DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s amendment filed 28 May 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 19 have been amended, claims 15-20 remain withdrawn, and claims 1-20 remain pending.
The previous Office action inadvertently omitted a rejection for claim 12. A new rejection for claim 12 is presented below, which is NOT necessitated by amendment, and so this action is made NON-FINAL.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 10, to what does “the force” refer? In claim 1, there appear to be three different forces so the use of “the force” makes it unclear. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will be treating “the force” as referring to “a force on the battery active material at the first pressure point via the first roller”. As claims 2-14 depend directly from claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
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(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirukawa (US 2019/0036104), in view of Dube (US 2021/0151737).
Regarding claim 1, Hirukawa teaches a system to manufacture an electrode, comprising:
a first roller (first roll 1, see Fig. 1; [0038]) and a second roller (second roll 2, see Fig. 1; [0038]) that define a first pressure point (see Fig. 1 – equated to the pinch point between rolls 1 and 2) and a first tangent line (see Fig. 1), the first roller (first roll 1, see Fig. 1; [0038]) and the second roller (second roll 2, see Fig. 1; [0038]) configured to apply force to a battery active material (positive electrode mixture 6, see Fig. 1; [0035]) received between the first roller (first roll 1, see Fig. 1; [0038]) and the second roller (second roll 2, see Fig. 1; [0038]) to form a film (first film-shaped positive electrode mixture 8, see Fig. 1; [0044]); and
the second roller (second roll 2, see Fig. 1; [0038]) and a third roller (third roll 3, see Fig. 1; [0038]) that define a second pressure point (see Fig. 1 – equated to the pinch point between rolls 2 and 3) a second tangent line (see Fig. 1) that intersects the first tangent line (see Fig. 1), the second roller (second roll 2, see Fig. 1; [0038]) and the third roller (third roll 3, see Fig. 1; [0038]) configured to apply force to the film received between the second roller and the third roller (see [0045]).
Hirukawa is silent to an actuator coupled with the first roller the second pressure point isolated from the force (see Fig. 1).
Dube teaches an actuator (hydraulic linear actuators 66, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) coupled with a first roller (working roller 18b, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) to move the first roller toward or away from a second roller (working roller 18a, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) in order to change the thickness of the rolled film (see [0048]).
In view of Dube’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Hirukawa to include an actuator coupled with the first roller, because it allows for control of the thickness of the resultant film being rolled. Furthermore, the combination of Hirukawa and Dube would result in the second pressure point isolated from the force (Hirukawa: see Fig. 1).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., to move the first roller toward the second roller to exert a force on the battery active material at the first pressure point via the first roller, the second pressure point isolated from the force), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hirukawa and Dube teaches the system comprising:
an infeed device (Hirukawa: partition plates 4, 5, see Figs. 1-2; [0038]) configured to provide the battery active material (Hirukawa: positive electrode mixture 6, see Fig. 1; [0035]) to the first roller (Hirukawa: first roll 1, see Fig. 1; [0038]) and the second roller (Hirukawa: second roll 2, see Fig. 1; [0038]), wherein the second roller (Hirukawa: second roll 2, see Fig. 1; [0038]) and the third roller (Hirukawa: third roll 3, see Fig. 1; [0038]) are configured to apply force to the film to form a second film, wherein the second film is thinner than the film (Hirukawa: see [0045]).
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukunaga (JPH0462750 A; using the previously attached English machine translation), in view of Dube (US 2021/0151737).
Regarding claim 1, Fukunaga teaches a system (see Figs. 1-2) to manufacture an electrode, comprising:
a first roller (roll A, see Figs. 1-2) and a second roller (roll B, see Figs. 1-2) that define a first pressure point (see Fig. 1 – equated to the pinch point between rolls A and B) and a first tangent line (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the first roller (roll A, see Figs. 1-2) and the second roller (roll B, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to a battery active material (positive electrode mixture 1, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4) received between the first roller (roller A, see Figs. 1-2) and the second roller (roll B, see Figs. 1-2) to form a film (sheet 2, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4); and
the second roller (roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and a third roller (roll E, see Figs. 1-2) that define a second pressure point (see Fig. 1 – equated to the pinch point between rolls B and E) and a second tangent line (see annotated Fig. 2 below) that intersects the first tangent line (see annotated Fig. 2 below), the second roller (roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (roll E, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to the film received between the second roller and the third roller (see Figs. 1-2 – as the film received between rolls B and E is transferred entirely to E, the combination of rolls B and E must apply a force to the film received between them).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fukunaga is silent to an actuator coupled with the first roller the second pressure point isolated from the force (see Fig. 1).
Dube teaches an actuator (hydraulic linear actuators 66, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) coupled with a first roller (working roller 18b, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) to move the first roller toward or away from a second roller (working roller 18a, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) in order to change the thickness of the rolled film (see [0048]).
In view of Dube’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Fukunaga to include an actuator coupled with the first roller, because it allows for control of the thickness of the resultant film being rolled. Furthermore, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube would result in the second pressure point isolated from the force (Fukunaga: see Fig. 1).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., to move the first roller toward the second roller to exert a force on the battery active material at the first pressure point via the first roller, the second pressure point isolated from the force), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system comprising:
the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and a fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) that define a third tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to a second film (Fukunaga: see p. 7) formed by the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system comprising:
the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and a fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) that define a third tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) configured to laminate a current collector material (Fukunaga: core material 3, see Figs. 1-2; p. 7) and a second film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2) formed by the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system comprising:
the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2) configured to rotate at a first angular velocity (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2), the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) configured to rotate at a second angular velocity (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2).
The combination of Fukunaga and Dube is silent to wherein the first angular velocity is different than the second angular velocity. However, this is can be attributed to the size of each roll, and absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., wherein the first angular velocity is different than the second angular velocity to apply a shearing force to the battery active material to shear the battery active material), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system, comprising:
the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2) comprising a first roller diameter (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2), the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) comprising a second roller diameter (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2).
the combination of Fukunaga and Dube is silent to wherein the first roller diameter and the second roller diameter are different. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system, comprising:
the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2) comprising a first roller diameter (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2), the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) comprising a second roller diameter (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2).
The combination of Fukunaga and Dube is silent to wherein the first roller diameter is smaller than the second roller diameter. However, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system comprising:
the actuator (Dube: hydraulic linear actuators 66, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]), the first pressure point (see Fig. 1 – equated to the pinch point between rolls A and B), the first roller (roll A, see Figs. 1-2) and the second roller (roll B, see Figs. 1-2)
Regarding the functional language (e.g., to move the first roller toward the second roller to exert a compressive force on the battery active material at the first pressure point via the first roller to compress the battery active material between the first roller and the second roller), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., the battery active material), as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches wherein the actuator is a linear actuator (Dube: see [0047]), the system comprising:
the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2) rotatable about a first axis (Fukunaga: axis of roll A, see Figs. 1-2) and the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) rotatable about a second axis (Fukunaga: axis of roll B, see Figs. 1-2);
the actuator (Dube: hydraulic linear actuators 66, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) coupled with the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2), the first pressure point (see Fig. 1 – equated to the pinch point between rolls 1 and 2), and wherein the second axis is a fixed axis (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., rotatable about a first axis, rotatable about a second axis, to move the first axis toward the second axis to exert a compressive force on the battery active material at the first pressure point via the first roller, wherein the second axis is a fixed axis) to act on the first roller and exert a force on the battery active material at a first pressure point via the first roller, to transfer the battery active material from the first pressure point to a second pressure point), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., the battery active material), as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system comprising:
an infeed device (Fukunaga: combination of rolls G and H, see Fig. 2; p. 7-8) configured to provide the battery active material to the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2) and the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2), wherein the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) are configured to apply force to the film to form a second film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – as the film received between rolls B and E is transferred entirely to E, the combination of rolls B and E must apply a force to the film received between them).
The combination of Fukunaga and Dube is silent to wherein the second film is thinner than the film; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method of Fukunaga to include wherein second and the third rollers apply a force to the film to produce a second film wherein the second film is thinner than the film in order to produce a resultant electrode film that is thinner than the film.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system comprising:
an infeed device (Fukunaga: combination of rolls G and H, see Fig. 2; p. 7-8) configured to provide the battery active material to the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2) and the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2), wherein the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) are configured to apply force to the film to form a second film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – as the film received between rolls B and E is transferred entirely to E, the combination of rolls B and E must apply a force to the film received between them); and
a current collector material (Fukunaga: core material 3, see Figs. 1-2; p. 7) to the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and a fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2), wherein the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) are configured to laminate the current collector material (Fukunaga: core material 3, see Figs. 1-2; p. 7) with the second film (Fukunaga: see p. 7).
the combination of Fukunaga and Dube is silent to a web handling device, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include a web handling device in order to provide support to the core material 3 and help control its tension as it is being provided to the system and laminated.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system, comprising:
the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and a fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) that define a third tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) configured to laminate a second film (Fukunaga: see p. 7) formed by the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2);
a fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and a sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fourth tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to a second battery active material (Fukunaga: positive electrode mixture 1 fed between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4) to form a third film (Fukunaga: sheet 2 formed after rolling between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4); and
the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fifth tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above) that intersects the fourth tangent line (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2), the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to the third film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – as the film received between rolls C and F is transferred entirely to F, the combination of rolls C and F must apply a force to the film received between them).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches wherein the actuator is a first actuator (see rejection for claim 1 above), the system comprising:
the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2) rotatable about a first axis (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2), the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) rotatable about a second axis (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2);
the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1 and 2) and a fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) that define a third tangent line (see annotated Fig. 2 of Fukunaga above), the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1 and 2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) configured to laminate a second film (Fukunaga: see p. 7) formed by the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2);
a fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and a sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fourth tangent line (see annotated Fig. 2 of Fukunaga above), the fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) rotatable about a fifth axis (see Figs. 1-2), the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) rotatable about a sixth axis (see Figs. 1-2), the fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to a second battery active material (Fukunaga: positive electrode mixture 1 fed between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4) to form a third film (Fukunaga: sheet 2 formed after rolling between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4);
the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fifth tangent line (see annotated Fig. 2 of Fukunaga above) that intersects the fourth tangent line (see annotated Fig. 2 of Fukunaga above), the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to the third film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – as the film received between rolls C and F is transferred entirely to F, the combination of rolls C and F must apply a force to the film received between them);
the first actuator coupled with the first roller (see rejection for claim 1 above) to move the first axis of the first roller toward the second axis of the second roller to exert a force on the battery active material at a first pressure point (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – equated to the pinch point between rolls A and B) via the first roller (Fukunaga: roll A, see Figs. 1-2), wherein the second axis (Fukunaga: axis of roll B, see Figs. 1-2) is a fixed axis (Dube: working roller 18a, which is fixed, is paired with movable working roller 18b; see [0047]); Thus it would be obvious for the axis of the second roller, roll B, to be fixed); and
a second actuator coupled with the fifth roller (a second actuator coupled with the fifth roller is merely a duplication of the first actuator (see rejection for claim 1 above) of the combination of Fukunaga and Dube being applied to the fifth roller, roll D, of the combination of Fukunaga and Dube, and the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; see MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B)) to move the fifth axis of the fifth roller toward the sixth axis of the sixth roller to exert a force on the second battery active material at a fourth pressure point (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – equated to the pinch point between rolls C and D) via the fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2), wherein the sixth roller axis (Fukunaga: axis of roll C, see Figs. 1-2) is a fixed axis (Dube: working roller 18a, which is fixed, is paired with movable working roller 18b; see [0047]); Thus it would be obvious for the axis of the sixth roller, roll C, to be fixed).
Regarding the functional language (e.g., to move the first axis of the first roller toward the second axis of the second roller to exert a force on the battery active material, to move the fifth axis of the fifth roller toward the sixth axis of the sixth roller to exert a force on the second battery active material), the Examiner has considered it. However, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system comprising:
the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and a fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) that define a third tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) configured to laminate a second film (Fukunaga: see p. 7) formed by the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2);
a fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and a sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fourth tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to a second battery active material (Fukunaga: positive electrode mixture 1 fed between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4) to form a third film (Fukunaga: sheet 2 formed after rolling between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4); and
the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fifth tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above) that intersects the fourth tangent line (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2), the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to the third film to form a fourth film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – as the film received between rolls C and F is transferred entirely to F, the combination of rolls C and F must apply a force to the film received between them to produce a fourth film),
wherein the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) are further configured to laminate a current collector material (Fukunaga: core material 3, see Figs. 1-2; p. 7) with the second film and the fourth film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fukunaga and Dube teaches the system, comprising:
the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and a fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) that define a third tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) and the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) configured to laminate a second film (Fukunaga: see p. 7) formed by the second roller (Fukunaga: roll B, see Figs. 1-2) and the third roller (Fukunaga: roll E, see Figs. 1-2) to form an electrode layer (Fukunaga: see p. 7);
a fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and a sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fourth tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the fifth roller (Fukunaga: roll D, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to a second battery active material (Fukunaga: positive electrode mixture 1 fed between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4) to form a third film (Fukunaga: sheet 2 formed after rolling between rolls C and D, see Figs. 1-2; p. 4); and
the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) that define a fifth tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above) that intersects the third tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above) and the fourth tangent line (Fukunaga: see annotated Fig. 2 above), the fourth roller (Fukunaga: roll F, see Figs. 1-2) and the sixth roller (Fukunaga: roll C, see Figs. 1-2) configured to apply force to the third film (Fukunaga: see Figs. 1-2 – as the film received between rolls C and F is transferred entirely to F, the combination of rolls C and F must apply a force to the film received between them).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 10-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues, with respect to claim 1, that the prior art fails to teach amended claim 1 which recites “an actuator coupled with the first roller to move the first roller toward the second roller and exert a force on the battery active material at the first pressure point via the first roller, the second pressure point isolated from the force.”
The Examiner finds these arguments moot as claim 1 is now being rejected by the combination of Hirukawa and Dube and the combination of Fukunaga and Dube (see respective rejections for claim 1 above). In both of these combinations, Dube teaches the newly claimed actuator (hydraulic linear actuators 66, see Figs. 2-3; [0047]) which is used to change the thickness of the resultant film.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 10 June 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights