DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 4, 2026 has been entered.
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 dry 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 where the electrode active material and conductive agent would be connected by the binder. Subsequently, Koo performs high shear mixing ([0053], high shear force) and then supplies the dry electrode mixture to a roll press ([0059]) and forming the dry electrode mixture into a dry electrode film using the roll press ([0059], “mixture and current collector receives pressure from the roll”).
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” application 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 manufacture a dry electrode mixture. Subsequently, Koo performs high shear mixing ([0053], high shear force) which would complex the dry electrode mixture. Koo then supplies the dry electrode mixture to a roll press ([0059]) interpreted to be “right after mixing” and forming the dry electrode mixture into a dry electrode film using the roll press ([0059], “mixture and current collector receives pressure from the roll”).
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” application 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 15-21 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 dry 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 where the electrode active material and conductive agent would be connected by the binder. Subsequently, Koo performs high shear mixing ([0053], high shear force) and then supplies the dry electrode mixture to a roll press ([0059]) and forming the dry electrode mixture into a dry electrode film using the roll press ([0059], “mixture and current collector receives pressure from the roll”).
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 manufacture a dry electrode mixture. Subsequently, Koo performs high shear mixing ([0053], high shear force) which would complex the dry electrode mixture. Koo then supplies the dry electrode mixture to a roll press ([0059]) interpreted to be “right after mixing” and forming the dry electrode mixture into a dry electrode film using the roll press ([0059], “mixture and current collector receives pressure from the roll”).
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.
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 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 June 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, Applicant discusses Koo and argues that the instant claims do not merely replace the mixer of Koo with a fluidization apparatus. Instead, Applicant argues that the manufacturing a dry electrode mixture includes that the electrode active material and the conductive agent are connected by the binder. Applicant argues that the claimed fluidization step is not a substitute for the initial mixing step, but is performed after the dry electrode mixture has already been manufactured. In other words, Applicant argues, the fluidization is incorporated into or added after the mixing process performed by the mixer, rather than replacing the mixing process. Applicant argues that Koo deposits a mixture onto a current collector by a scattering method and then applying pressure to the current collector and mixture using a roll press, whereas the instant claims require fluidizing and then supplying the fluidized mixture directly to a roll press to form a dry electrode film without the need to first dispose the mixture on a current collector. In the paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7, Applicant argues that even assuming Kurihara and/or Klecka disclose a fluidization apparatus, this does not cure the deficiencies of Koo.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The language of Koo [0053] must be carefully parsed to understand the Examiner’s position that the claimed invention is an obvious substitution of elements or steps. In [0053] Koo states “preparing a mixture by dry mixing” the same components as claimed in this application. After the semicolon, and indicating to the Examiner that a second step is being performed, Koo states “applying high shear force to the mixture”. Therefore, Koo should be characterized as first mixing, and then applying high shear force to “the mixture”, and Koo appears to be non-limiting in the manner in which high shear should be applied. The Examiner maintains that Kurihara and/or Klecka provide high shear mixing in a manner that would be consistent with (and substitutable for) whatever high shear mixing is actually used in Koo. Thus, it is not the entire mixing process that is substituted, but only the second/subsequent step of high shear mixing. The Examiner maintains that this is what Kurihara and/or Klecka teach.
Furthermore, the Examiner understands the Applicant’s position about roll pressing and the immediate (“right after”) use of the fluidized mixture. Applicant seems to agree that Koo provides a roll press, but argue that the roll pressing of the mixture onto a current collector is distinguishable from what is claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that a current collector is also sent through the roll press does not mean the dry electrode film is not formed by roll pressing. Instead, while forming the dry electrode film by roll pressing, an additional component was also present, and this additional component is also present in Applicant’s claim 16. Stated differently, nothing currently precludes roll pressing during lamination to a current collector.
Additionally, even if the claim is subsequently amended to separate these steps (roll pressing and laminating), the Examiner would request additional information about why the separating of these steps would be a patentable improvement. Combining or reordering steps already disclosed by the prior art is generally obvious where the claim and the prior art arrive at the same product. See MPEP 2144.04.(IV)(C). In particular, while the subheading for MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C) refers to changes in sequence of adding ingredients, the actual cases discussed (especially Rubin) pertain to process steps generally, not simply adding ingredients. At least Rubin is sufficiently similar to the issue in this case since it deals with reordering of steps including laminating. More explanation would be required to overcome the Examiner’s current view that roll pressing separately from a step of laminating would be obvious over roll pressing to form the dry electrode film and laminate to the current collector, such as by showing that any difference in the order of these steps actually produces a different result.
Applicant is invited to contact the Examiner to discuss the claim scope and rejections in an interview if it would assist Applicant in preparing a response.
Conclusion
Although the same references and rejections were used to reject the amended claims, this action is being made non-final.
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