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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d)
with a filing date of 09/29/2021. The certified copy of JP2021-160036 has been filed in the present
application, received on 02/19/2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “wherein an addition means in addition of the composition in operation (ii) is a spray nozzle” is awkwardly worded/unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of this Office action, the examiner is interpreting the limitation to recite – wherein an addition means of the composition in operation (ii) is a spray nozzle --. This interpretation is supported by [0020] of the instant specification.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an addition means…of the composition in operation (ii) is a spray nozzle” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (US PG Pub. 2016/0181023 A1, cited in 02/19/2024 IDS), as evidenced by Suzuki (US PG pub. 2007/0003836 A1) and in view of Ohkoshi (US 4,511,093 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Goto discloses a method of producing composite particles, that is Goto teaches a method for producing granulated particles which one with ordinary skill in the art would understand to be composite particles; because, Goto teaches forming the particles using a granulator, which kneads and crushes a mixture of active material particles , binder dispersion, and conductive agent together ([0015 – 0017];[0026];[0043]), and as evidenced by Suzuki, contacting active material particles with conductive additive and a binder dispersion through a granulating step forms composite particles having a structure where the electrode active material particles are bound to conductive additive through the binder (Suzuki: [0092];[0098];[0161]).
Goto further discloses the method performed inside of a granulation tank (granulator 2, Fig. 1; [0046];[0109]) and the method comprising in stated order:
(i) stirring (dry-blending) a powder material containing an electrode active material (mixture of LCO-based active material and acetylene black) to place the powder material in a stirred state (Example 2; [0109])
(ii) adding (spraying) a composition containing a binder and a solvent (arylate-based polymer dispersion) to the powder material in the stirred state to obtain pre-composite particles (Example 2; [0026];[0109])
(iii) stirring (kneading and crushing) the pre-composite particles after addition of the composition is complete to perform particle adjustment and obtain composite particles (Example 2; [0077];[0109]).
The granulator {i.e. corresponds to claimed granulation tank} in Goto is shown to include two agitators (Refer to kneading blade 6 and crushing blade 8, Fig. 1; [0057 – 0058];[0065 – 0066]), which is within the claimed scope of two or more agitators.
In the instant specification, “different stirring axes to one another” is defined to mean that an angle θ formed by the stirring axes is not less than 20° and not more than 90° (See Instant Specification: [0021]). As such, by having the kneading blade and crushing blade parallel to one another on the same side of the granulator, Goto does not explicitly disclose two agitators having different stirring axes to one another.
Ohkoshi, directed to a mixer-granulator apparatus capable of mixing (dispersing), granulating, and drying powder materials for various applications (Col. 1, lines 29 – 35), teaches a granulator including a vessel having main mixing-granulator impeller blades 6 and auxiliary mixing-granulating blades 7 (Refer to Fig. 2; Col. 1, lines 62 – 66). In Ohkoshi, the main blades function to the mix material powders and binder and aid in the agglomeration of the particles while the auxiliary blades, like the crushing blade of Goto, function to reduce the agglomerated particle sizes by breaking action (Col. 4, lines 8 – 21). The auxiliary blades 2 are also taught to be mounted on a side wall of the vessel above the proximity or the proximity points of the ends of the main rotary mixing granulating blades 6 which are located in a central region of the vessel (Refer to Fig. 2; Col. 2, lines 9 – 18). The configuration of the auxiliary blades in relation to the main blades is taught by Ohkoshi to allow for more intimate mixing within a short period of time (Col. 3, lines 50 – 59).
Since Goto also teaches using a multi-functional granulator including two agitators that differ in function {i.e. kneading blade 6 primarily functions to the tank components and crushing blade 8 primarily functions to break up the particles for sizing purposes}, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tank taught by Goto to include crushing blade 8 on a side wall of the tank {i.e. on an axis perpendicular to the axis of the kneading blade 6}, as taught by Ohkoshi, and thus obtain the claimed agitators having different stirring axes to one another, because such a modification is a rearrangement of parts with respect to the blade that, as taught and shown by Ohkoshi, is a position for agitator blades known/recognized to still allow for the function of breaking up/crushing agglomerated particles and further would have a reasonable expectation of success in allowing for more efficient mixing [See MPEP 2144.04(VI)].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Goto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Goto further teaches adding the binder dispersion {i.e. corresponds to claimed composition comprising a binder and a solvent} to the dry-mixed particles of LCO-based active material and acetylene black conductive additive {i.e. corresponds to claimed powder material} by spraying ([0109]), but does not explicitly teach/disclose the means used to spray the binder dispersion.
As such, modified Goto does not explicitly disclose wherein an addition means of the composition in operation (ii) is a spray nozzle.
Ohkoshi further teaches including a granulating-binder supply nozzle 10 with the mixer-granulator apparatus for the purpose of supplying binder to the material powders (Col. 1, lines 62 – 66; Col. 3, lines 66 – 67; Col. 4, lines 1 – 4).
Therefore, since Goto also teaches supplying binder to a particle mixture included in a granulator tank and further teaches supplying the binder by spraying, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a spray nozzle to supply the binder dispersion, as taught by Ohkoshi, with a reasonable expectation of success in supplying the binder to the active material and conductive additive mixture included in the granulator tank and in the manner desired by Goto.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Goto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Goto further discloses wherein a temperature inside the granulation tank is 40°C (Example 2; [0109]) throughout operations (i) to (iii), which is within the claimed scope of lower than 50°C.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Goto discloses all limitations as set forth above. Goto further discloses a method for producing an electrode for an electrochemical device ([0112]) comprising; producing the particles according to the method of producing composite particles according to claim 1 (Refer to Goto: [0109] and rejection to claim 1 above); and pressure forming the composite particles that have been produced on an electrode substrate to form an electrode mixture layer, that is Goto teaches roll pressing and pressure moulding the granulated particles onto aluminum foil to form an a positive electrode having a positive electrode active material layer ([0112]).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (US PG Pub. 2016/0181023 A1, cited in 02/19/2024 IDS), Suzuki (US PG pub. 2007/0003836 A1) and Ohkoshi (US 4,511,093 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fuji (WO2013118758A1, Machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Goto discloses all limitations as set forth above. With respect to the solvent of the binder dispersion, Goto generally teaches that any one of water and an organic solvent can be used ([0052]).
Modified Goto does not explicitly disclose utilizing a non-aqueous solvent having a low boiling point of 95°C at 1 atm.
Fuji, directed to forming composite active material particles through granulation ([0013 – 0014]), also teaches utilizing a binder dispersed in a solvent to form the composite particles, and further specifically teaches, as an alternative to water, that organic solvents can be used ([0039];[0053]). Fuji further teaches that using a solvent with a boiling point lower than water, which one with ordinary skill in the art would understand to mean less than 100°C at 1 atm, allows for increased drying rate during granulation as well as improved production efficiency ([0053]). Furthermore, Fuji teaches binder materials also taught/exemplified to be used in Goto (Fuji: [0039] and Goto: [0026];[0109])
Therefore, since Goto already suggests using organic solvents as an alternative to water, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize an organic solvent with a boiling point lower than water, as taught by Fuji, and thus an organic solvent encompassing the claimed scope, with a reasonable expectation of success that such a selection would be a suitable solvent for the binder dispersion of Goto [See MPEP 2144.06(II)] and further with a reasonable expectation of success in increasing the drying rate of the particles/improving the production efficiency of Goto’s taught method.
Fuji specifically exemplifies using organic solvents selected from alkyl alcohols such as methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, and propyl alcohol; alkyl ketones such as acetone and methyl ethyl ketone; ethers such as tetrahydrofuran, dioxane, and diglyme; and amides such as diethylformamide, dimethylacetamide, N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, and dimethylimidazolidinone ([0053]). Within Fuji’s taught list of solvents, methyl alcohol {boiling point ≈ 64°C}, ethyl alcohol {boiling point ≈ 78°C}, acetone {boiling point ≈ 56°C}, and methyl ethyl ketone {boiling point ≈ 80°C} have boiling points lower than water and further lower than 95°C at 1 atm {Examiner Note: Boiling points of methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, acetone, and methyl ethyl ketone were obtained from PubChem}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying Goto to include a solvent with a boiling point as taught by Fuji, to select a solvent with a boiling point lower than 95°C at 1 atm {i.e. methyl alcohol, ethyl alcohol, acetone, or methyl ethyl ketone}, and thus within the claimed scope, because such a selection would be a selection of solvent from Fuji’s finite list that would have a reasonable expectation of success in being a suitable solvent for dispersing the binder of Goto [MPEP 2143(I)(E)], and, as taught by Fuji, such a solvent, by having such a low boiling point would allow for more effective drying of the active material and further improved production efficiency (Fuji: [0053]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYANA Y ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5986. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM - 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/A.Y.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 6/24/2026
Prosecution Insights