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 Interpretation
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: “tilting machine” in claim 8.
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.
There is no structure disclosure of the “tilting machine”
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 § 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 8 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because there is no structure disclosure of “tilting machine”. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “tilting machine” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN103779538 to Fujita (The art rejection is made based on the English translation by PE2E) in view of US Patent 6,427,941 to Hikita.
In Reference to Claim 1
Fujita discloses a drying device for manufacturing an electrode, comprising: a dryer (Fig. 1, 20) configured to dry a coated portion of an electrode base material in which, wherein an electrode slurry (Fig. 1, the slurry is applied by item 34) is applied to the coated portion on at least one surface and is not applied to an uncoated portion (As showed in Fig. 1, the slurry is applied only at one side, therefore, the other side is the uncoated portion); and a transfer part (Fig. 1, 43) transfer the part.
Fujita does not teach a floating part.
Hikita teaches a transfer part (Fig. 1) including a floating part (Fig. 1, 20) and a traveling part (Fig. 1, 16) coupled to an outlet of the dryer wherein the floating part includes an air floating plate (Fig. 1, 20) and is configured to float the electrode base material using air and the traveling part (Fig. 1, 16) is configured to move the electrode base material in a process direction.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hikita into the system of Fujita. Doing so, would result in the transfer design of Hikita being used to replace the item 43 of Fujita, since Hikita provides a web transporting method and apparatus which reduces a twisting and a bias of a web to stably transport the web (Col. 1, Line 50-55 of Hikia)
In Reference to Claims 2 and 6
Fujita discloses the drying device.
Fujita does not teach the air float design.
Hikita teaches the air floating plate includes discharge ports (Fig. 1, 24) configured to discharge air to a surface on which the electrode base material travels.
Hikita teaches the discharge ports are provided to form an inclined angle of 30o to 80o with the surface of the air floating plate in a process direction of the electrode base material. (As showed in Fig. 1, the air discharge ports are arranged around the wheel, therefore, the recited range (30 degree to 80 degree) is covered by the range of Hikita.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hikita into the system of Fujita. Doing so, would result in the transfer design of Hikita being used to replace the item 43 of Fujita, since Hikita provides a web transporting method and apparatus which reduces a twisting and a bias of a web to stably transport the web (Col. 1, Line 50-55 of Hikia)
In Reference to Claim 8
Fujita discloses a tilting machine (As showed in Fig. 1, the float design 43s are arrange to tilting the coated the parts. The rejection is based on the function of the tilting. If the Applicant consider there is a structure difference, the tilting structure must be recited) configured to tilt the air floating plates.
In Reference to Claim 9
Fujita discloses a method of manufacturing an electrode comprising drying (Fig. 1, 20) an electrode base material (Fig. 1, 34) in which electrode slurry is applied on at least one surface (As showed in Fig. 1, the electrode is applied to one side of the surface only) of the electrode base material at a high temperature;
Fujita does not teach a floating transfer.
Hikita teaches floating and transferring the high temperature dried electrode base material using air (As showed in Fig. 1, the web material is transferred by transfer part 16 and air jet portion via jet port 24).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hikita into the system of Fujita. Doing so, would result in the transfer design of Hikita being used to replace the item 43 of Fujita, since Hikita provides a web transporting method and apparatus which reduces a twisting and a bias of a web to stably transport the web (Col. 1, Line 50-55 of Hikia)
In Reference to Claim 10
Fujita discloses the method of drying the electrode material.
Fujita does not teach the floating transfer part.
Hikita teaches the floating of the electrode base material is performed by air discharged from discharge ports provided in an air floating plate. (Fig. 1, 24, the discharge port for air)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Hikita into the system of Fujita. Doing so, would result in the transfer design of Hikita being used to replace the item 43 of Fujita, since Hikita provides a web transporting method and apparatus which reduces a twisting and a bias of a web to stably transport the web (Col. 1, Line 50-55 of Hikia)
In Reference to Claim 11
The combination of Fujita and Hikita as applied to Claim 11 teaches the air discharge port.
The combination of Fujita and Hikita as applied to Claim 11 does not teach the discharge pressure of the air. One having an ordinary skill in the transfer part, would have found the air pressure required to support the belt as a matter of design choice depending on the engine requirements. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed air pressure, presents a novel of unexpected result.
In Reference to Claims 13 and 14
The combination of Fujita and Hikita as applied to Claim 11 teaches the air discharge port.
The combination of Fujita and Hikita as applied to Claims 13 and 14 does not teach the air temperature and the speed of transfer. One having an ordinary skill in the transfer part, would have found the air temperature and the transfer rate to the transfer part required to support the belt as a matter of design choice depending on the engine requirements. Moreover, there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed temperature and the speed, presents a novel of unexpected result.
In Reference to Claim 15
Fujita discloses the traveling part includes conveyors (Fig. 1, 51 and 52) disposed at a front end and a rear end of the floating part, the conveyors being configured to slide the electrode base material in the process direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7 and 12 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.
The combination of Fujita and Hikita does not teach that there are two portion of discharge ports. One for the coated area and the other one for the un-coated area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/14/26