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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2025 and 02/24/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the second line contains a typo where a space is missing between the terms film and comprises. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 2020/0313175 A1).
Claim Interpretation: The recitation “manufacturing method of a molded body for a sheet-like electrode” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02
Regarding claim 1, Shin discloses a method of forming a multilayer hybrid electrode film, see abstract. The method to include a dry-processed active layer – (construed as applying a first material comprising an electrode active material) and a wet-processed active layer – (construed as an electrolytic solution) onto a moving station, see at least [0022] – (construed as a support) to form a first film of the first material; and depositing an additional powder layer – (construed as a second powder material comprising an electrode active material and comprising no liquid component) over both the dry and wet-processed active layers, see [0010], [0011] – (construed as applying a second powder material comprising an electrode active material and comprising no liquid component onto the first film). Furthermore, as depicted throughout the figures the resulting composite film is a monolayer as the components are laminated to one another – (construed as an electrode material film having a monolayer structure, which is a mixture of the first film and the second powder material, is formed).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claim 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2020/0313175 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwase et al. (US 2022/0123275 A1, English translation for WO2021033689A1).
Regarding claims 2, 6, while Shin discloses applying a second powder material onto the first film comprises applying the second powder material comprising an electrode active material and comprising no liquid component onto the first film; it does not explicitly disclose leveling the second powder material applied onto the first film by a molding member to regulate a thickness of a laminated product of the first film and the second powder material.
Iwase discloses a method of manufacturing a formed body for an electrode. This includes acknowledgement of a known technique of leveling a powder supplied onto a substrate to include compacting the material, see [0005]. And a technique of regulating a film thickness to make the density distribution uniform and the use of a vibrating unit, see [0047] – [0049] – (construed as leveling the second powder material applied onto the first film by a molding member to regulate a thickness of a laminated product of the first film and the second powder material; and compressing the laminated product with a regulated thickness, which is obtained in the applying a second powder material onto the first film, by leveling the second powder material applied onto the first film to regulate the thickness of the first film and the second powder material, with a vibrating pressurizing member).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s electrode to level the second powder material applied onto the first film by a molding member to regulate a thickness of a laminated product of the first film and the second powder material as reasonably suggested by Iwase to provide a uniform material density as taught by Iwase.
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Shin discloses depositing the second powder material by a continuous roll-to-roll device, see Shin [0024]; or performing the regulating technique by using a vibrating unit, see Iwase [0354] – [0356] – (construed as a blade or roller; and the second powder material applied onto the first film is leveled by a vibrating blade or roller; and compressing the laminated product with a regulated thickness, which is obtained in the applying a second powder material onto the first film, by leveling the second powder material applied onto the first film to regulate the thickness of the first film and the second powder material, with a vibrating pressurizing member).
Regarding claims 5, 7, as previously discussed, modified Shin discloses the applying an additional layer/second powder material onto the first film comprises applying the second powder material comprising an electrode active material and comprising no liquid component onto the first film. And further discloses the additional layer/second powder material maybe provided as a multilayer additional layer to include this being a film, see [0010] – [0011] – (construed as a film disposed on the second powder material); and the materials are pressed together – thusly under the broadest reasonable interpretation meets the claimed placing a film on the second powder material applied onto the first film, and then pressing the second powder material from above the film by a molding member to level the second powder material applied onto the first film and regulate a thickness of a laminated product of the first film and the second powder material; and compressing the laminated product with a regulated thickness, which is obtained in the applying a second powder material onto the first film, by leveling the second powder material applied onto the first film to regulate the thickness of the first film and the second powder material, with a vibrating pressurizing member.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2020/0313175 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of at least one of Ozaki et al. (WO 2021/100659 A1), or Tanaka et al. (US 2021/0028436 A1).
Regarding claims 8-9, while Shin discloses a thickness of the film is 30 to 250 microns, see [0052] – (corresponds to and overlaps a monolayer structure has a thickness of 50 μm to 250 μm); it does not explicitly disclose a volume of the solid content thereof.
Ozaki discloses a method of manufacturing a composite electrode. The method to include forming the electrode such that a ratio of the electrode active material to the total volume of the composite electrode is preferably 50 to 80% by volume. Within such a range, a sufficient amount of the solid electrolyte and the ionic liquid can be present in the pores of the porous sintered plate while ensuring a high energy density, so that the advantages of the solid electrolyte and the ionic liquid (battery). It is possible to more effectively improve resistance and rate performance during charging / discharging, improve battery manufacturing yield, and improve discharge capacity), see page 29 paragraph 8 – (corresponds to and overlaps the electrode material film having a monolayer structure has a concentration of solid components of 50% by volume to 80% by volume).
Tanaka discloses a method for producing an electrolyte secondary battery. The method to include forming an active material slurry – (construed as a first material) where the concentration of the total solid content with respect to 100% by mass of the active material slurry is preferably 40% to 75% by mass. This being beneficial for forming a layer having a sufficient thickness which can be easily formed by the application step, and also make it is easy to adjust the porosity and the density in the pressing step, see [0047] – (corresponds to and overlaps a concentration of solid components of the first material is 5% by volume to 48% by volume).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shin’s electrode to have a concentration of solid components of the first material is 5% by volume to 48% by volume as taught by Tanaka and a concentration of solid components of 50% by volume to 80% by volume as taught by Ozaki to form an electrode with the aforementioned benefit.
Concerning the claimed ranges: Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of concentration of solid components that corresponds to the claimed ranges to provide the aforementioned benefits as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights