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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I-A from Genus A, Species I-B from Genus B, Species I-C from Genus C, and Species II-D from Genus D (encompassed by claims 1-7, 9, 10, and 12-14) in the reply filed on 5/22/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits that the above identified species are not independent or distinct inventions requiring distinct examination on the merits, but rather alternative embodiments of the same general inventive concept reflected in claim 1.”. This is not found persuasive because the species are independent or distinct because each is directed to a species mutually exclusive of the other species in each genus. In addition, the species in each genus are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record wherein applicant has not submitted evidence or identified such evidence now or record showing the species to be obvious variants and/or applicant has not clearly admitted on the record that this is the case. Applicants further traverse, “Applicant also submits that it would not be unduly burdensome for the Examiner to search the claims to each of the species included above within Genus A to D because a search directed to methods for producing battery electrodes would also uncover the additional preliminary homogenization step of Fig. 4, cathodes and anodes as electrode types, electrode powder mixtures as both roller-borne film and freestanding film, and the different feed sequences of mixing active material, binder material and conducting additive.”. This argument is not persuasive as there is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth in paragraph 2 of the Office action mailed on 3/24/2026 including each species requires a different field of search (for each alternative specie/embodiment) and the prior art applicable to one species in a genus would not likely be applicable to another species in the genus.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 13, and 14 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.
The terms “pronounced” and “moderately pronounced” in claim 4 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “pronounced” and “moderately pronounced” are not defined by the claim (e.g. it is unclear is “moderately pronounced” comminution intended as more or less pronounced than “pronounced” comminution), the specification does not expressly provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture into a collecting device of a calender and/or into a calender nip”. The limitation “and/or” (emphasis added) is unclear and confusing as claim 13 further recites the limitations “forming the electrode powder mixture as a roller-borne film in the calender” and “transferring the roller-borne film onto a current collector foil in the middle calender nip” so that it appears both a colleting device of a calender and a calender nip are required. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the middle calender nip” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the limitation is unclear and confusing as to what is “the middle calender nip” as claims 1 and 13 only recite “a calender nip”. For purposes of examination “the middle calender nip” is interpreted as a calender nip between two other calender nips. It is further noted for claim interpretation and the limitation directed to “the middle calender nip” as unclear and confusing in the limitation “transferring the roller-borne film onto a current collector foil in the middle calender nip and compression of the roller-borne film on the current collector foil in a roller device” is interpreted as “the middle calender nip” and the “a roller device” are different structures.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture into a collecting device of a calender and/or into a calender nip”. Claim 1 recites the limitation “transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture with a desired width and thickness to a calender nip” so that because claim 13 recites the limitation transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture into “a collecting device of a calender and/or” (emphasis added wherein “and/or” is inclusive of transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture only into a collecting device of a calender) the claim is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “sprinkling and/or pouring”. Claim 1 recites the limitation “trickling and/or pouring” so that because claim 13 recites the limitation “sprinkling and/or” (emphasis added wherein “and/or” is inclusive of only sprinkling) the claim is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “forming the electrode powder mixture as a roller-borne film in the calender”. Claim 1 recites the limitation “producing a film from the electrode powder mixture present in the calender nip through shear forces within the calender nip” so that because claim 13 recites the limitation forming the electrode powder mixture as a roller-borne film “in the calender” (and as noted above a calender nip is not required see “and/or”) the claim is of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(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.
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.
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, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Shin et al. (WO 2023/014126 with U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0274780 from the same patent family used as a translation and including the foreign priority application KR 10-2021-0104170 describes the subject matter set forth below).
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a method (for example see paragraphs 0112) for the continuous production (a roll-to-roll continuous process, Abstract and paragraph 0090) of a battery electrode from an electrode powder mixture that has an active material, a binder material, and a conducting additive, the method comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): producing a powder mixture by adding the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive (paragraph 0059); powder pretreating the powder mixture formed of the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive via a continuous mixer and kneader, a powder mixing and homogenization and a binder fibrillation take place during the powder pretreatment (paragraphs 0059, 0071, and 0072); continuous, impact-intensive comminuting the powder mixture (pulverizing such as in a blender or a grinder) into a powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture (paragraphs 0079-0081); transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture with a desired width and thickness to a calender nip (roll press(es), paragraph 0091) via a discharge outlet (of supplying unit 31) by trickling and/or pouring (as shown in Figure 3a or 3b); producing a film from the electrode powder mixture present in the calender nip through shear forces within the calender nip (as shown in Figures 3a or 3b); and transferring (laminating) the film onto a current collector foil in a roller device (roll pressing process using a lamination roller, paragraph 0100), and compressing (roll pressing) the film on the current collector foil in a roller device to form a battery electrode with a desired target thickness (combined desired thickness of the film and foil).
In the event it is somehow considered Shin does not necessarily anticipate one or more of the limitations as set forth above the following rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a method for the production of a battery electrode as taught by Shin is a continuous production (a roll-to-roll continuous process, Abstract and paragraph 0090) method of the battery electrode from an electrode powder mixture that has an active material, a binder material, and a conducting additive, the method comprising: producing a powder mixture by adding the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive (paragraph 0059); powder pretreating the powder mixture formed of the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive via a continuous mixer and kneader, a powder mixing and homogenization and a binder fibrillation take place during the powder pretreatment (paragraphs 0059, 0071, and 0072); continuous, impact-intensive comminuting the powder mixture (pulverizing such as in a blender or a grinder) into a powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture (paragraphs 0079-0081); transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture with a desired width and thickness to a calender nip (roll press(es), paragraph 0091) via a discharge outlet (of supplying unit 31) by trickling and/or pouring (as shown in Figures 3a or 3b); producing a film from the electrode powder mixture present in the calender nip through shear forces within the calender nip (as shown in Figures 3a or 3b); and transferring (laminating) the film onto a current collector foil in a roller device (roll pressing process using a lamination roller, paragraph 0100), and compressing (roll pressing) the film on the current collector foil in a roller device to form a battery electrode with a desired target thickness (combined desired thickness of the film and foil) as Shin is expressly directed to a continuous process to produce the battery electrode as set forth in the Figures and paragraphs noted above (it being optionally noted making a batch process a continuous operation is prima facie obvious see MPEP 2144.04 and “E. Making Continuous”).
Regarding claim 3, the continuous mixer and kneader taught by Shin is a continuous mixer and kneader, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the continuous mixer and kneader.
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches at least a second zone and/or a third zone are present within the continuous powder pretreatment, wherein the second zone is designed such that it has a high (the claim limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) kneading and shearing effect for binder fibrillation (paragraph 0071), and the third zone is designed such that it has a moderately pronounced (the claim limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) comminution effect for producing a free-flowing and non-dust-forming powder (there being no teaching or suggestion of forming dust).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches the total amount of the binder material is in the range from 0.5 to 10 percent by weight with respect to the total weight of the powder mixture (paragraph 0067) and considered to anticipate the total amount of the binder material is in the range from 0.2 to 2 percent by weight with respect to the total weight of the powder mixture, or in the range from 0.4 to 1.6 percent by weight, or 0.5 to 1.2 percent by weight, or is 0.75 percent by weight or wherein such would have been prima facie obvious as in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05). It is noted in claim 5 the limitation “the range from 0.2 to 2 percent by weight with respect to the total weight of the powder mixture, or in the range from 0.4 to 1.6 percent by weight, or 0.5 to 1.2 percent by weight, or is 0.75 percent by weight” is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (see further MPEP 2173.05(c)) as each range is presented as an alternative to the others, i.e. “or”, so that the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth, wherein the limitation is considered taught in the prior art by a teaching of at least one of the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches the battery electrode (paragraph 0063) is a cathode (positive electrode), wherein the total amount of the active material with respect to the total weight of the electrode powder mixture is 80-98 percent by weight (paragraph 0067), and considered to anticipate or make prima facie obvious at least 95 percent by weight, and comprises a mixed oxide composed of lithium and at least one metal, which is chosen from Ni, Co, Mn, Al.
Regarding claim 9, Shin teaches no solvent is added to the electrode powder mixture (paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 12, Shin teaches the electrode powder mixture is used for lithium-ion battery electrodes (paragraph 0048).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin.
Shin is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 10, Shin teaches the particle diameter of the electrode powder mixture is 10-2000 µm wherein the particle diameter range is determined to form a film having a uniform thickness and density and excellent physical properties (paragraph 0057). Shin does not expressly teach the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture is less than 500 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture taught by Shin is determined within 10-2000 µm (such as the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture is less than 500 µm) to form a film having a uniform thickness and density and excellent physical properties as directed to by Shin and further including in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Okafor et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0210129).
Shin is described above in full detail regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 12.
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches the continuous mixer and kneader is a continuous mixer and kneader, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the continuous mixer and kneader. The following is an alternative rejection of claim 3 (and of claim 1 in the event it is somehow considered the continuous mixer and kneader taught by Shin does not anticipate the continuous mixer of claim 1). It is well understood in the same art the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in a continuous mixer that is a twin-screw extruder, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the twin-screw extruder as evidenced by Okafor (Figures 1 and 2 and paragraphs 0005, 0020, 0032, 0045, 0048, and 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the continuous mixer and kneader taught by Shin is a continuous mixer that is a twin-screw extruder, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the twin-screw extruder as a simple substitution of one known apparatus for powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Okafor.
Regarding claim 10, Shin is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture taught by Shin as modified by Okafor is determined within 10-2000 µm (such as the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture is less than 500 µm) to form a film having a uniform thickness and density and excellent physical properties as directed to by Shin and further including in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin in view of Lee et al. (WO 2022/086247 and see also U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0014367 from the same patent family used as a translation). Additionally, claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Okafor as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 above, and further in view of Lee.
Shin is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 2, Shin and (Shin as modified by Okafor above) teaches the continuous, impact-intensive comminution is performed as pulverizing such as in a blender or a grinder without expressly teaching the continuous, impact-intensive comminution is performed via an ultracentrifugal mill or opposed jet mill, or impact mill, or via a classifier mill. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art pulverizing such as in a blender or grinder is by an impact mill as evidenced by Lee (paragraphs 0107 and 0157). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the continuous, impact-intensive comminution taught by Shin and Shin as modified by Okafor is performed via an impact mill as is the conventional blender or grinder for predictable pulverizing as evidenced by Lee.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin optionally in view of Okafor or Sonobe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0066720). Additionally, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Okafor as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 above, and optionally further in view of Sonobe.
Shin is described above in full detail.
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches “Herein, the mixing for preparing the mixture is carried out in order to obtain a homogeneous mixture of the active material, the conductive material and the binder resin. Since the ingredients are mixed in a powder state, the mixing method is not particularly limited but various methods may be used, as long as the method allows homogeneous mixing of the ingredients. ” (paragraph 0059). Shin does not expressly teach the addition of the conducting additive takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material, or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive. Shin is not limited to any particular order of adding the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive teaching “the mixing method is not particularly limited but various methods may be used” so that mixing is by one of the addition of the conducting additive takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive or wherein the addition of the active material takes place only after a powder mixing of the binder material and the conducting additive or wherein the addition of the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive is simultaneous for powder mixing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the powder mixing as taught by Shin and Shin as modified by Okafor comprises the addition of the conducting additive takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material, or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive as is nothing more than choosing one solution of the addition from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success and/or prima facie obvious as selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 and “C. Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients”) or optionally further in view of Okafor (paragraphs 0051-0052) wherein the addition of the conducting additive (carbon black) takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material, or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive as is conventional and predictable mixing order or optionally further in view of Sonobe (paragraph 0120) wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive is preferable from a viewpoint of increasing dispersibility of the conducting additive.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schopf et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0199963) in view of Heintze (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0000828).
Regarding claim 1, Schopf discloses a method for the continuous production of a battery electrode from an electrode powder mixture that has an active material, a binder material, and a conducting additive (paragraph 0021), the method comprising: producing a powder mixture by adding the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive (paragraphs 0047); powder pretreating the powder mixture formed of the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive via a continuous mixer (machine 42), a powder mixing and homogenization and a binder fibrillation take place during the powder pretreatment (paragraph 0023); continuous, impact-intensive comminuting the powder mixture into a powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture (paragraphs 0054 and 0056); transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture with a desired width and thickness to a calender nip (calender gap, paragraph 0058) via a discharge outlet (from silo 70 see Figures 3 and 5) by pouring (paragraph 0058); producing a film layer from the electrode powder mixture present in the calender nip through shear forces within the calender nip (paragraph 0058); and compressing the film layer on a current collector foil (appertaining arrester 24, paragraphs 0031 and 0046) to form a battery electrode with a desired target thickness (paragraph 0032).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “transferring the film onto a current collector foil in a roller device, and compressing the film on the current collector foil in a roller device”, Schopf teaches producing film layers from the electrode powder mixture in a calender nip of a 4-roll calender and pressure is exerted onto the electrode powder mixture in the direction of the current collector foil to provide a film layer on both sides of the current collector foil in the 4-roll calender (paragraphs 0032 and 0058) wherein it is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art a 4-roll calender as widely used within industry comprises 4 rolls (1, 2, 3, 4) with three calender nips the outer two calender nips (12, 34) for producing the film layers (6, 7) and the inner calender nip (23) for transferring and compressing the film layers on both sides of another ply (80) as evidence by Heintze (Figures 1 and 4 and paragraphs 0051-0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Schopf further comprise producing a film from the electrode powder mixture in an outer calender nip through shear forces within the outer calender nip and transferring (laminating) the film onto the current collector foil in a roller device (of an inner calender roller nip), and compressing the film on the current collector foil in a roller device (of the inner calender roller nip) as is producing films from the electrode powder mixture in a calender nip of a 4-roll calender and providing the films on both sides of the current collector foil in the 4-roll calender as directed to by Schopf consistent with that well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a 4-roll calender widely used within industry as evidenced by Heintze.
Regarding claim 3, the continuous mixer taught by Schopf is a twin-screw extruder, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the twin-screw extruder (paragraphs 0048-0053).
Regarding claim 4, Schopf teaches at least a second zone present within the continuous powder pretreatment, wherein the second zone is designed such that it has a high (the claim limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) kneading and shearing effect for binder fibrillation (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Schopf teaches wherein the addition of the conducting additive takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material (paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 9, Schopf teaches no solvent is added to the electrode powder mixture (paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 12, Schopf teaches the electrode powder mixture is used for lithium-ion battery electrodes (paragraph 0044).
Claims 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schopf and Heintze as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Lee.
Regarding claim 2, Schopf as modified by Heintze above teaches the continuous, impact-intensive comminution is performed with a screw grinder (paragraph 0050) without expressly teaching the continuous, impact-intensive comminution is performed via an ultracentrifugal mill or opposed jet mill, or impact mill, or via a classifier mill. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the continuous, impact-intensive comminution taught by Schopf as modified by Heintze is performed via an impact mill as a simple substitution of one known grinder for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Lee (described above in full detail).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Schopf teaches the battery electrode (paragraph 0046) is a cathode (positive electrode), and comprises a mixed oxide composed of lithium and at least one metal, which is chosen from Ni, Co, Mn, Al (paragraph 0024). Schopf as modified by Heintze above does not expressly teach the total amount of the binder material and of the active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Schopf as modified by Heintze the total amount of the binder material is in the range from 0.2 to 2 percent by weight with respect to the total weight of the powder mixture and the total amount of the active material with respect to the total weight of the electrode powder mixture is at least 95 percent by weight as are the conventional and predictable values as evidenced by Lee (Paragraph 0090) it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schopf and Heintze as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Shin.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Schopf (and Schopf as modified by Heintze) teaches the battery electrode (paragraph 0046) is a cathode (positive electrode), and comprises a mixed oxide composed of lithium and at least one metal, which is chosen from Ni, Co, Mn, Al (paragraph 0024). Schopf as modified by Heintze above does not expressly teach the total amount of the binder material and of the active material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in Schopf as modified by Heintze the total amount of the binder material is in the range from 0.2 to 2 percent by weight with respect to the total weight of the powder mixture and the total amount of the active material with respect to the total weight of the electrode powder mixture is at least 95 percent by weight as are the conventional and predictable values as evidenced by Shin (described above in full detail) it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schopf and Heintze as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Shin or Bauer et al. (DE 102017213403 and see also the machine translation submitted in the IDS filed 11/13/2024).
Regarding claim 10, Schopf as modified by Heintze above does not expressly teach the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture. Schopf is not limited to any particular percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution. Shin teaches the particle diameter of the electrode powder mixture is 10-2000 µm wherein the particle diameter range is determined to form a film having a uniform thickness and density and excellent physical properties (paragraph 0057). Bauer teaches the average particle size of the materials/additive prior to mixing is less than 500 µm for stable mixing (paragraphs 0039-0041 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture taught by Schopf as modified by Heintze is determined within 10-2000 µm (such as the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture is less than 500 µm) to form a film having a uniform thickness and density and excellent physical properties as directed to by Shin or determined less than 500 µm (such as the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture is less than 500 µm) for stable mixing as taught by Bauer (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nakano (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0040591).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Lee discloses a method for the continuous production (see continuous input and output in Figure 2) of a battery electrode from an electrode powder mixture that has an active material, a binder material, and a conducting additive, the method comprising: producing a powder mixture by adding the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive (paragraph 0078); powder pretreating the powder mixture formed of the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive via a continuous mixer (super-mixer) and kneader, a powder mixing and homogenization and a binder fibrillation take place during the powder pretreatment (paragraphs 0079 and 0096); continuous, impact-intensive comminuting the powder mixture (pulverizing in an impact mill and regarding claim 2 wherein the continuous, impact-intensive comminution is performed via impact mill) into a powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture (paragraph 0107); transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture to a calender nip (paragraph 0113); producing a film from the electrode powder mixture present in the calender nip through shear forces within the calender nip (paragraph 0114); and transferring (laminating) the film onto a current collector foil in a roller device (lamination roll, paragraphs 0117 and 0118), and compressing (roll pressing) the film on the current collector foil in a roller device to form a battery electrode with a desired target thickness (combined desired thickness of the film and foil).
In the event it is somehow considered Lee does not necessarily teach one or more of the limitations as set forth above the following rejection is made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention a method for the production of a battery electrode as taught by Lee is a continuous production (continuous input and output as shown in Figure 2) method of the battery electrode from an electrode powder mixture that has an active material, a binder material, and a conducting additive, the method comprising: producing a powder mixture by adding the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive (paragraph 0078); powder pretreating the powder mixture formed of the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive via a continuous super-mixer and kneader, a powder mixing and homogenization and a binder fibrillation take place during the powder pretreatment (paragraphs 0079 and 0096); continuous, impact-intensive comminuting the powder mixture (pulverizing in an impact mill) into a powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture (paragraph 0107); transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture to a calender nip (paragraph 0113); producing a film from the electrode powder mixture present in the calender nip through shear forces within the calender nip (paragraph 0114); and transferring (laminating) the film onto a current collector foil in a roller device (lamination roll, paragraphs 0117 and 0118), and compressing (roll pressing) the film on the current collector foil in a roller device to form a battery electrode with a desired target thickness (combined desired thickness of the film and foil) as Lee is directed to a continuous process to produce the battery electrode as set forth in the Figures and paragraphs noted above (it being optionally noted making a batch process a continuous operation is prima facie obvious see MPEP 2144.04 and “E. Making Continuous”).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture with a desired width and thickness to a calender nip via a discharge outlet by trickling and/or pouring”, Lee does not expressly teach how the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture is transported to the calender nip. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to transport a created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture to a calender nip by transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture with a desired width and thickness to the calender nip via a discharge outlet by trickling and/or pouring as evidenced by Nakano (Figure 2 and paragraph 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to transport the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture to the calender nip as taught by Lee by transporting the created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture with a desired width and thickness to the calender nip via a discharge outlet by trickling and/or pouring as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art for conventional and predictable transporting a created powdery and free-flowing electrode powder mixture to a calender nip as evidenced by Nakano.
Regarding claim 3, the continuous super-mixer and kneader taught by Lee is a continuous super-mixer and kneader, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the continuous super-mixer and kneader.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches at least a second zone and/or a third zone are present within the continuous powder pretreatment, wherein the second zone is designed such that it has a high (the claim limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) kneading and lower-shearing effect for binder fibrillation (paragraphs 0095-0096), and the third zone is designed such that it has a moderately pronounced (the claim limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) comminution effect for producing a free-flowing and non-dust-forming powder (there being no teaching or suggestion of forming dust).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the total amount of the binder material is in the range from 0.5 to 10 percent by weight with respect to the total weight of the powder mixture (paragraph 0090) and considered to teach the total amount of the binder material is in the range from 0.2 to 2 percent by weight with respect to the total weight of the powder mixture, or in the range from 0.4 to 1.6 percent by weight, or 0.5 to 1.2 percent by weight, or is 0.75 percent by weight or wherein such would have been prima facie obvious as in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the battery electrode (paragraph 0082) is a cathode (positive electrode), wherein the total amount of the active material with respect to the total weight of the electrode powder mixture is 80-98 percent by weight (paragraph 0090), and considered to teach or make prima facie obvious at least 95 percent by weight, and comprises a mixed oxide composed of lithium and at least one metal, which is chosen from Ni, Co, Mn, Al.
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches no solvent is added to the electrode powder mixture (paragraph 0079).
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the electrode powder mixture is used for lithium-ion battery electrodes (paragraphs 0053 and 0082-0084).
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Nakano as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Okafor.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified by Nakano above teaches the continuous super-mixer and kneader is a continuous super-mixer and kneader, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the continuous super-mixer and kneader. The following is an alternative rejection of claim 3 (and of claim 1 in the event it is somehow considered the super-mixer and kneader with continuous input and output as shown in Figure 2 is not necessarily or prima facie obvious a continuous mixer). Okafor is described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the continuous super-mixer and kneader taught by Lee as modified by Nakano is a continuous mixer that is a twin-screw extruder, and in that the powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation are combined in the twin-screw extruder as a simple substitution of one known apparatus for powder mixing and homogenization and binder fibrillation for another to yield predictable results as evidenced by Okafor.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Nakano as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 above, and optionally further in view of Okafor or Sonobe. Additionally, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Nakano and Okafor as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 above, and optionally further in view of Sonobe.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches “Herein, since the mixing for preparing the mixture is carried out in such a manner that the active material, the conductive material and the binder may be distributed homogeneously, and the ingredients are mixed in a powder state, the mixing method is not particularly limited but various methods may be used, as long as the method allows simple mixing of the ingredients.” (paragraph 0079). Lee does not expressly teach the addition of the conducting additive takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material, or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive. Lee is not limited to any particular order of adding the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive teaching “the mixing method is not particularly limited but various methods may be used” so that mixing is by one of the addition of the conducting additive takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive or wherein the addition of the active material takes place only after a powder mixing of the binder material and the conducting additive or wherein the addition of the active material, the binder material, and the conducting additive is simultaneous for powder mixing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the powder mixing as taught by Lee as modified by Nakano and Lee as modified by Nakano and Okafor comprises the addition of the conducting additive takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material, or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive as is nothing more than choosing one solution of the addition from the finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success and/or prima facie obvious as selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.04 and “C. Changes in Sequence of Adding Ingredients”) or optionally further in view of Okafor (paragraphs 0051-0052) wherein the addition of the conducting additive (carbon black) takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the binder material, or wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive as is conventional and predictable mixing order or optionally further in view of Sonobe (paragraph 0120) wherein the addition of the binder material takes place only after a powder mixing of the active material and the conducting additive is preferable from a viewpoint of increasing dispersibility of the conducting additive.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Nakano as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Shin or Bauer. Additionally, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Nakano and Okafor as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Shin or Bauer.
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Nakano and Lee as modified by Nakano and Okafor above do not expressly teach the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture. Lee is not limited to any particular percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution. Shin and Bauer are each described above in full detail. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture taught by Lee as modified by Nakano and Lee as modified by Nakano and Okafor is determined within 10-2000 µm (such as the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture is less than 500 µm) to form a film having a uniform thickness and density and excellent physical properties as directed to by Shin or determined less than 500 µm (such as the percentile value D90 of the particle-size distribution of the electrode powder mixture is less than 500 µm) for stable mixing as taught by Bauer (it being noted in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists and similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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 Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights