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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/5/25 has been entered.
Claims 1-5, 7-31 are now pending of record in that claims 1, 3, 7, 15 and 29 are unelected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4-5, 8-9, 18-27, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Fukunaga (JPH462750).
In an alternatively, claim(s) 2, 4-5, 8-9, 18-27, 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga (JPH462750) in view of Althues et al (WO2018210723) or Michell et al (US 7295423).
Fukunaga discloses the claimed method of manufacturing a double-sided dry electrode for an energy storage device, comprising:
forming a first film 2’ from a first dry electrode material 1 (see Fig. 2 as reproduced below);
transferring the first film 2’ to a first calendering location (at location between A and B, see Fig. 2);
calendering the first film 2’ at the first calendering location between A and B to form a first compacted film 2 (see Fig. 2);
transferring the first compacted film 2 to a first compressing location (see between E and F rollers of Fig. 1);
compressing the first compacted film at the first compressing location to form a first dry electrode film 2 (see Fig. 2, after exit roller A and B);
PNG
media_image1.png
513
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
forming a second film 2’ from a second dry electrode material 1 (see Fig. 2, after enter I and J location);
transferring the second film 2’ to a second calendering location (see Fig. 2, location between entry point of C and D);
calendering the second film 2’at the second calendering location (e.g., entry point between C and D) to form a second compacted film 2 (see Fig. 2);
transferring the second compacted film 2 to a second compressing location (between C and D);
compressing the second compacted film 2 at the second compressing location to form a second dry electrode film (see Fig. 2);
laminating the first dry electrode film 2 to a first side of a current collector 4; and
laminating the second dry electrode film 2 to a second side of the current collector 4 (see Fig. 2);
wherein the current collector laminated with the first dry electrode film and the second dry electrode film forms the double-sided dry electrode 4 (see Figs. 2-3, respectively).
Therefore, the above process associated with the roller system is met by the Fukunaga alone.
If it is argued that the Fukunaga does not teach the specific of “wherein the current collector laminated with the first dry electrode film and the second dry electrode film forms the double-sided dry electrode 4” then applicant refer to either of Althues et al or Michell et al for such material configurations above (see Fig. 2 of Althues or discussion under col. 8, lines 5-23 of the Mitchell for discloses of double sided dry electrodes). Therefore, an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the welly known dry electrode materials associated with the forming double dry electrodes as taught by the Mitchell onto invention of Fukunaga in order to facilitate the fabrication process the motivation for the combination can be obtained from Mitchell (see Althues under the description lines 1-2 or Mitchell, about col. 4, lines 15-20).
As applied to claim 31, that claim 31 is clearly anticipated by the Fukunaga refers to Fig. 3 and similar discussion as set forth in claim 2 above, since claim 31 is a broadly version of claim 2.
The modified Fukunaga /Althues et al further discloses, regarding,
Claim 4, wherein at least one of the first dry electrode material and the second dry electrode material is in a powder (see discussed under the description lines 1-2 for the teachings of the first and the second electrodes is in powder mixture).
Limitations of claims 5, 8-9 is/are also met by the modified Fukunaga/Althues (see Fig. 2 of either reference which depicts that at least one of the first compacted film 2, the second compacted film 2, the first dry electrode film, and the second dry electrode film is self- supporting, respectively).
Limitations of claims 10-14 is/are also met by the Fukunaga (see Fig. 2, which depicts such density configuration as well as curvature configurations as set forth in these claims where a density of the second compacted film is less than a density of the second dry electrode film because the second dry electrode film has been compression twice thus the density of a second compacted film is less than a density of the second dry electrode film (see process of Fig. 2 of the Fukunaga).
As per claim 14, refer to Fig. 2 of the Fukunaga et al for such teaching of wherein a radius of curvature of the first compacted film 2’ is less than a radius of curvature of the first dry electrode film 2 since the roller set G and H has smaller radius than the set of A and B roller as discloses by the Fukunaga et al.
Similar to claim 14 above applied to claim 16 (see Fig. 2 of the Fukunaga as compare rollers I and J versus rollers C and D, respectively.
Limitations of claims 18-26 is/are also met by the process as disclosed by the Fukunaga, since no further inventive method features existed in the above claims (see various embodiment process e.g., Figs. 1-3 of the Fukunaga which depicts the lamination process includes that as in above claim where the laminating the first electrode film 2 to the first side of the current collector 3 occurs simultaneously with the laminating the second electrode film 2 to the second side of the current collector 3 in a simultaneously matters.
As applied to claims 27-28, 30, refers to Fig. 3 of the Fukunaga for the teaching of compressing the first compacted film comprises iteratively compressing the first compacted film (see Fig. 3, and that as in claim 28 where the first compacted film at least a second time, respectively through at least 3 pairs set of rollers).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt