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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has amended independent claim 1 to include the limitations of dependent claim 4 and argued that the rejection for claim 4, presented in the Non-Final rejection dated 09/26/2025, over Zang et. al, Arisaka, Rao, and Chu is inappropriate because the Chu is non-analagous art. The applicant argues that Chu does not reasonably pertain to the problem faced by the inventor because it fails the test for “reasonable pertinent” set forth in MPEP § 2141.01(a)(1) where “…the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification” [MPEP § 2141.01(a)(1)]. The applicant’s PgPub discloses that “…in order to uniformly maintain the vacuum level in the vacuum chamber 10, one or both of the low-vacuum pipe 21 and the medium-high-vacuum pipe 31 are symmetrically installed in the vacuum chamber 10… when the pipes are installed adjacent to the corners of the vacuum chamber 10 so that the pipes are arranged in the vacuum chamber 10 up-down and left-right symmetrically and in pairs, the vacuum level in the vacuum chamber 10 can be made more uniform” [paragraph 0061 of the applicant’s PgPub]. Therefore, the problem of uniform vacuum maintenance in the chamber is explicitly reflected in the applicant’s specification. In this regard Chu states that the vacuum port geometry relied upon in the rejection is provided so that “vacuum exhaust and gas charge are uniformly performed on the entire display region” [paragraph 0026 of Chu]. Since uniformity is a problem explicitly identified in the applicant’s specification the application of Chu does not constitute the use of non-analogous prior art. For this reason, the rejection over Chu is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. CN 108258190 (12/28/2023 IDS) in view of Arisaka KR 10-1943268 (12/19/2022 IDS) as evidenced by Rao US 2010/0326549 and further in view of Chu et al. US 2008/0074030.
With respect to claim 1 Zang discloses:
An apparatus for vacuum-drying an electrode in a roll-to-roll state, the apparatus comprising (Fig. 1):
a vacuum chamber 100 configured to receive an electrode 300 in the roll-to-roll state 111-131 for drying;
a low-vacuum evacuation device 200 connected to the vacuum chamber 100 by a low-vacuum pipe 210 and configured to evacuate the vacuum chamber to a low vacuum level (vacuum device 200 can be a water ring pump or a roots pump [0034], which are low-vacuum pumps as evidenced by Rao [0005]);
Zang is silent regarding:
a medium-high-vacuum evacuation device connected to the vacuum chamber by a medium-high-vacuum pipe separate from the low-vacuum pipe and configured to evacuate the vacuum chamber to a medium vacuum level or a high vacuum level; and
a control unit connected to the low-vacuum evacuation device and the medium-high-vacuum evacuation device and configured to regulate a vacuum level in the vacuum chamber stepwise to dry the electrode.
Arisaka teaches (Fig. 2):
a medium-high-vacuum evacuation device 18 connected to the vacuum chamber 60 by a medium-high-vacuum pipe 16 separate from the low-vacuum pipe (unlabeled pipe connected to low-vacuum pump 14) and configured to evacuate the vacuum chamber to a medium vacuum level or a high vacuum level [0038]; and
a control unit 20 connected to the low-vacuum evacuation device 14 and the medium-high-vacuum evacuation device 18 and configured to regulate a vacuum level in the vacuum chamber 60 stepwise to process the electrode [0043-0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Zang with that of Arisaka for the advantages of enabling the vacuum and thus also the boiling point of water to be further lowered as suitable to further save drying time and improve drying efficiency (Zang [0028]) and to improve the evacuation efficiency (Arisaka [0043]). The combination of Zhang and Arisaka discloses that the low-vacuum pipe (210 in Zang Fig. 1) and the medium-high-vacuum pipe (16 in Arisaka Fig. 2) are connected to a bottom of the vacuum chamber.
Zhang and Arisaka do not disclose that at least one of the low-vacuum pipe and the medium-high-vacuum pipe is disposed adjacent to a corner portion of the vacuum chamber up-down symmetrically, left-right symmetrically, or up-down-left-right symmetrically when the vacuum chamber is viewed from a top.
Chu, solving the same problem of vacuum uniformity, teaches:
wherein at least one of the vacuum ports 31 (analogous to vacuum ports connecting to the vacuum pipes in the combination of Zang and Arisaka) is disposed adjacent to a corner portion of the vacuum chamber up-down symmetrically, left-right symmetrically, or up-down-left-right symmetrically when the vacuum chamber is viewed from a top (see Fig. 3 and para. [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Zang and Arisaka with that of Chu for the advantage of uniformly performing the vacuum exhaust on the entire vacuum chamber (Chu [0026]).
With respect to claim 2 the combination of Zang and Arisaka teaches:
wherein the low vacuum level is a vacuum level ranging from 1 to 600 Torr (roots pumps as in Zang [0034] produce vacuum ranging from 1 to 760 Torr as evidenced by Rao [0005], thus being capable of producing a vacuum level in the claimed range), the medium vacuum level is a vacuum level ranging from 10−2 to less than 1 Torr (the claims require only a medium vacuum or a high vacuum), and the high vacuum level is a vacuum level ranging from 10−8 to less than 10−2 Torr (Arisaka [0038] discloses a high vacuum of 10−8 Torr).
With respect to claim 14 wherein the control unit 20 controls the low-vacuum evacuation device 14 and the medium-high-vacuum evacuation device 18 to evacuate the vacuum chamber 60 to a low vacuum level, a medium vacuum level, or a high vacuum level depending on a set process condition and to evacuate the vacuum chamber stepwise starting from the low vacuum level when the vacuum chamber is evacuated to the medium vacuum level or the high vacuum level (Arisaka [0043-0048]).
With respect to claim 15 the combination of Zang and Arisaka teaches: wherein, while a predetermined number of electrode rolls are dried in the roll-to-roll state in the vacuum chamber and then removed from the vacuum chamber (i.e., during the electrode vacuum drying process as described in Zang [0028]), the control unit is configured to control the vacuum level stepwise to evacuate the vacuum chamber to a predetermined medium vacuum level or high vacuum level (stepwise evacuation first to a low vacuum and then to a high vacuum as taught by Arisaka [0043-0048]) to remove foreign substances in the vacuum chamber (evacuation of air from the chamber to produce the vacuum would also remove at least a portion of any foreign substances present therein).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zang et al. CN 108258190 (12/28/2023 IDS) in view of Arisaka KR 10-1943268 (12/19/2022 IDS) as evidenced by Rao US 2010/0326549 and further in view of Chu et al. US 2008/0074030, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tobe et al. US 2002/0015791.
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Zang and Arisaka is silent regarding:
wherein a low-vacuum gauge for measuring the low vacuum level and a medium-high-vacuum gauge for measuring the medium vacuum level or the high vacuum level are installed in the vacuum chamber.
Tobe teaches:
wherein a low-vacuum gauge 14 for measuring the low vacuum level and a medium-high-vacuum gauge 16 for measuring the medium vacuum level or the high vacuum level are installed in the vacuum chamber 10 [0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine the teachings of Zang and Arisaka with that of Tobe for the advantage of facilitating precise measurement of the pressure within the vacuum chamber at the respective low- and high-pressure ranges (Tobe [0042]).
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the combination of Zang, Arisaka, and Tobe teaches:
wherein the low-vacuum evacuation device comprises a low-vacuum evacuation pump (200 in Zang, 14 in Arisaka) connected to the vacuum chamber (100 in Zang, 60 in Arisaka) through the low-vacuum pipe (210 in Zang, unlabeled in Arisaka) and a low-vacuum switching valve (13 in Arisaka) configured to open and close the low-vacuum pipe.
wherein the low-vacuum evacuation pump (200 in Zang, 14 in Arisaka) is a rotary pump or a roots pump connected to the rotary pump (Zang [0034] water ring pump, which is a type of rotary pump, or roots pump; Arisaka [0043] rotary pump or dry pump).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Zang, Arisaka, and Tobe teaches:
wherein the medium-high-vacuum evacuation device comprises a medium-high-vacuum evacuation pump 18 connected to the vacuum chamber 60 through the medium-high-vacuum pipe 16 and a medium-high-vacuum switching valve 17 configured to open and close the medium-high-vacuum pipe (Arisaka Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Zang, Arisaka, and Tobe as set forth above is silent regarding:
wherein the medium-high-vacuum evacuation pump comprises a dry pump and a turbo molecular pump (TMP) connected to the dry pump by the medium-high-vacuum pipe and installed in the medium-high-vacuum pipe adjacent to the vacuum chamber.
However, Tobe further teaches:
wherein the medium-high-vacuum evacuation pump comprises a dry pump 28 and a turbo molecular pump (TMP) 26 connected to the dry pump by the medium-high-vacuum pipe 12 and installed in the medium-high-vacuum pipe 12 adjacent to the vacuum chamber 10 [0041].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to substitute the medium-high-vacuum evacuation pump in the combination of Zang, Arisaka, and Tobe as set forth above (cryopump 18 in Arisaka) with that further taught by Tobe (dry pump 28 and TMP 26) as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, KSR.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 18-20 are allowed.
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 VIVEK K SHIRSAT whose telephone number is (571)272-3722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:20AM.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/VIVEK K SHIRSAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights