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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 09/04/2025 has been acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an electrode rolling portion configured to roll…” in claim 1 line 4.
“a connection unit configured to electrically connect…” in claim 5 line 2-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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 1-10 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-305322 to Tanaka (translation provided by examiner) in view of US 2011/0289790 to Kazama and US 2020/0156128 to Yoo.
As per claim 1, Tanaka discloses an electrode rolling apparatus (see strip electrode manufacturing apparatus 33 in Fig 6-8) for rolling an electrode substrate (see strip shaped material 12A in Fig 6-8) having a coated portion (see electrode mixture layer 12 in Fig 8) and an uncoated portion (see electrode uncoated portion 7 in Fig 8), the apparatus comprising:
a heating section (see heating furnace 37 in Fig 6-8) having an effective region (see area beneath the induction heater 38 in Fig 7-8) where a magnetic field is generated (see induction heater 38 in Fig 7-8; see Translation page 8-9); and
an electrode rolling portion (see pair of compression rolls 32 in Fig 6-7) for rolling the electrode substrate,
wherein the heating section comprises a heating unit disposed on at least one side of opposing sides of the electrode substrate (see induction heater 38 that includes portions provided above and below the material 13A) in reference to a traveling direction of the electrode substrate,
wherein the heating unit comprises a first heating unit and a second heating unit that are disposed on a first part of the electrode substrate and a second part of the electrode substrate opposing the first part, respectively (see upper and lower parts of the induction heater 38 as shown in Fig 8), and
wherein the coil unit is configured to inductively heat an entire region of the uncoated portion (see electrode uncoated portion 7 in Fig 8 provided beneath the induction heater 38) and a partial region of the coated portion (see electrode mixture layer 12 in Fig 8 with a partial portion provided beneath the induction heater; see Translation page 8-9 that indicates that most of the electrode mixture layer 12 is not heated by the induction heater 38, necessarily implying that at least a portion of the electrode mixture layer 12 is heated by the induction heater 38) that are located on the opposing sides centering on a boundary line (see boundary between the electrode uncoated portion 7 and the electrode mixture layer 12 in Fig 8) between the coated portion and the uncoated portion (see Fig 8 that shows that the induction heater provided above the entire electrode uncoated portion 7 and a partial portion of the electrode mixture layer 12 to heat the entire uncoated portion 7 and at least a partial portion of the electrode mixture layer, see Translation page 8-9),
wherein the uncoated portion extends in the traveling direction of the electrode substrate (see Fig 8 that shows that the electrode uncoated portion 7 extends along the traveling direction of the strip shaped material 12A represented by the arrow), and
wherein the coil unit is configured to inductively heat the uncoated portion (see Translation page 8-9).
As per claim 1, Tanaka discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but Tanaka does not disclose details of the induction heater 38 such as including coils or generating a uniform magnetic field. However, it is very well-known in the art that such induction heaters as disclosed in Tanaka include coils that produce magnetic fields for inductively heating metallic materials, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the induction heater 38 of Tanaka would include a first coil and a second coil provided on opposite sides of the electrode substrate for generating a magnetic field between the coils for heating the electrode substrate, wherein it would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill to generate a uniform magnetic field as this would provide greater control as to the location and strength of the magnetic field so as to provide greater control of the inductive heating.
Kazama discloses a similar electrode rolling apparatus (see apparatus 100 in Fig 3) for rolling an electrode substrate (see electrode material 133 on a metal foil 130 in Fig 3) having a coated portion (see coated portion 131 in Fig 5-6) and an uncoated portion (see exposed portion 134 in Fig 5-6), comprising a coil section (see inductive coil 110 in Fig 3 and 5-6) having an effective region (see region provided between the inductive heating portions 113 and 114 and the inductive heating portions 115 and 116 in Fig 3 and 5-6) where a uniform magnetic field is generated (see arrows in Fig 5B perpendicular to the surface of the metal foil 130; Para 0066 indicates that the magnetic flux produced by the inductive coil 110 is transmitted through a surface of the metal foil 130 in a direction perpendicular to the surface and therefore would be uniform in terms of direction), and an electrode rolling portion (see take up roll 146 in Fig 3 and/or pair of roll presses 151 and 152 in Fig 9) for rolling the electrode substrate; wherein the coil section comprises a coil unit (see inductive heating portions 113, 114, 115 and 116 in Fig 3 and 5-6) including a first coil unit (see inductive heating portions 113 and 114 in Fig 3 and 5-6) and a second coil unit (see inductive heating portions 115 and 116 in Fig 3 and 5-6) that are disposed on opposite sides of the electrode substrate in reference to a traveling direction of the electrode substrate.
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the disclosure of Tanaka as to specifically provide the induction heater with a first coil unit and a second coil unit provided on opposite sides of the electrode substrate for generating a uniform magnetic field at the effective region of the coil section. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that induction heaters such as disclosed in Tanaka are very well-known for including coils that produce magnetic fields for inductively heating metallic materials such as the electrode substrate and that it is also advantageous to generate uniform magnetic fields within the effective region of the inductive heater to provide greater control as to the location and strength of the magnetic field so as to provide greater control of the inductive heating, and therefore it would be a routine matter to modify the induction heater of Tanaka to include induction coils on either side of the electrode substrate to generate a uniform magnetic field between the induction coils as taught by Kazama; the obvious advantages being that the coils would effectively produce a uniform magnetic field for heating the electrode substrate as disclosed by Kazama and the unform magnetic field would allow for greater control of where the magnetic field heats the electrode substrate and how strong the heating of the electrode substate is as would be generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 1, Tanaka and Kazama disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Tanaka further discloses that that inductive heating of the uncoated portion reduces the internal strain in the electrode substrate (see Translation page 9), but does not explicitly disclose that this minimizes a deviation in a stretching ratio between the coated and uncoated portions.
Yoo discloses a similar electrode rolling apparatus (see electrode rolling apparatus 600 in Fig 1-2) for rolling an electrode substrate (see electrode E in Fig 1-4 and 7) having a coated portion (see electrode active material A in Fig 2-4 and 7) and an uncoated portion (see non-coated portion N in Fig 2-3, 4, and 7), wherein the uncoated portions are inductively heated (see Para 0054) by a heating unit (see heating unit 620 in Fig 2-4 and 7 including heaters 620a/622) to balance the elongation between the coated and non-coated portions, i.e. minimizing a stretching ratio between the coated and non-coated portions, during rolling using an electrode rolling portion (see rolling unit 630 in Fig 2) in order to prevent bending or twisting of the electrode substrate which adversely impacts the performance of the electrode substrates (see Para 0003-0007, 0042-0043, and 0053-0054)
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the above combination of Tanaka and Kazama as to inductively heat the uncoated portion in order to minimize a deviation in a stretching ratio between the coated portion and the uncoated portion as taught by Yoo. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo references are all directed towards similar electrode rolling methods in which the uncoated portion of the electrode substrate is heated via induction and therefore it would have been a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Yoo for improvements on Tanaka and/or Kazama such as balancing the stretching/elongation of the coated and uncoated portions to prevent bending as taught by Yoo; the obvious advantages being that balancing the elongation (i.e. minimizing the stretching ratio) between the coated and uncoated portions of the electrode substrate would prevent bending or twisting of the electrode substrate which adversely impacts the performance of the electrode substrates (Yoo: Para 0042-0043, and 0053-0054).
As per claim 2, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Tanaka further discloses that the inductive heater 38 is provided above and below the entirety of the uncoated portion 7 and overhangs an air region and the electrode mixture layer 12 provided on either side of the uncoated portion 7, and therefore would have an effective region including the uncoated portion 7 and a partial region of the coated portion and the air region on either side of the uncoated portion; also Kazama discloses that the effective region of the inductive coil 110 includes the uncoated portion, the coated portion adjacent to the uncoated portion, and an air region adjacent to the uncoated portion (see Fig 6).
As per claim 3, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Kazama further discloses that a magnetic core (see magnetic core 112 in Fig 3 and 5) is formed in the first and second coil units around the induction coils for directing the magnetic flux towards the electrode substrate in the effective region (see Fig 3 and 5-6; Para 0073). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the above combination of Tanaka and Kazama with the aforementioned teachings of Kazama as to form a magnetic core in the effective region of the first and second coil units with the reasonable expectation that this would direct the magnetic flux generated by the coil units towards the electrode substrate to effectively heat the electrode substrate in the effective region (Kazama: Para 0073).
As per claim 4, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Tanaka discloses that the induction heater 38 is positioned corresponding to the uncoated portion 7 and a partial region of the coated portion (see 12 in Fig 8) adjacent to the uncoated portion 7; therefore the above combination of Tanaka and Kazuma would result in the magnetic core 112 of Kazama also being positioned corresponding to the uncoated portion 7 and a partial region of the coated portion (see 12 in Fig 8) adjacent to the uncoated portion 7 because the magnetic core is positioned around the coils in the effective region of the coils; further this would also result in the magnetic flux generated by the coil units to be directed towards the electrode substrate so that the elect4rode substrate can be effectively heat in the effective region as disclosed by Kazama (Kazama: Para 0073).
As per claim 5, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kazama further discloses that the coil section (110) comprises a connection unit (see connection portion of the inductive coil 110 that connects the first upper coil unit 113/114 to the second lower coil unit 115/116 in Fig 5-6) that electrically connects the first coil unit (113 and 114) and the second coil unit (115 and 116), and the connection unit extends in a direction perpendicular to a surface of the electrode substrate (see the connection portion of the inductive coil that has to extend in a vertical direction perpendicular to the surface of the electrode substrate in order to connect the first upper coil unit 113/114 to the second lower coil unit 115/116 as shown in Fig 5-6).
As per claim 6, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Kazama further discloses that as a current enters the first coil unit (113/114) and flows to the second coil unit (115/116), a direction rotation direction of current flow of the first coil unit and a rotation direction of current flow of the second coil unit are the same so that the inductive magnetic fluxes do not cancel each other out (see Fig 6 that shows that as the rotation direction of the first cupper coil unit and the second lower coil unit are in the same rotational direction; Para 0078-0079).
As per claim 7, Tanaka discloses an electrode rolling method for rolling an electrode substrate (see strip shaped material 12A in Fig 6-8) including an electrode current collector layer (see electrode current collector 11 in Fig 8) and a coated portion (see electrode mixture layer 12 in Fig 8) formed on one surface or both surfaces of the electrode current collector layer using a rolling roll (see pair of compression rolls 32 in Fig 6-7), the method comprising the steps of:
inductively heating the electrode substrate (see heating furnace 37 including induction heater 38 in Fig 6-8; see Translation page 7-8); and
rolling the electrode substrate (see pair of compression rolls 32 in Fig 6-7),
wherein the step of inductively heating the electrode substrate comprises inductively heating an entire region of an uncoated portion (see electrode uncoated portion 7 in Fig 8 provided beneath the induction heater 38) of the electrode current collector layer and a partial region of the coated portion (see electrode mixture layer 12 in Fig 8 with a partial portion provided beneath the induction heater; see Translation page 8-9 that indicates that most of the electrode mixture layer 12 is not heated by the induction heater 38, necessarily implying that at least a portion of the electrode mixture layer 12 is heated by the induction heater 38) that are located on both sides of the electrode current collector layer centering on the boundary line (see boundary between the electrode uncoated portion 7 and the electrode mixture layer 12 in Fig 8) between the coated portion and the uncoated portion by using a heating section (see induction heater 38 in Fig 7-8), and
wherein the heating section comprises a first heating unit and a second heating unit (see upper and lower parts of the induction heater 38 as shown in Fig 8) that are disposed on a first part of the electrode substrate and a second part of the electrode substrate opposing the first part, respectively;
wherein the uncoated portion extends in the traveling direction of the electrode substrate (see Fig 8 that shows that the electrode uncoated portion 7 extends along the traveling direction of the strip shaped material 12A represented by the arrow), and
wherein the coil unit is configured to inductively heat the uncoated portion (see Translation page 8-9).
As per claim 7, Tanaka discloses the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but Tanaka does not disclose details of the induction heater 38 such as including coils. However, it is very well-known in the art that such induction heaters as disclosed in Tanaka include coils that produce magnetic fields for inductively heating metallic materials, therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the induction heater 38 of Tanaka would include a first coil and a second coil provided on opposite sides of the electrode substrate for generating a magnetic field between the coils for heating the electrode substrate.
Kazama discloses a similar electrode rolling method for rolling an electrode substrate (see electrode material 133 on a metal foil 130 in Fig 3) including an electrode current collector layer (see metal foil 130 in Fig 3) and a coated portion (see electrode material 133 in Fig 3) using a rolling roll (see take up roll 146 in Fig 3 and/or pair of roll presses 151 and 152 in Fig 9), including inductively heating the electrode substrate (using inductive coil 110 in Fig 3 and 5-6), and rolling the electrode substrate (using the take up roll 146 in Fig 3 and/or pair of roll presses 151 and 152 in Fig 9), wherein the coil section comprises a coil unit (see inductive heating portions 113, 114, 115 and 116 in Fig 3 and 5-6) including a first coil unit (see inductive heating portions 113 and 114 in Fig 3 and 5-6) and a second coil unit (see inductive heating portions 115 and 116 in Fig 3 and 5-6) that are disposed on opposite sides of the electrode substrate in reference to a traveling direction of the electrode substrate that generate a uniform magnetic field between the coils to inductively heat the electrode substrate (Para 0050-0051)
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the disclosure of Tanaka as to specifically provide the induction heater with a first coil unit and a second coil unit provided on opposite sides of the electrode substrate for generating a uniform magnetic field at the effective region of the coil section. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that induction heaters such as disclosed in Tanaka are very well-known for including coils that produce magnetic fields for inductively heating metallic materials such as the electrode substrate and that it is also advantageous to generate uniform magnetic fields within the effective region of the inductive heater to provide greater control as to the location and strength of the magnetic field so as to provide greater control of the inductive heating, and therefore it would be a routine matter to modify the induction heater of Tanaka to include induction coils on either side of the electrode substrate as taught by Kazama; the obvious advantages being that the coils would effectively produce a uniform magnetic field for heating the electrode substrate as disclosed by Kazama and the unform magnetic field would allow for greater control of where the magnetic field heats the electrode substrate and how strong the heating of the electrode substate is as would be generally understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 7, Tanaka and Kazama disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Tanaka further discloses that that inductive heating of the uncoated portion reduces the internal strain in the electrode substrate (see Translation page 9), but does not explicitly disclose that this minimizes a deviation in a stretching ratio between the coated and uncoated portions.
Yoo discloses a similar electrode rolling apparatus (see electrode rolling apparatus 600 in Fig 1-2) for rolling an electrode substrate (see electrode E in Fig 1-4 and 7) having a coated portion (see electrode active material A in Fig 2-4 and 7) and an uncoated portion (see non-coated portion N in Fig 2-3, 4, and 7), wherein the uncoated portions are inductively heated (see Para 0054) by a heating unit (see heating unit 620 in Fig 2-4 and 7 including heaters 620a/622) to balance the elongation between the coated and non-coated portions, i.e. minimizing a stretching ratio between the coated and non-coated portions, during rolling using an electrode rolling portion (see rolling unit 630 in Fig 2) in order to prevent bending or twisting of the electrode substrate which adversely impacts the performance of the electrode substrates (see Para 0003-0007, 0042-0043, and 0053-0054)
At the time the application was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to modify the above combination of Tanaka and Kazama as to inductively heat the uncoated portion in order to minimize a deviation in a stretching ratio between the coated portion and the uncoated portion as taught by Yoo. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo references are all directed towards similar electrode rolling methods in which the uncoated portion of the electrode substrate is heated via induction and therefore it would have been a routine matter for one of ordinary skill in the art to look to Yoo for improvements on Tanaka and/or Kazama such as balancing the stretching/elongation of the coated and uncoated portions to prevent bending as taught by Yoo; the obvious advantages being that balancing the elongation (i.e. minimizing the stretching ratio) between the coated and uncoated portions of the electrode substrate would prevent bending or twisting of the electrode substrate which adversely impacts the performance of the electrode substrates (Yoo: Para 0042-0043, and 0053-0054).
As per claim 8, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Tanaka further discloses that the step of inductively heating the electrode substrate is performed after the step of rolling the electrode substrate (see Fig 7).
As per claim 9, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Kazama further discloses that the step of inductively heating the electrode substrate forms a magnetic field in a vertical direction between the first coil unit and the second coil unit (see Fig 6; Para 0071-0073 and 0078-0079).
As per claim 10, Tanaka, Kazama, and Yoo disclose the elements of the current invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7. Tanaka discloses that the inductive heater 38 is provided above and below the entirety of the uncoated portion 7 and overhangs an air region and the electrode mixture layer 12 provided on either side of the uncoated portion 7, and therefore would have an effective region including the uncoated portion 7 and a partial region of the coated portion and the air region on either side of the uncoated portion; also Kazama discloses that an effective region (see region provided between the inductive heating portions 113 and 114 and the inductive heating portions 115 and 116 in Fig 3 and 5-6) where a magnetic field in a vertical direction (see magnetic flux in Fig 6; Para 0071-0073 and 0078-0079) is formed comprises the uncoated portion (see exposed portion 134 in Fig 5-6), the coated portion (see coated portion 131 in Fig 5-6) adjacent to the uncoated portion, and an air region deviating from one side of the uncoated portion separated from the coated portion (see Fig 5-6). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the above combination of Tanaka and Kazama with the aforementioned teachings of Kazama as to generate a magnetic field in a vertical direction in the effective region including the uncoated portion and a partial region of the coated portion and an air region on either side of the uncoated portion with the reasonable expectation that this the magnetic flux generated in a vertical direction would direct the magnetic flux directly towards the electrode substrate to effectively heat the electrode substrate in the effective region (Kazama: Para 0071-0073).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s response, filed 09/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 7 under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0289790 to Kazama and AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2007-305322 to Tanaka in view of US 2011/0289790 to Kazama have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed 09/04/2025. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 2020/0156128 to Yoo (see above 103 rejection).
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 Joshua D. Anderson, whose telephone number is (571) 270-0157. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 7 AM and 2 PM Arizona time.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh, can be reached at (571) 272-3460.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/JOSHUA D ANDERSON/
Examiner, Art Unit 3729
/JEFFREY T CARLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729