining whether a uniform thickness has been provided and Kim teaches that changing gap thickness changes the thickness of the film such that it will be expected to improve the uniformity of the process. Therefore, in the process of Kim in view of Althues and Maeda, the powder quantity which has been poured into the calender gap (in the form of the reservoir or the basis weight) will be ascertained and in the process of Kim in view of Althues and Maeda, the signal will be triggered based on the ascertained powder quantity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is rejected because it is 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 as long as the 112(b) issues of claim 1 are remedied.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest the features of instant claim 13 wherein during the removal of the defective layer of the powder carried on the second roller, the laminating gap is larger than when the laminating gap is set such that the powder is applied as the layer to the current collector, and wherein during the removal of the defective layer of the powder carried on the second roller, the current collector is not moved through the laminating gap. As noted above, Kim teaches triggering a signal to set the lamination gap every 5 hours, where Althues provides the suggestion to intermittently apply the electrode material, such that the material that is not applied to the current collector is removed from the second roller. Therefore, the prior art does not teach or suggest removing the defective material from the second roller prior to triggering the signal, where the current collector is not moved through the laminating gap during the removal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 11/21/2025 have been fully considered.
In light of the amendment to the specification, the previous drawing objections have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendment to the claims, the previous 112(b) rejection have been withdrawn, however, a new rejection has been made due to the claim amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument over the combination of Kim and Althues, as written, the claim does not require that the material is removed before any of the powder is applied to the current collector, only that the material is removed prior to triggering a signal to set the lamination gap. Since Kim teaches adjusting the gap every 5 hours, material will be removed from the roller prior to triggering the signal to adjust the gap at the 5-hour mark.
In light of the amendments, the previous rejection using Mimura as the primary reference has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718