Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/836,015

ELECTRODE PRODUCTION APPARATUS, STACK SEPARATOR PRODUCTION APPARATUS, LIQUID APPLICATION APPARATUS, ELECTRODE PRODUCTION METHOD, STACK SEPARATOR PRODUCTION METHOD, AND LIQUID APPLICATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Aug 06, 2024
Examiner
MURATA, AUSTIN
Art Unit
1712
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ricoh Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
60%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 60% of resolved cases
60%
Career Allow Rate
436 granted / 725 resolved
-4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+20.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
762
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
§112
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 725 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 without traverse of Group II claims 9-15 in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn. Examiner’s Note The claimed “electrode element” is defined in the specification [0026]. The term is broad enough to include layers for both charging/discharging functions or layers with insulating function. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim(s) 9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SOUSA et al. (US 2019/0245215). Regarding claims 9, 14, and 15, SOUSA teaches printing (applying by an applicator) a catalyst ink (liquid functional layer) onto a membrane (thin film “electrode element”) on a vacuum conveyor (suction conveyor opposite the applicator) abstract. The catalyst is considered an “electrode element”. Even if “electrode element” is an electrode, SOUSA specifically teaches the catalyst can be an electrode (anode and cathode) catalyst [0032]. The membrane has cathode and anode catalyst deposited on opposing sides and is therefore a separator (stack separator) [0049]. Regarding claim 13, The material deposited onto the sheet in SOUSA has mass and volume and therefore at least has “biased density” and “biased thickness”. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MASUNARI et al. (US 2021/0121909) in view of WOUTERS et al. (US 2023/0226828). Regarding claims 9, 14, and 15, MASUNARI teaches conveying a current collector through an inkjet printing (liquid applicator) device which can print both electrode active material (electrode) [0038] and solid electrolyte (insulating material/stack separator) [0043]. The reference does not teach conveying while sucking the electrode element in a direction opposite the applicator. However, WOUTERS teaches an inkjet printing method that includes a printing head 202 (applicator) positioned over a vacuum belt 250 (suction conveyor) with vacuum table 253, [0026]-[0027]. WOUTERS notes that vacuum belts/conveyors hold down substrates during inkjet printing and improve printing quality [0066] and [0080]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a vacuum conveyor in MASUNARI to hold down the substrate and improve printing quality. Regarding claim 10, MASUNARI teaches using a current collector layer (electrode substrate) [0094] and an active material that includes particles and binder (electrode composite) [0095]. The subsequently deposited solid electrolyte (insulating layer) [0096] is then deposited. Regarding claim 11, The elongated substrate in MASUNARI can have individual stacks where no coating is performed between deposition areas Figs. 8-9. Regarding claim 12, The elongated substrate in MASUNARI can have a uniform first layer (current collector 50) with individual stacks of material formed thereon Figs. 10-11 (coated and uncoated areas of electrode composite). Regarding claim 13, The material deposited onto the sheet in MASUNARI has mass and volume and therefore at least has “biased density” and “biased thickness”. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5. 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 571272-1418. 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. /AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 06, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601056
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING A THIN-FILM LITHIATED MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595557
METHOD OF FORMING STRUCTURE INCLUDING A DOPED ADHESION FILM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588415
METHODS FOR REDUCING SURFACE DEFECTS IN ACTIVE FILM LAYERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570533
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING SILICON-CONTAINING MATERIALS IN A STIRRED-TANK REACTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565567
Multifunctional Smart Particles
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
60%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+20.6%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 725 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month