POWDER DISTRIBUTION HOPPER SYSTEM
FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment of Sep. 12, 2025.
CLAIMS
35 U.S.C. § 112
In accordance with the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3 - 5, 7 - 12, 14 - 16, 18, 19, and 22 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) failing to comply with the written description requirement because the claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
In order to address the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection set forth in the previous Office Action of June 16, 2025, the Applicant has amended each of independent claims 1 and 12 to require that “the one or more first sensors are located between a narrowing release point of the first feeder hopper and a narrowing release point of the first powder hopper”. However, the Applicant’s specification, as filed, mentions nothing of narrowing release points of the different hoppers, and as such, the requirement that the first sensors be located between a narrowing release point of the first feeder hopper and a narrowing release point of the first powder hopper is deemed as new matter not supported by the Applicant’s originally filed disclosure. In addition, the Applicant’s drawings provide no further clarification. Thus, the Applicant is not entitled to the protection that such a limitation warrants.
Likewise, the Applicant has added new claim 27 to require that “the first powder hopper is substantially cone-shaped, inverse-triangle-shaped, or funnel-shaped”. However, the Applicant’s originally filed specification mentions nothing of the shape of the first powder hopper. Thus, the subject matter of claim 27 is deemed as new matter not supported by the originally filed disclosure. As such, the Applicant is not entitled to the protection that such a limitation warrants.
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 1, 3 - 5, 7 - 12, 14 - 16, 18, 19, and 22 - 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dopp et al. (2007/0092593) in view of the Applicant’s previously cited prior art of Bogenstahl et al. (2020/0227722).
With respect to amended independent claim 1, Dopp et al. set forth a system comprising:
a multi-roll calendar comprising two rolls (10/11) that are horizontally aligned;
a first powder hopper (5) configured to provide a first powder (16) to a first nip located between the rollers (10/11);
a first sensor (12) configured to determine a characteristic of the first powder in the first powder hopper (5);
a first feeder hopper (2) configured to provide the first powder (16) to the first powder hopper; and
a processor in operable communication with the first sensor and the first feeder hopper, wherein the processor is configured to cause the first feeder hopper to provide the first powder to the first powder hopper in response to the characteristic (material level) of the first powder in the first powder hopper being less than a first threshold (threshold level, paragraph 29),
wherein the multi-roll calendar is configured to receive the first powder at the first nip to produce a first film (19),
wherein the first sensor (12) is located between a narrowing release point of the first feeder hopper (the existence of metering brush 6 in hopper 2 narrows the release point to between the brush and the hopper) and a narrowing release point of the first powder hopper (the existence of rollers 10 & 11 in hopper 5 narrows the release point to between the rollers).
While Dopp et al. set forth that two rolls (10/11) are horizontally aligned, Dopp et al. fail to set forth that three or more rolls are horizontally aligned and that the multi-roll calendar is configured to compress the film (19) at a second nip between the second roller and a third roller.
However, Bogenstahl et al. teach three or more rolls (604, 605, 606) are horizontally aligned (Fig. 6) and that the multi-roll calendar is configured to compress a film (620) at a second nip (paragraph 38) between the second roller (605) and a third roller (606).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to further compress the film (19) of Dopp et al. by using a second nip as taught by Bogenstahl et al.
The motivation being for the ability to laminate a second film onto a first film in order to achieve a material of a desired characteristic.
With respect to claim 3, Dopp et al. set forth that the first sensor comprises a level sensor and the characteristic of the first powder comprises a height of the first powder within the first powder hopper (paragraph 29).
With respect to claims 4 and 15, Dopp et al. set forth that the first sensor comprises a level or density sensor (paragraph 29) and thus the characteristic of the first powder comprises a level or density of the first powder within the first powder hopper (5).
Dopp et al. fail to set forth that the first sensor comprises a weight sensor and that the characteristic of the first powder comprises a weight thereof within the first powder hopper.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a weight sensor as the first sensor in order to measure a weight of the first powder.
The motivation being that Dopp et al. teach that measuring a volume (level) and a density is known. From these two variables, a weight could be easily determined. Thus, one of ordinary
skill in this art would realize that a weight sensor could be used in place of the taught sensor to control the metering of the powder since a weight sensor itself would not require the density of the powder to be known.
With respect to claims 5 and 16, Dopp et al. fail to set forth a second feeder hopper, a second powder hopper, a second powder, a second pair of rollers, a second nip, and a second sensor as claimed.
Bogenstahl et al. teach a second powder hopper, a second powder, a second pair of rollers, and a second nip (Fig. 6) as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to establish a second feeder hopper and a second sensor.
The motivation being that Dopp et al. teach a first powder hopper, a first powder, a first pair of rollers, a first sensor, and a first feeder hopper. Thus, the second powder hopper, the second powder, the second pair of rollers, and the second sensor are merely a duplicate of that which is already taught. By duplicating that, much of which is taught by Bogenstahl et al., the ability to laminate a second film onto a first film in order to achieve a material of a desired characteristic is obtained.
With respect to claims 7 and 18 and in combination to the comments pertaining to claim 5, Dopp et al. set forth a level sensor and the characteristic of the powder comprises a height of the powder within the powder hopper (paragraph 29).
With respect to claims 8 and 19 and in combination to the comments pertaining to claim 4, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have a second sensor as a weight sensor wherein the characteristic of the second powder is weight for the reasons as set forth above.
With respect to claim 9 and in combination to the comments pertaining to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have the second powder being the same as the first powder.
With respect to claim 10 and in combination to the comments pertaining to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to have the second powder being different than the first powder.
With respect to claim 11, Dopp et al. set forth that the first feeder hopper (2) is connected to the second feeder hopper (4).
With respect to independent claim 12, Dopp et al. set forth a method comprising:
providing first powder (16) from a first powder hopper (5) to a first pair of rollers (10/11) of a multi-roll calendar;
delivering the first powder from the first powder hopper to a first nip located between the first and second rollers;
determining, by a first sensor (12), a characteristic (material level) of the first powder within the first powder hopper;
delivering first powder from a first feeder hopper (2) to the first powder hopper (5) in response to the characteristic of the first powder being less than a first threshold (paragraph 29); and
receiving the first powder at the first nip to produce a first film (19),
wherein the first sensor (12) is located between a narrowing release point of the first feeder hopper (the existence of metering brush 6 in hopper 2 narrows the release point to between the brush and the hopper) and a narrowing release point of the first powder hopper (the existence of rollers 10 & 11 in hopper 5 narrows the release point to between the rollers).
While Dopp et al. set forth that two rolls (10/11) are horizontally aligned, Dopp et al. fail to set forth that three or more rolls are horizontally aligned and that the multi-roll calendar is configured to compress the film (19) at a second nip between the second roller and a third roller.
However, Bogenstahl et al. teach three or more rolls (604, 605, 606) that are horizontally aligned (Fig. 6) and that the multi-roll calendar is configured to compress a film (620) at a second nip (paragraph 38) between the second roller (605) and a third roller (606).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art armed with these teachings to further compress the film (19) of Dopp et al. by using a second nip as taught by Bogenstahl et al.
The motivation being for the ability to laminate a second film onto a first film in order to achieve a material of a desired characteristic.
With respect to claim 14, Dopp et al. set forth that the first sensor comprises a level sensor and the characteristic of the first powder comprises a height of the first powder within the first powder hopper (paragraph 29).
With respect to claim 22, Bogenstahl et al. set forth (Fig. 6) that the first pair of rollers (604/605) form a first nip which produces a first dry electrode film (620) from the first powder (602) and the second pair of rollers (606/607) form second nip which produces a second dry electrode film (621) from the second powder (603), and that the first dry electrode film and second dry electrode film are laminated onto either side of a current collector (610).
With respect to claim 23, Bogenstahl et al. set forth (Fig. 6) that the first pair of rollers (604/605) form a first nip which produces a first dry electrode film (620) from the first powder (602) and the second pair of rollers (606/607) form second nip which produces a second dry electrode film (621) from the second powder (603), and that the first dry electrode film and second dry electrode film are laminated onto either side of a current collector (610).
With respect to claim 24, Dopp et al. set forth that the first sensor comprises a level and a density sensor (paragraph 29) and thus the characteristic of the first powder comprises a height of the first powder within the first powder hopper (5).
Dopp et al. fail to set forth that the first sensor comprises a weight sensor and that the characteristic of the first powder comprises a weight thereof within the first powder hopper.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use a weight sensor as the first sensor in order to measure a weight of the first powder.
The motivation being that Dopp et al. teach that measuring a volume (level) and a density is known. From these two variables, a weight could be easily determined. Thus, one of ordinary skill in this art would realize that a weight sensor could be used in place of the taught sensor to control the metering of the powder since a weight sensor itself would not require the density of the powder to be known.
With respect to claim 25, Dopp et al. set forth a first sensor (12) but fail to set forth two or more first sensors spaced along a width of the hopper in order to determine the characteristic of the first powder at various points throughout the hopper.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use multiple sensors throughout the hopper instead of just a single sensor.
The motivation being to determine the characteristic of the powder throughout the hopper and not just at a single point when the hopper is large enough that a single point measurement is not sufficient.
The Examiner notes that claim 25 calls for “two of more first sensors” whereas parent claim 1 calls for “one or more first sensors”. Thus, claim 25 is interpreted as further defining claim 1 in that claim 1 only required one first sensor but claim 25 now requires two first sensors.
With respect to claim 26, Dopp et al. is interpreted as the first feeder hopper (2) being located above and physically separate from the first powder hopper (5).
With respect to claim 27, Dopp et al. is interpreted as setting forth the first powder hopper (5) as “funnel-shaped” as claimed since the material therein is fed (ie. funneled) between the rollers (10/11).
Response To Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments have been considered but have not been found to be persuasive. Dopp et al. set forth that the first sensor (12) is located between the first feeder hopper (2) and the first powder hopper (5). As the material (16) travels through the first feeder hopper, the material is funneled into an area between the wall of the hopper (2) and the metering brush (6). This area of passage is narrowed relative to the area of the hopper itself and is interpreted as a narrowing release point as claimed.
As the material continues on, the material then travels into the first powder hopper (5) where the material is funneled into a narrowing release point between the rollers (10 & 11).
As such, Dopp et al. is interpreted as teaching the narrowing release points as claimed.
CONTACT INFORMATION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. The 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 will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Eric S. McCall whose telephone number is 571-272-2183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. For questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is advised to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855