DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 22 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The battery claim is independent or distinct because the battery structure of claim 22 could be made by another materially different process, such as solvent casting of electrode materials. There would have been burden at least in light of fact that the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter (battery or electrode versus fluidizing process) or the inventions require a different field of search.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 22 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Rejections over Koo and Kurihara
Claims 15, 16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (US 20200044257) in view of Kurihara (US 20050058907).
As to claim 15, Koo teaches an electrode manufacturing method ([0127]-[0128]). Koo mixes ([0053], mixing requires a mixer) an electrode active material ([0012], fourth line), a conductive agent ([0012], fourth line), and a binder ([0012], fifth line) to manufacture a dry electrode mixture and forming the dry electrode mixture as a dry electrode film using a roll press ([0059]).
Koo teaches applying high shear force to the dry electrode mixture ([0053]), but is silent to mixing the manufactured dry electrode mixture with a fluid using a fluidization apparatus to fluidize mixture.
Kurihara teaches mixing an electrode mixture with a fluid ([0072], air, nitrogen, inert gas) using a fluidization apparatus (Fig. 3) to fluidize the mixture.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Kurihara fluidization apparatus and fluid into Koo because this is a simple substitution of one known mixing element/process for another. The prior art of Koo contained a mixing device which differed from the claimed mixing device by the use of a fluidization apparatus and fluid to perform mixing. The substituted component and its function – a fluidization apparatus and fluid for mixing electrode materials – was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the Kurihara fluidization apparatus and fluid for the high shear force mixer already taught by Koo and the result would have been predictable (mixing of the components).
As to claim 16, Koo already teaches rolling the mixture on a current collector ([0012]) which meets the claimed laminating. As to claim 18, Kurihara already provides to the combination air or nitrogen ([0072]).
As to claim 19, Koo teaches an electrode manufacturing method ([0127]-[0128]). Koo teaches mixing ([0053]) an electrode active material ([0012], fourth line), a conductive agent ([0012], fourth line), and a binder ([0012], fifth line) to form a dry electrode mixture and forming the dry electrode mixture as a dry electrode film using a roll press ([0059]).
Koo teaches applying high shear force to the dry electrode mixture ([0053]), but is silent to mixing the manufactured dry electrode mixture with a fluid to fluidize mixture.
Kurihara teaches mixing an electrode mixture with a fluid ([0072], air, nitrogen, inert gas) using a fluidization apparatus (Fig. 3) to fluidize the mixture.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Kurihara fluidization apparatus and fluid into Koo because this is a simple substitution of one known mixing element/process for another. The prior art of Koo contained a mixing device which differed from the claimed mixing device by the use of a fluidization apparatus and fluid to perform mixing. The substituted component and its function – a fluidization apparatus and fluid for mixing electrode materials – was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the Kurihara fluidization apparatus and fluid for the high shear force mixer already taught by Koo and the result would have been predictable (mixing of the components).
As to claim 20, Koo already provides a solvent-free mixture (see “dry” in [0012]) comprising an electrode active material ([0012], fourth line), a conductive agent ([0012], fourth line), and a binder ([0012], fifth line). As to claim 21, Kurihara teaches that the amount of fluid supplied to the fluidization apparatus is adjusted ([0045]), and the amount of electrode mixture supplied to the fluidization apparatus is adjusted ([0045]), and therefore both represent result effective variables. One would have adjusted both compositions simultaneously in order to produce an optimum particle for an electrode.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (US 20200044257) in view of Kurihara (US 20050058907), and further in view of Klecka (US 20160221084). Koo and Kurihara teach the subject matter of claim 15 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 17, Kurihara provides to the combination a fluidized bed configured to receive the electrode mixture, but does not specifically show the fluid inlet and fluid outlet for introducing/discharging the fluid.
Klecka teaches a fluidized bed for spheroidizing a powder with a fluid inlet (Fig. 2, item 33) through which fluid enters the chamber and a fluid outlet (Fig. 2, item 36) through which fluid in the chamber is discharged.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Klecka technique to the existing Kurihara fluidized bed for to improve the Kurihara device in the same way. The prior art provides a base device/process of Kurihara upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by providing a fluid inlet and outlet. The prior art of Klecka contained a comparable fluidized bed improved in the same way as the claimed invention by providing a fluid inlet and outlet. One of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known improvement (fluid inlet and outlet) to the Kurihara device to provide the predictable result that the gas could be continuously circulated and heated (Klecka, item 44) to the desired temperature.
Rejections over Koo and Klecka
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (US 20200044257) in view of Klecka (US 20160221084).
As to claim 15, Koo teaches an electrode manufacturing method ([0127]-[0128]). Koo mixes ([0053], mixing requires a mixer) an electrode active material ([0012], fourth line), a conductive agent ([0012], fourth line), and a binder ([0012], fifth line) to manufacture a dry electrode mixture and forming the dry electrode mixture as a dry electrode film using a roll press ([0059]).
Koo teaches applying high shear force to the dry electrode mixture ([0053]), but is silent to mixing the manufactured dry electrode mixture with a fluid using a fluidization apparatus to fluidize mixture.
Klecka teaches mixing a powder or mixture of powder ([0022]) with a fluid ([0023]) using a fluidization apparatus (Fig. 2) to fluidize the mixture.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Klecka fluidization apparatus and fluid into Koo because this is a simple substitution of one known mixing element/process for another. The prior art of Koo contained a (shear) mixing device which differed from the claimed mixing device by the use of a fluidization apparatus and fluid to perform mixing. The substituted component and its function – a fluidization apparatus and fluid for mixing and spheroidizing powder materials – was known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the Klecka fluidization apparatus and fluid for the high shear force mixer already taught by Koo and the result would have been predictable (mixing and spheroidizing of the components to improve powder flow, see Klecka [0016]).
As to claim 16, Koo already teaches rolling the mixture on a current collector ([0012]) which meets the claimed laminating. As to claim 17, Klecka already teaches a fluidized bed with a chamber (Fig. 2, item 24) that receives powder, a fluid inlet (Fig. 2, item 33) through which fluid enters the chamber and a fluid outlet (Fig. 2, item 36) through which fluid in the chamber is discharged.
. As to claim 18, Klecka already provides to the combination nitrogen ([0023]).
As to claim 19, Koo teaches an electrode manufacturing method ([0127]-[0128]). Koo teaches mixing ([0053]) an electrode active material ([0012], fourth line), a conductive agent ([0012], fourth line), and a binder ([0012], fifth line) to form a dry electrode mixture and forming the dry electrode mixture as a dry electrode film using a roll press ([0059]).
Koo teaches applying high shear force to the dry electrode mixture ([0053]), but is silent to mixing the manufactured dry electrode mixture with a fluid to fluidize mixture.
As to claim 20, Koo already provides a solvent-free mixture (see “dry” in [0012]) comprising an electrode active material ([0012], fourth line), a conductive agent ([0012], fourth line), and a binder ([0012], fifth line). As to claim 21, Klecka teaches controlling an amount and flow rate of gas supplied to the chamber ([0024]) with respect to the powder to produce powder spheroidization. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the gas flow rate would have been an obvious result effective variable, and one would have optimized the gas flow rate to provide optimum powder spheroidization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 5, Applicant argues that Koo fails to disclose or suggest mixing the extrude mixture with a fluidization apparatus, Kurihara fails to disclose fluidization because Kurihara spray dries a material solution onto the particles, rather than a dry mixture. On page 6 Applicant argues that the combination would only provide shear mixing then fluidization. On page 6, Applicant argues that Klecka provides heating of an already shear mixed electrode mixture.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Koo was relied upon for other features besides the fluidization apparatus. The Examiner notes that the rejection is based upon a simple substitution of one known mixing element/process for another (11/14/25 rejection at page 3), which does not appear to be addressed. Regarding Kurihara, as claimed, only the dry electrode mixture must be dry. The claim does not preclude introducing other substances with the dry electrode mixture. The rejection over Koo and Klecka similar takes the position that the claimed invention is a simple substitution of one known mixing element/process for another, and this rationale does not appear to be addressed.
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 MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights