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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/19/2026 is entered and fully considered. In view of the amendment the 102 rejections are removed and additional art is applied.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment, the previous rejections are removed and new rejections are made. The arguments regarding the previous rejection are moot.
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.
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(s) 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KONG et al. (US 2022/0173370) in view of SATO et al. (US 2022/0285668).
Regarding claims 18 and 21,
KONG teaches a system for making an electrode for a battery by spraying (wet coating) a current collector 314 which is sprayed with conductive adhesive by sprayers 342 [0115] and shown in Fig. 8. The rollers 322 press and heat by hot lamination [0117] the electrode films that are applied as free-standing films [0115]. The rollers are interpreted to be the applying station and heat roll pressing station.
KONG teaches applying adhesive to a current collector by sprayers but does not teach slot die coating, gravure coating or reverse comma coating. However, SATO applying adhesive to a moving current collector prior to applying a sheet-shaped electrode [0060]-[0070]. The liquid adhesive can be applied by slot die, gravure coating, or comma coating [0061]. Gravure can be performed at high speed [0061]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use a gravure coating station of SATO to coat adhesive liquid to a current collector prior to attaching an electrode sheet because it allows for high speed processing.
Regarding claims 19, 20, and 22-24,
The limitations in claims 19 and 20 define the wet coating material and free standing material. However, the apparatus only needs to be capable of performing the function (i.e. the specific materials used). The gravure coater in SATO does not know or care what liquid composition it is applying and can apply any liquid material with or without particles of various sizes. Likewise, the free standing material can be any self-standing film.
Claim(s) 18-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAO et al. (US 2022/0166000) in view of SATO et al. (US 2022/0285668).
Regarding claim 18,
YAO teaches a sprayers 36 for wet depositing material onto a preformed electrode films from dry mix 314, Fig. 3 and [0084]-[0089]. The embodiment shown in fig. 3 shows how the free-standing sheets are “applied” before being pressed between rollers 322 and 320 which can be heated [0046].
YAO teaches applying adhesive to a current collector by sprayers but does not teach slot die coating, gravure coating or reverse comma coating. However, SATO applying adhesive to a moving current collector prior to applying a sheet-shaped electrode [0060]-[0070]. The liquid adhesive can be applied by slot die, gravure coating, or comma coating [0061]. Gravure can be performed at high speed [0061]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use a gravure coating station of SATO to coat adhesive liquid to a current collector prior to attaching an electrode sheet because it allows for high speed processing.
Regarding claims 19, 20, and 22-24,
The limitations in these claims define the wet coating material and free standing material. However, the apparatus only needs to be capable of performing the function (i.e. the specific materials used). The gravure coater in SATO does not know or care what liquid composition it is applying and can apply any liquid material with or without particles of various sizes. Likewise, the free standing material can be any self-standing film.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights