Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/035,837

MANUFACTURING METHOD OF MOLDED BODY FOR SHEET-LIKE ELECTRODE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 24, 2025
Examiner
TADAYYON ESLAMI, TABASSOM
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Fujifilm Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
384 granted / 776 resolved
-15.5% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
841
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
60.2%
+20.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . 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. Claim 6 is 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. It is not clear what the applicant means by “amplitude A at the center portion of the vibrating blade”. for examination purposes it is considered as “vibration amplitude A at the center portion of the vibrating blade”. 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. Claims 1-2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. Park et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2019/0148709, here after Park), further in view of R. Zagars et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0133916, here after Zagars). Claim 1 is rejected. Park teaches a manufacturing method of a molded body for a sheet-like electrode [fig. 5A], the manufacturing method comprising: forming an electrode material film on a support (204) using an electrode material which contains an electrode active material and has a concentration of solid components of 30% (by volume) or more [0036 lines 19-23], wherein, with the electrode material supplied onto the support, the electrode material film is formed by, while maintaining a constant distance from a surface of the support, relatively moving a blade (110) having a shape in which both end parts in a width direction protrude than a center portion in the width direction [fig. 3, 0027] and electrode structure vibrates during tape casting process to enhances the movement of the dipolar particles [0035] and form a uniform thickness. Park in fact teaches vibrating the substrate [0042] and not the blade. Zagars teaches a method of making electrode for battery and teaches supplying electrode material onto a support and relatively moving a blade (580), and also teaches the blade 580 or support can be operably coupled to a vibration source so as to vibrate the blade or the support during the electrode deposition or smoothing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of making electrode as Park teaches where the blade vibrates, because it also helps smoothing electrode material. When Parks’s blade vibrates, the center portion in the width direction also vibrates, along the surface of the support and a thickness is regulated by a void between the surface of the support and the center portion of the blade in the width direction and a width is regulated by both end parts of the blade in the width direction, which protrude than the center portion of the blade in the width direction. Claim 2 is rejected as Park teaches an electrode material before the regulation of thickness and width, which is at least a part of the electrode material supplied onto the support, forms a reservoir portion in a region sandwiched between the support and the blade [fig. 4B]. Claim 5 is rejected, a friction coefficient µ1 between a contact portion of the blade with the electrode material and the electrode material must be smaller than a frictional coefficient µ2 between the electrode material and the support, otherwise the electrode material would not attach to the support. Claims 3-4, and 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J. Park et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2019/0148709, here after Park), R. Zagars et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2016/0133916, here after Zagars), further in view of T. Kojima et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2021/0351393, here after Kojima). Claim 3 is rejected. Park does not clearly teach the electrode material is continuously supplied to the reservoir portion. Kojima teaches a method of making electrode for battery by applying vibration to blade(squeegee), and teaches the electrode material is continuously supplied onto the surface of support by using the powder supplier(reservoir) while moving the member by a driver [0029 first sentence, 0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of making electrode as Park and Zagars teach, where the electrode material is continuously supplied to the reservoir portion, because it is suitable way to supply electrode material for making electrode with blade casting. Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason claim 3 is rejected above. Park teaches pressing electrode layer [0037], and Kojima also teaches pressing electrode layer [fig. 1], where Kojima teaches a ratio X:Y of a supply amount X of the electrode material to a reservoir portion and a formation amount Y of the electrode material film formed on the support is 1:0.1 to 1:1 on a mass basis [fig. 1]. Claim 6 is rejected. Park teaches the electrode thickness is 50 um [0029], and Zagars teaches electrode thickness is more than 250 um[abstract], but they do not teach the amplitude of vibrating blade. Kojima teaches a method of making electrode for battery by applying vibration to blade(squeegee), where the amplitude of vibration of the blade is 2 um [0072], and the thickness of the electrode layer is more than 15 um [0109]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of making electrode as Park and Zagars teach, where the amplitude of vibration of the blade is 2 um (also in center portion in width direction), because it is suitable amount for making electrode for batteries. With the vibration amplitude amount of 2 um, wherein a ratio A:B is 1:10 to 1:200. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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. /TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 24, 2025
Application Filed
Feb 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599968
METHOD OF PRODUCING AN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURED OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600634
2D AMORPHOUS CARBON FILM ASSEMBLED FROM GRAPHENE QUANTUM DOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601049
AG- AND/OR CU- CONTAINING HARD COATINGS WITH ANTIBACTERIAL, ANTIVIRAL AND ANTIFUNGAL PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590372
LASER INDUCED FORWARD TRANSFER OF 2D MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585183
METHOD OF FORMING AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE ON A FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
50%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+27.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 776 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