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 § 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, 5, and 7 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.
Claim 7 is rejected. During coating process, the squeegee rubs against the frame (562) and the electrode slurry (540) to smooth it [Zagars, fig. 11B-11D, 0078]. The friction coefficient of the squeegee and frame is obviously higher than the friction coefficient (solid to solid) of squeegee and the slurry (solid to powder and liquid), therefore the vibration of the squeegee damps on ends(sides) with compare to the center and amplitude of the vibration in width direction in center portion of the squeegee(blade) is larger than the amplitude if vibration in bot ends.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/20/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/256 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues since Park teaches making film uniform with substrate vibration, Zagars is not necessary to combine with for making film uniform. The examiner disagrees, as combination of Zagars and Park or substitution of Zagars method for Park can result to uniform 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 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
Prosecution Insights