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 .
Claim Interpretation
In Claim 18, based on paragraph 0034 of the instant specification and Fig. 1, the blasting of the step of “calendaring the coating and then blasting the coating” is interpreted to be the same “blasting the coating” of Claim 1.
In Claim 19, “web direction” is interpreted in line with Fig. 1: the direction of the movement of the electrode material.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 14-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Knopse (US 20220285664 A1, cited in the 3/1/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 12, Knopse teaches a method for producing an electrode for an electrical energy storage cell (Title), the method comprising the steps of:
providing a carrier material (0040);
coating the carrier material using coating material to create a coating (0040);
blasting the coating in order to activate or roughen the coating (Abstract, 0030 – the plasma jet treatment may be viewed as a form of blasting that activates the coating).
Regarding Claim 14, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The blasting is carried out after calendaring of the coating (0019, 0020).
Regarding Claim 15, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The carrier material is moved during the blasting (Figs. 5a and 5b)
Regarding Claim 16, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The blasting would necessarily be carried out locally or regionally (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The blasting is carried out intermittently (0071, Figs. 5a and 5b – the metal foil is provided with sectionwise coatings. Thus, the blasting of the coating would only occur intermittently).
Regarding Claim 18, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The method further comprises the steps of:
unrolling the carrier material and then coating the carrier material (0071);
calendaring the coating (0073) and then blasting the coating (Figs. 5a and 5b – part 150);
and rolling up the carrier material (0073).
Regarding Claim 19, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The blasting is carried out with a plurality of blasting nozzles arranged transversely to a web direction of the carrier material (0068-0069, Fig. 4 – The plurality of nozzles 102 result in the plasma jets curtaining a larger region, meaning that the nozzles would have to be arranged transversely to a web direction of the carrier material).
Regarding Claim 20, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The electrode can be a cathode (Abstract, 0080).
Regarding Claim 21, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12. The blasting results in plasma forming in the pores of the coating (0004, 0030), which would adjust the porosity of the coating.
Regarding Claim 22, Knopse teaches the method of Claim 12 and an electrode made from said method (0080). This would result in an electrode comprising a carrier material (0040), a coating coated on the carrier material (0040), wherein a porosity of the electrode coating is adjusted by blasting (0004, 0030).
Examiner notes that the limitation of “a porosity of the electrode coating is adjusted by CO2 sandblasting” is considered a product-by-process limitation. In this regard, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding Claim 23, Knopse teaches the electrode of Claim 22 and an energy storage cell comprising said electrode (0080-0083, 0086-0089).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujikawa (US 20100112442 A1, cited in the 3/1/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 12, Fujikawa teaches a method for producing an electrode for an electrical energy storage cell, the method comprising the steps of providing a carrier material (0126), coating the carrier material using coating material to create a coating (0127).
Regarding Claim 16, Fujikawa teaches the method of Claim 12. The blasting would necessarily be carried out either locally or regionally.
Regarding Claim 21, Fujikawa teaches the method of Claim 12. The blasting modifies the surface of the coating (0138). Although the purpose is to control the specific surface area, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the blasting would necessarily also adjust the porosity of the coating.
Regarding Claim 22, Fujikawa teaches the method of Claim 12. Fujikawa teaches the method of Claim 12 and an electrode made from said method (0103, 0135). This would result in an electrode comprising a carrier material (0137), a coating coated on the carrier material (0137), wherein a porosity of the electrode coating is adjusted by blasting (0138).
Examiner notes that the limitation of “a porosity of the electrode coating is adjusted by CO2 sandblasting” is considered a product-by-process limitation. In this regard, the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (US 20100112442 A1, cited in the 3/1/2024) in view of Bisges (US 20180332711 A1, cited in the 3/1/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 13, Fujikawa teaches the method of Claim 12 (See 102 rejections above). Fujikawa teaches that the blasting is carried out by sandblasting rather than CO2 snow blasting.
Bisges teaches a method of partially removing material from a coating (0041). CO2 snow jetting/blasting or sandblasting are suitable methods of removing the material (0042, 0043). CO2 snow blasting allows for fine-tuning of the depletion rate by influencing variables such as mass flow rate of the jetting agent, the jetting pressure, the volume flow rate of the compressed air, the relative velocity between the jet and the surface, the operating distance, the jet impingement angle, and the particle velocity of the jetting agent (0042).
Fujikawa and Bisges are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely blasting coatings.
Although the coating of Bisges is not for an electrode, it has been held that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 F). In this case, Bisges teaches that CO2 snow blasting is a suitable method for removing material from a coating (0041) and that it allows for fine-tuning of the depletion rate of the material by influencing variables such as mass flow rate of the jetting agent, the jetting pressure, the volume flow rate of the compressed air, the relative velocity between the jet and the surface, the operating distance, the jet impingement angle, and the particle velocity of the jetting agent (0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the blasting method of Fujikawa to be CO2 snow blasting as taught by Bisges in order to allow for fine-tuning of the depletion rate of the material by influencing variables such as mass flow rate of the jetting agent, the jetting pressure, the volume flow rate of the compressed air, the relative velocity between the jet and the surface, the operating distance, the jet impingement angle, and the particle velocity of the jetting agent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peruzzi (US 20110139308 A1) teaches that dry ice blasting, which would be considered CO2 blasting, can be used to remove a coating layer on a metal substrate (Abstract, 0002-0007).
Stern (US 20130252086 A1) teaches a method of an electrode (Title) comprising coating a collector substrate with a coating film and removing a region of the coating through laser ablation (Abstract). Calendering is performed after coating to eliminate cavities formed during the drying of the coating (0007).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 ET.
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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights