DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 04/09/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 05/09/2025, 04/09/2024, 06/26/2025 and 09/26/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 04/09/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 and 12-14 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2005/0266298 to Mitchell in view of US 20070020514 to Ozaki (Ozaki).
Regarding claim 1, Mitchell discloses a method for manufacturing a dry electrode, comprising: (S1) obtaining a first electrode powder from a mixture comprising an active material and a binder (Fig. 1a, 7 para 75-77, 124), (S2) fibrillating (para 18, reads on kneading) the first electrode powder and a reused electrode powder to obtain a mass of mixture; (S3) pulverizing the mass of mixture to obtain a second electrode powder (para 84), (S4) calendaring (para 16) the second electrode powder to obtain an electrode film (para 113) and (S5) placing (para 94) the electrode film on at least one surface of a current collector.
Regarding the limitation: “the first electrode powder and a reused electrode powder to obtain a mass of mixture” Mitchel teaches that dry particles can be recycled and reused one or more time (para 124). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixture of a “fresh” electrode powder and recycled electrode powder (re claim 5) in order to save electrode materials and reduce a cost.
Regarding the limitation: laminating, Mitchell does not expressly disclose step of laminating: (even when Mitchel teaches use a pressure to achieve uniform thickness of the electrode material film on a current collector).
Ozaki teaches an electrode for secondary battery (Title) wherein a method for manufacturing of the electrode comprises a step of laminating of the electrodes powder film on a surfaces of a current collector (para 21). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Mitchell with the step comprising laminating of the electrodes powder film on a surfaces of a current collector, as taught by Mitchell, in order to provide an electrode for secondary battery according to which electrode density can be increased and electric characteristics can be improved and thus high-performance can be realized (para 4).
Regarding claim 2, modified Mitchell discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. In addition, Mitchell discloses the step of pulverizing the defective films (step 25, para 124).
Regarding claim 3, modified Mitchell discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Since Mitchell discloses the recycled reused material can be used for manufacturing of the electrode, the claimed steps are inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Regarding claims 9 and 10, modified Mitchell discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. In addition, Mitchell teaches that temperature can very depending on type of the binder (para 108) and use a high speed shear to effectuate a dry fibrillization step (para 84). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize condition of kneading step by routine optimization of an obvious design of the kneading step.
Regarding claims 12, 13 and 14, modified Mitchell discloses a dry electrode (Mitchell, Abstract, re claim 12), a secondary battery (Ozaki, Abstract, re claim 13) and energy storage system (Mitchell, para31, re claim 14).
Claims 4 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2005/0266298 to Mitchell in view of US 20070020514 to Ozaki and further in view of WO 2020150254 to Maxwell (Maxwell).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mitchell discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified Mitchell does not expressly disclose a step comprising edge slitting of primary electrode.
Maxwell teaches a system and methods for manufacturing a dry electrode (Abstract) wherein the method includes the step of wherein a slitting unit configured to cut an edge of the electrode sheet (para 33).It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Mitchell with the step of slitting electrode film edges as taught by Mitchell in order to improve an efficiencies of electrode manufacturing.
Claims 6 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2005/0266298 to Mitchell in view of US 20070020514 to Ozaki and further in view of WO 2005008807 to Porter (Porter, provided in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, modified Mitchell discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified Mitchell does not expressly disclose a step wherein a weight of the first electrode powder is 30 wt.% or more based on a total 100 wt.% of the first electrode powder and the reused electrode powder or weight ratio of the first electrode powder and the reused electrode powder is 30:70 to 99:1.
Porter teaches a dry process method of making dry electrode film. Porter also teaches that dry electrode film comprises a firs electrode particles and recycled electrode particles and those particles can be mixed in different ratios. Specifically, said ratio is 50/50 (reads on claimed more than 30% and range 30:70 to 99:1. It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03
Claim 11 is rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2005/0266298 to Mitchell in view of US 20070020514 to Ozaki and further in view of US 20220200075 to Lim (Lim).
Regarding claim11, modified Mitchell discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Modified Mitchell does not expressly disclose a step of sieving the pulverized second electrode powder, after the pulverizing and before the calendaring.
Lim teaches a method for recycling of an electrode material, wherein the method comprises the step of sieving to obtain to collect the electrode material of desirable sized in order to obtain the reusable particles (para 11). It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ,method of modified Mitchell with the step pulverizing and before the calendaring, as taught by Lim, because in order to collect the electrode material of desirable sized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights