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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of heating roll that is spaced apart…”. Subject verb are not in agreement.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of heating roll” in line 5. It is unclear how many heating roll(s) the claim requires, i.e., a “plurality” of heating rolls or a “heating roll”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of heating rolls” in line 6, “each of the plurality of heating rolls” in lines 10-11, and “the plurality of heating rolls” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation “a plurality of heating roll” which is unclear as to how many heating roll(s) the claim requires (i.e., a “plurality” of heating rolls or a “heating roll”) as stated above and, thus, fails to provide antecedent basis for any of the other limitations in claim 1 directed to multiple heating rolls.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a plurality of guide rolls, wherein the plurality of guide rolls comprises a first guide roll and a second guide roll”. It is unclear whether the “plurality of guide rolls” includes the “guide roll” recited in claim 1 or not. Thus, it is unclear how many guide rolls are required by the claim.
Further, dependent claims 2-13 are rendered indefinite due to their dependency on any of the indefinite claims above.
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(s) 1-5, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (JP2011023129A, refer to English machine translation by EPO) in view of Song et al. (US 2014/0201983A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nishioka discloses an electrode drying device (Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-5) comprising:
a guide roll (unwinding unit 10, see p.4, Fig. 1-5);
a plurality of heating roll that is spaced apart from the guide roll, wherein the guide roll and the plurality of heating rolls provide a path between the entry port and the exit port through which the electrode moves during drying (heating roll 3, see p.4); and
a heater disposed between the guide roll and the heating roll and configured to heat the electrode to a first temperature (heating furnace 8 between unwinding unit 10 and heating roll 3, p.4, Fig. 3).
Although Nishioka does not disclose each of the plurality of heating rolls is configured to heat to a second temperature, addition of heating roll 3 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Further regarding claim 1 reciting “wherein the electrode passes through the plurality of heating rolls on the path, so that the device is capable of maintaining a temperature of the electrode at a temperature equal to or higher than the first temperature and lower than the second temperature while the electrode is on the path“, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02, 2112.01 and 2114-2115. In this instance, the apparatus of Nishioka including a heating furnace heating to a first temperature and a high-temperature heating roll heating to a second temperature is considered capable of maintaining the temperature of the electrode between the first and second temperature on the path formed between unwinding unit 10 and heating roll 3.
However, Nishioka does not expressly disclose a chamber having an entry port for receiving an electrode and an exit port for dispensing the electrode from the chamber.
Song discloses a dryer for electrode substrate comprising a chamber including an entry and exit (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-4).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishioka further discloses the second temperature is equal to the first temperature or is higher than the first temperature (heating roll 3 is set to 200 degrees C and furnace 8 is set to 120 degree C, see p.5).
Regarding claim 3, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishioka further discloses the first temperature ranges from 90 degrees Celsius or more to 150 degrees Celsius or less (furnace 8 is set to 120 degree C, see p.5).
Further regarding claim 3 reciting “the second temperature ranges from 90 degrees Celsius or more to 150 degrees Celsius or less”, Nishioka discloses several embodiments comprising a plurality of heating rolls for applying successively increasing temperatures in a stepwise manner to suppress wrinkles compared to sudden heating and improve degree of expansion and contraction of the electrode current collector (see p.4-5, Fig. 1-2,5). Nishioka further discloses heating roll 2 is set to 140 degrees C (see p.5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishioka by incorporating a plurality of heating rolls operating and successively increasing temperatures because the prior art teaches improved manufacturability and performance of the electrode. Since Nishioka envisages a heating roll operating at 140 degrees C, the limitation is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 4, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishioka further discloses a plurality of guide rolls, wherein the plurality of guide rolls comprises a first guide roll and a second guide roll, wherein the first guide roll is configured to receive the electrode in the chamber, wherein the second guide roll is configured to dispense the electrode from the chamber (unwinding unit 10 and winding unit 11, see p.4, Fig. 1-5).
Further regarding claim 4 reciting “the plurality of heating rolls is continuously arranged between the first guide roll and the second guide roll”, Nishioka discloses several embodiments comprising a plurality of heating rolls for applying successively increasing temperatures in a stepwise manner to suppress wrinkles compared to sudden heating and improve degree of expansion and contraction of the electrode current collector (see p.4-5, Fig. 1-2,5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishioka by incorporating a plurality of heating rolls operating and successively increasing temperatures because the prior art teaches improved manufacturability and performance of the electrode.
Regarding claim 5, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Further regarding claim 5 reciting “the heater is located between the first guide roll and a first heating roll in the plurality of heating rolls, the first heating roll located adjacent to the first guide roll”, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the heater between the first guide roll and a first heating roll, the first heating roll located adjacent to the first guide roll, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art while the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishioka further discloses one or more of the plurality of heating rolls are contact-type induction heating rolls (see Fig. 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishioka further discloses an electrode assembly manufactured by using an electrode prepared by the electrode drying device of claim 1 (positive electrode plate wound with negative electrode plate and separator, see p.6; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nishioka further discloses a secondary battery in which the electrode assembly according to claim 12 is sealed inside a battery case together with an electrolytic solution (battery including electrolyte enclosed in battery case, see p.1; see rejection of claim 12 above).
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishioka et al. (JP2011023129A, refer to English machine translation by EPO) in view of Song et al. (US 2014/0201983A1), as applied to claims 1-5, 11-13 above, and further in view of Yamauchi (JP2014139896A, refer to English machine translation by EPO).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Nishioka does not disclose a hot air system, wherein the hot air system is disposed in the chamber adjacent to the path.
Yamauchi discloses an apparatus including a drying furnace disposed on the transport path of the metal foil to which slurry is applied, wherein heating involves blowing hot air such that the electrode can be heated remotely without providing a member in contact with the opposite surface and a control unit capable of setting air temperature conditions is attached ([0010], [0015], [0037], Fig. 1-4).
Nishioka and Yamauchi are analogous art because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely drying apparatus for battery electrodes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nishioka to further incorporate a heating means of blowing hot air along with a control unit for setting air temperature because Yamauchi teaches improved drying.
Regarding claim 7, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yamauchi further discloses the hot air system comprises a temperature control sensor ([0037]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yamauchi further discloses the hot air system supplies hot air at a third temperature to the chamber, and the third temperature is equal to the first temperature or the second temperature, or higher than the first temperature or both the first and the second temperatures (80 to 100 degrees C [0043]; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.).
Regarding claim 9, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yamauchi further discloses the third temperature is 90 degrees Celsius or more and 150 degrees Celsius or less (80 to 100 degrees C [0043]; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nishioka discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Yamauchi further discloses the hot air system supplies hot air at a third temperature in a direction perpendicular to a traveling direction of the path (see Fig. 1-3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to new limitations recited in claim 1 and 4 in the claim amendment filed 8/29/2025 (see Remarks filed 8/29/2025), the claim amendments raise new issues under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as stated above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Nishioka failing to teach or suggest features directed to a new limitation in claim 1 reciting “each of the plurality of heating rolls is configured to heat to a second temperature, and wherein the electrode passes through the plurality of heating rolls on the path, so that the device is capable of maintaining a temperature of the electrode at a temperature equal to or higher than the first temperature and lower than the second temperature while the electrode is on the path” (see Remarks filed 8/29/2025), this is not found to be persuasive because Fig. 3 of Nishioka teaches an embodiment including an unwinding roll 10 followed by a furnace 8 followed by a high temperature heating roll 3, which does not include heating rolls 1,2. Although Fig. 3 of Nishioka does not expressly teach multiple heating rolls, each configured to heat to a second temperature, addition of heating roll 3 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Thus, the device of modified Nishioka would be considered capable of maintaining an electrode temperature between a first and second temperature along the path formed between the unwinding roll 10 and latter-most high temperature heating roll 3.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to Nishioka failing to teach or suggest the electrode passes through the plurality of heating rolls on the path, so that the device capable of maintaining a temperature of the electrode (see Remarks filed 8/29/2025), the examiner notes that the claimed path is provided/defined by the guide roll and the plurality of heating rolls, i.e., claim 1 recites “the guide roll and the plurality of heating rolls provide a path between the entry port and the exit port”. In this instance, modified Nishioka discloses a “path” starting from the unwinding roll 10 and ending at the latter-most heating roll, all of which are located in a chamber between the entry port and exit port. Further, the device of modified Nishioka would be capable of maintaining the temperature of the electrode between the first and second temperature along said path.
With respect to applicant’s arguments directed to remaining cited art failing to remedy the above deficiencies (see Remarks filed 8/29/2025), said prior art references are not relied upon to teach or suggest the alleged deficiencies.
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 JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 5PM.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 12/29/2025