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 amendment filed 10/16/25 has been considered and entered. Claims 2,3 and 17-20 have been canceled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1,4-16 and 21 remain in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Considering the amendment filed 10/16/25, the 35 USC 112 rejection over claim 6 and the 35 USC 102 rejections have been withdrawn, however, the following rejection has been necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12 and 21 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 12, the claim is confusing as to when the “dispensing a second electrode powder as a second layer directly over the first layer” is unclear and confusing as to whether the first powder is applied by vibrating and then the second powder is added to the dispensing unit or if the second powder is added while the first powder is on the dispensing unit and then both are vibrated to dispense the first and second powders? Clarification is requested. (see claim 13; The Examiner suggest incorporating claim 13 into claim 12 to overcome the rejection).
Regarding claim 21, the claim depends upon a canceled claim and therefore is improper.
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: See restriction filed 6/18/25 and election filed 7/31/25.
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 Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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
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.
Claims 1,4,5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979.
Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) teaches electrode formation from a powdered mixture. Particles of active electrode material such as fibrillized mixture of carbon or binder are deposited onto a current collector sheet and processed in a high-pressure nip such as a calendar (abstract). Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) teaches the current collector is metallic [0056]. Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) teaches the one or more rollers can be heated [0023]-[0025].
Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) teaches a method of manufacturing lithium-ion secondary battery electrode by supplying composite particles (1) including active material (2) and binder (4) onto a sheet collector (42) and rolling the composite particles (1) supplied on the current collector (42) thus forming active material film (44) (abstract). Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) teaches the roll process includes heat-rolling [0101]. Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) teaches a metal foil such as aluminum foil for the current collector [0042].
Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) fail to teach a powder dispensing unit including a frame having a sieve and vibrating the dispensing unit to apply the particles to the current collector.
Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) teaches a method to coat electrode materials to substrates in battery manufacturing process. Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) teaches a powder application module configured to precisely control the volume and rate of dry powder mixture (124) dispensed onto conductive substate (106) including a powder hopper including a frame (502) and secures a sieve screen/mesh (506) whereby vibrations are applied to the powder hopper (502) by the vibrator (508) thereby causing particles of the dry mixture (124) to be dispersed from the bottom out through the sieve screen (506) and onto the conductive substrate (106) [0030].
Yoda et al. (12/272,811) teaches a method of manufacturing a battery electrode including a powder supply step, a vibration step, a sorting step and a moving step and a deposition step in the powder supply step a powder (60) composed of granulated particles is supplied in the vibration step, vibration is applied to the powder in the sorting step the powder is caused to pass through at least one opening (H1,H2) to adjust a particle diameter of the granulated particles to a particle that allows passing through an opening and supplied to the surface of the current collector (31) (abstract). Yoda et al. (12/272,811) teaches sifting the particles with a sieve though a mesh to control the particles applied to the collector (col. 3, lines 20-30 and col 19, lines 17-22 and Fig. 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to have modified either Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) process to include a powder dispensing unit including a mesh/sieve and vibration means to applying the powder to the current collector as evidenced by either Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) with the expectation of controlling the rate and diameters of the powders applied to the current collector thereby improving coating thereon.
Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) fail to teach the supply sieve suspended by springs for holding the powders and then vibrating to dispense the powders though the sieve.
WO 00/33979 teaches apparatus for separating particles according to size whereby a mesh screen is suspended by springs whereby the particles are held on the mesh screen prior to vibration which sends the particles through the screen
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) by suspending the mesh/screen/sieve with springs as evidenced by WO 00/33979 with the expectation of separating the particle based on size.
Regarding claim 11, the claimed window frame is met by the sieve/mesh by which the particles are applied and if too big they would by either crushed or broken up which would meet the claimed “reapplied’.
Claims 6-9,12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 further in combination Yao et al. (2023/0170471).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 are incorporated here.
Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 fails to teach applying a second electrode powder tot eh first electrode powder to form a multilayered electrode.
Yao et al. (2023/0170471) teaches a patterned multilayered electrode comprising a first active material layer and a second active layer material and subsequent calendaring to form the multilayered electrode and the active layers are formed by dry coating (solventless) (abstract, [0086]-[0087] and Fig. 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified either Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 process to form a second active layer on top of the first active layer as evidenced by Yao et al. (2023/0170471) with the expectation of producing a multilayered electrode.
Regarding claim 7, Yao et al. (2023/0170471) teaches a second active particle size which would infer or include the size is different [0087].
Regarding claim 8, Yao et al. (2023/0170471) teaches first layer to include active material and binder along with a conductive material and a second layer including a second active material and binder which would meet the claimed different than the first layer as no conductive material as well as the active material being different.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, the second active layer can be patterned which would have thickness variations [0091].
Regarding claim 12, Yao et al. (2023/0170471) teaches a patterned multilayered electrode comprising a first active material layer and a second active layer material and subsequent calendaring to form the multilayered electrode and the active layers are formed by dry coating (solventless) (abstract, [0086]-[0087] and Fig. 11)
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 further in combination Yao et al. (2023/0170471).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 are incorporated here.
Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 fails to teach applying a second electrode powder tot eh first electrode powder to form a multilayered electrode.
Yao et al. (2023/0170471) teaches a patterned multilayered electrode comprising a first active material layer and a second active layer material and subsequent calendaring to form the multilayered electrode and the active layers are formed by dry coating (solventless) (abstract, [0086]-[0087] and Fig. 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified either Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) process to form a second active layer on top of the first active layer as evidenced by Yao et al. (2023/0170471) with the expectation of producing a multilayered electrode.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites a transducer for vibrating while the references teach a vibrator or vibration generator. The Examiner takes the position that the use of a transducer for vibration is commonplace in the art and one skilled in the art would have had an expectation of producing similar results (vibrations) regardless of the means for providing the vibrations absent a showing of unexpected results with a transducer vs a vibrator.
Claims 10 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 further in combination with Kadotani et al. (7,455,888).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 are incorporated here.
Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 fails to teach applying the powder through a patterning screen before it hits the current collector.
Kadotani et al. (7,455,888) teaches a method of forming a catalyst layer including a cathode powder being applied to a substrate and passing through a screen (5) prior to hitting the substrate (2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one skilled in the art to have modified Zhong et al. (2012/0040243) or Suzuki et al. (2017/0256781) either in combination with Devaraj et al. (2024/0327990) or Yoda et al. (12/272,811) further in combination with WO 00/33979 process to provide a screen between the hopper/powder supply and the substrate as evidenced by Kadotani et al. (7,455,888) with the expectation of controlling the application of the powder to desired areas as well as controlling the rate and/or size of the powders applied.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argued prior art fails to teach the supply sieve suspended by springs for holding the powders and then vibrating to dispense the powders though the sieve.
WO 00/33979 teaches this as detailed above.
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 BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30-5PM - Fri OFF.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights