- Μηνύματα
- 60.810
- Reaction score
- 147.663
How this continuation contributes to Tesla’s now and future
First, it blocks competitors from "fast-following" the 4680 production method. This patent prevents them from building factories that operate like Tesla’s. By protecting the specific "mix-then-bind" sequence and the "low-binder" recipe, Tesla ensures that its Gigafactories remain unique. Competitors cannot simply buy the same mixing equipment and run the same recipe without risking patent infringement.
Second, it secures the economics of "cheap" raw materials. By specifically patenting the use of larger (greater than 10 microns) particles, Tesla is validating a cheaper supply chain. Smaller, highly processed particles cost more. This patent confirms that Tesla’s process is optimized for standard, "bulk" grade materials. Protecting this capability ensures Tesla retains a cost margin advantage, as they can turn cheaper, commoditized inputs into premium performance outputs.
Third, it creates a legal "thicket" around dry electrode tech. This filing is a classic "picket fence" strategy. The parent patent protects the battery efficiency (90-94%). This child patent protects the binder loading (less than 2%) and the particle size. Future filings will likely protect the machinery. This layering makes it nearly impossible for a competitor to design a dry electrode without tripping over at least one of Tesla’s patents.
Finally, it validates the "micro-factory" concept. The emphasis on creating a "free-standing" film without a metal foil backing is crucial. It means the electrode film can be made in one machine and rolled up, then applied to foil later. This decouples the manufacturing steps, allowing Tesla to fit production lines into smaller, non-linear spaces, which is essential for the tight footprints of future factory expansions or retrofitting existing lines.
First, it blocks competitors from "fast-following" the 4680 production method. This patent prevents them from building factories that operate like Tesla’s. By protecting the specific "mix-then-bind" sequence and the "low-binder" recipe, Tesla ensures that its Gigafactories remain unique. Competitors cannot simply buy the same mixing equipment and run the same recipe without risking patent infringement.
Second, it secures the economics of "cheap" raw materials. By specifically patenting the use of larger (greater than 10 microns) particles, Tesla is validating a cheaper supply chain. Smaller, highly processed particles cost more. This patent confirms that Tesla’s process is optimized for standard, "bulk" grade materials. Protecting this capability ensures Tesla retains a cost margin advantage, as they can turn cheaper, commoditized inputs into premium performance outputs.
Third, it creates a legal "thicket" around dry electrode tech. This filing is a classic "picket fence" strategy. The parent patent protects the battery efficiency (90-94%). This child patent protects the binder loading (less than 2%) and the particle size. Future filings will likely protect the machinery. This layering makes it nearly impossible for a competitor to design a dry electrode without tripping over at least one of Tesla’s patents.
Finally, it validates the "micro-factory" concept. The emphasis on creating a "free-standing" film without a metal foil backing is crucial. It means the electrode film can be made in one machine and rolled up, then applied to foil later. This decouples the manufacturing steps, allowing Tesla to fit production lines into smaller, non-linear spaces, which is essential for the tight footprints of future factory expansions or retrofitting existing lines.
