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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi et al (U.S. Patent # 9,490,476) in view of Co et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0309223).
In the case of claim 1, Mitsuhashi teaches a method for manufacturing a negative electrode (Abstract and Column 1 Lines 14-17). The method of Mitsuhashi comprised supplying a negative electrode mixed material in the form of a graphite-containing negative electrode mixture to the surface of a current collector followed by applying a magnetic field to the mixture on the current collector (Column 5 Lines 13-34). Mitsuhashi further teaches that the current collector comprised a metal foil (Column 6 Lines 18-29). Furthermore, Mitsuhashi teaches that the negative electrode mixed material/mixture was supplied onto the current collector/metal foil 22 as it was conveyed along an outer peripheral surface of a backup roll 128 (Column 7 Lines 1-20 and Figure 1).
Furthermore, Mitsuhashi teaches that applying the magnetic field comprised a first magnetic field application step wherein a magnetic field was applied to orientate the negative electrode mixture in a direction orthogonal to the current collector (Column 10 Line 37 through Column 11 Line 13 and Figure 5) followed by a second magnetic field application step wherein a magnetic field was applied to orientate the mixture in a width direction of the collector (Column 11 Lines 13-24 and Figure 5).
Mitsuhashi teaches that application of the magnetic fields was conducted at a magnetic field application apparatus 130 which was stationed after the mixture coating apparatus 120 (Column 7 Lines 40-64 and Figure 1). Therefore, Mitsuhashi teaches that application of the second magnetic field was applied after the metal foil/current collector was supplied with the negative electrode mixture. However, Mitsuhashi did not teach that the back-up roll 128 was a magnetic roll and that the first magnetic field was applied by the magnetic roll.
Cho teaches a method for manufacturing a negative electrode (Abstract). Cho teaches that the manufacturing process comprised applying a negative electrode slurry to an electrode sheet while a magnetic field was applied wherein the slurry comprised a carbon-based negative electrode active material which included graphite (Pages 5-6 Paragraphs 0080-0084 and 0093). Cho teaches that the negative slurry was applied to the electrode sheet/current collector while the sheet was rotated around a coating roll 200 which was magnetic and applied a magnetic field to the slurry (Pages 4-5 Paragraphs 0066-0072 and Figure 1 and 3). Cho teaches that by applying a magnetic field from a magnet roll during application of the slurry the carbon-based negative electrode active material was orientated perpendicularly to the surface of the current collector (Page 2 Paragraph 0035).
Based on the teachings of Cho, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have had the back-up roll 128 of the Mitsuhashi be a magnetic roll which applied the first magnetic field to the negative electrode mixture because this was a known process in the art for orientating graphite/negative electrode material in a direction orthogonal to the surface of the collector.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi et al in view of Cho et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morishima et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0304981).
The teachings of Mitsuhashi in view of Cho as they apply to claim 1 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claims 2 and 3, as was discussed previously, Mitsuhashi in view of Cho teach that as the first magnetic field was applied the current collector/metal foil was wrapped around a back-up roll/magnetic roll which also occurred while the negative electrode mixture was being applied to the current collector. However, neither Mitsuhashi nor Cho teach that the holding angle of the magnet roll to the metal foils was 90 to 350 degrees, specifically 180 to 350 degrees.
However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP section 2144.05.II.A.
Furthermore, Morishima teaches method for manufacturing an electrode on a current collector wherein a slurry of active material was supplied onto the current collector while the current collector was wound around a backup roll 21 (Abstract, Pages 1-2 Paragraphs 0019-0023 and Figure 3). Morishima further teaches that a holding angle theta which represented the angle of contact between the current collector and the surface of the backup roll 21 was a cause effective variable because it affected the amount of pressure applied to the current collector during coating and that the amount of pressure applied to the current collected affected the wrinkling/creasing of the collector (Page 2 Paragraphs 0031-0033 and Figure 3).
Based on the teachings of Morishima, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined optimal holding angles between the magnet roll and the metal foil/current collector of Mitsuhashi in view of Cho during application of the first magnetic field and suppling of the negative electrode mixture because the holding angle affected the amount of pressure being applied to the current collector was it was wound around the roll.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 3 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 (571)272-1418. 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.
/MICHAEL P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights