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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because as noted in the Restriction, Group II is drawn to a method to form the electrode and Group III is drawn to an electrode produced by. The method as required in Group II requires applying force to form the electrode and the same method can be used to make another product i.e. rubber, other kinds of fabric, PVC sheets, thus requires a separate search. The method as required in Group III requires applying force to form the electrode. Another method can be used, such as welding for joining the electrode structure. Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner Notes
Examiner notes, claims 1-14 are directed to a “system to manufacture an electrode” and therefore, the limitations that require the functions of the components of the system will not be given patentable weight. MPEP2114. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
“Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
The Examiner has italicized the claim language in each of the claims that refer to intended use and has rejected them accordingly. For brevity purposes, the Examiner will not incorporate the case law into each rejection.
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.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150129107A1 (Miyazaki)
Regarding claim 1, Miyazaki teaches an apparatus that sandwiches electrode sheet with separators [abs]. Miyazaki teaches a system to manufacture an electrode, comprising: a calendaring device [i.e. #10 first bonding apparatus; 0029] including a first roller [#18] and a second [#18, auxiliary roller] roller [depicted below; it is noted a calendaring device is interpreted to be a lamination device that bonds the structure together], the calendaring device to apply a force to a material between the first roller and the second roller to form a web, wherein the web comprises an electrode active material adhered to a current collector [0049-50; Miyazaki teaches the electrode can be amorphous carbon, which is web like] ; a notching device [#145; i.e. cutting unit 0038-0040; depicted below] to cut the web to form the electrode; and wherein the web is provided from the calendaring device to the notching device . It is noted, Miyazaki teaches a system for an electrode sheet, in addition, also teaches that the system can be used for other components of an apparatus [0019, 0049-0050], therefore it is the Examiner’s position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system to manufacture an electrode as one would have a reasonable expectation of success as an electrode is the entire component that is part of the battery, that allows flow of energy; an electrode sheet is part of the electrode, both of these components are part of the battery structure and are in the same field of technology, thus one of skill in the art would be easily be able to use the apparatus to cut an electrode.
As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
634
770
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Miyazaki teaches the notching device comprising a blade coupled with a roller [0045- rotary cutter #50 has a cutter #51 with teeth], wherein the blade cuts the web as the roller rotates to form the electrode. Miyazaki does not teach wherein the electrode includes a tab. Miyazaki teaches a system for an electrode sheet, in addition to, teaches that the system can be used for other components of an apparatus [0019, 0049-0050], therefore it is the Examiner’s position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system to manufacture an electrode with a tab as one would have a reasonable expectation of success as an electrode tab is part of a component of a battery, that allows flow of energy; an electrode tab is part of the electrode, both of these components are part of the battery structure and are in the same field of technology, thus one of skill in the art would be easily be able to use the apparatus to cut an electrode with a tab.
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki teaches the notching device comprising a blade coupled with a roller [0040]; and a backing roller [#53; 0045] to support the web; wherein the blade cuts the web with the web between the roller and the backing roller and supported by the backing roller. As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, Miyazaki teaches the notching device comprising a blade coupled with a roller [0040-0045]; and a backing roller [#131a; 0037-0038] to support the web.
Miyazaki teaches a second separator sheet, i.e. #12 corresponds to the claimed a backing film [0038]. The instant specification teaches the backing film is defined to be a web/ layer/film.
Miyazaki teaches a system for an electrode sheet, in addition, also teaches that the system can be used for other components of an apparatus [0019, 0049-0050], therefore it is the Examiner’s position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system to manufacture an electrode comprising a backing film as one would have a reasonable expectation of success as an backing film as claimed appears to part of a component of the battery; an electrode sheet is part of the electrode; since both of these components are part of the battery structure and are in the same field of technology, one of skill in the art would be easily be able to use the apparatus to cut an electrode.
As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus, thus is capable of the blade cuts the web with the web between the roller and the backing roller and with the backing film between the web and the backing roller.
Regarding claim 9, Miyazaki teaches the web including a first edge and a second edge [0035, the sheet as an edge, and it would obviously have a second edge, as a sheet generally has 4 corners]; and a slitting device [i.e. #50 rotary cutter] to cut the web. As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus, thus is capable to cut the web between the first edge and the second edge.
Regarding claim 10, Miyazaki teaches the web including a first edge and a second edge [0035]; and a slitting device [i.e. #50 rotary cutter] to cut the web between the first edge and the second edge. Miyazaki does not teach an additional device that cuts the web further. However, adding an additional cutting device is considered to be a duplication of parts as the instant specification teaches: “The notching device and the slitting device can be combined. For example, a notching and slitting device could substantially simultaneously perform the notching operation and the slitting operation. The notching device can be or include a rotary die cutting element that includes a flexible knife sheet or blade wrapped around a roller.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Miyazaki and incorporate the slitting device that cuts the web after the notching device cuts the web as one would have a reasonable expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, Miyazaki teaches comprising: the notching device [0040; #145] to cut the web to form, however does not teach a singulated electrode comprising a tab. and a conveyor device [#60; 0040-0041] including a roller and a conveyor substrate coupled with the roller. As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus, thus is capable for the conveyor device to receive the singulated electrode, wherein a rotation of the roller causes the conveyor substrate to move in a first direction to provide the singulated electrode to a magazine.
In regards to the singulated electrode with the tab, Miyazaki teaches a system for an electrode sheet, in addition, teaches that the system can be used for other components of an apparatus [0019, 0049-0050], therefore it is the Examiner’s position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system to cut the web to form a singulated electrode with a tab as one would have a reasonable expectation of success as an electrode with a tab is part of the battery, that allows flow of energy; an electrode sheet is also part of the electrode; both of these components are part of the battery structure and are in the same field of technology, thus one of skill in the art would be easily be able to use the apparatus to cut an electrode with a tab.
Regarding claim 12, Miyazaki teaches the notching device including a backing roller, the notching device to cut the web with the web supported by the backing roller to form a singulated electrode comprising a tab; and a conveyor device including a roller and a conveyor substrate coupled with the roller, the conveyor device to receive the singulated electrode, wherein a rotation of the roller causes the conveyor substrate to move in a first direction to provide the singulated electrode to a magazine. Please refer to the rejections of claims 4 and 11, as the claimed limitations are similar to the ones in claims 4 and 11.
Regarding claim 13, Miyazaki teaches a system for an electrode sheet, in addition, also teaches that the system can be used for other components of an apparatus [0019, 0049-0050], therefore it is the Examiner’s position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system to wherein the web includes a plurality of films adhered to a current collector material, the plurality of films spaced apart on the current collector material, as one would have a reasonable expectation of success as the components as claimed are part of the battery, that allows the battery to function of; an electrode sheet is part of the electrode, all of of these components are part of the battery structure and are in the same field of technology, thus one of skill in the art would be easily be able to use the apparatus wherein the web includes a plurality of films adhered to the current collector as claimed.
the system comprising: the notching device to cut the web to form a first notched web and a second notched web [please refer to claim 1 which teaches the notching device]. With regards to the claimed, Miyazaki is capable to using the device to form the first notched web and the second notched web including a plurality of electrode portions as this is considered a technique that can be applied to herein and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Miyazaki teaches a wrapping unit #140 [0038] which refers to the claimed a first winding device, however does not teach a second winding device. However, this is considered to be a duplication of parts, wherein one would have a reasonable expectation of success. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus, thus Miyazaki is capable to wind the first notched web; and a second winding device to wind the second notched web.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150129107A1 (Miyazaki) in view of US6585846B1 (Hanson).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki teaches wherein the notching device cuts the web to form a first electrode and a second electrode [please refer to the rejection of claim 1 which rejects the claimed electrode accordingly], Miyazaki teaches the system comprising: the notching device comprising a first blade coupled with a roller [0040; #145 cutting unit and #50 cutter, i.e. blade] however does not teach a second blade. In a similar field of endeavor, Hanson teaches an apparatus and method provides for rotatably cutting and/or laminating layered structures or sheet material supported by webs [abs]. Hanson teaches the cutting roll apparatus, i.e. the notching device, can use a single die blade, a dual die plate, two die blades, etc. [col.9 Lines 25-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Miyazaki to incorporate the second blade of Hanson to cut the first and second electrode as claimed with two blades to avoid a short circuit. In addition, a skilled artisan would easily be able to modify the structure as one would have a reasonable expectation of success, as they both teach an apparatus and method for cutting and laminating. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus, thus is capable of the first blade to cut the web as the roller rotates to form the first electrode including a first tab proximate a first edge of the web, the second blade to cut the web as the roller rotates to form the second electrode including a second tab.
Regarding claim 5, Miyazaki teaches the notching device [0040] however is silent with respect to the device comprising a laser element to cut the web to form a tab of the electrode. Hanson teaches the cutting roll apparatus, i.e. the notching device, can use laser to cut the web [col.9 Lines 25-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Miyazaki to incorporate the laser element of Hanson, as one would achieve the same result and arrive at the claimed invention. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Regarding claim 7, Miyazaki does not teach the notching device comprising a first laser element and a second laser element. Hanson teaches the cutting roll apparatus, i.e. the notching device, can use laser to cut the web [col.9 Lines 25-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Miyazaki to incorporate the laser element of Hanson, as one would achieve the same result and arrive at the claimed invention. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Hanson does not teach the second laser element. With regards to a second laser element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hanson to have a second laser element as this is considered a mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki in view of Hanson teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus, thus is capable the first laser element to cut the web proximate a first edge of the web to form a first tab, the second laser element to cut the web proximate a second edge of the web to form a second tab.
Regarding claim 8, Miyazaki does not teach the notching device comprising a first laser element, a second laser element, and a third laser element. Hanson teaches the cutting roll apparatus, i.e. the notching device, can use laser to cut the web [col.9 Lines 25-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Miyazaki to incorporate the laser element of Hanson, as one would achieve the same result and arrive at the claimed invention. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Hanson does not teach the second and third laser element. With regards to a second/third laser element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Hanson to have a second/third laser element as this is considered a mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki in view of Hanson teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus, thus is capable the first laser element to cut the web proximate a first edge of the web to form a first tab, the second laser element to cut the web proximate a second edge of the web to form a second tab, the third laser element to cut the web between the first tab and the second tab.
Regarding claim 14, Miyazaki teaches wherein the notching device cuts the web [please refer to claim 1] to form a plurality of electrodes [as noted, Miyazaki is capable of using the notching device to form a plurality of electrodes, as it teaches the device cuts the electrode sheets and other structural components (please also refer to claim 1); and a roller [0038, i.e. wrapping unit #140;] to wind the web with the plurality of electrodes separated. Miyazaki does not teach the system comprising: a separator device to separate the plurality of electrodes from the web. Hanson teaches the cathode web may be cut using at least one rotating die blade separated by a circumferential blade spacing (D). The length (L) of each cathode sheet, in this case, is a function of the first speed (W1) of cathode web movement relative to the circumferential die blade spacing (D) and the second speed (W2) of the rotary die. For example, the length (L) of each cathode sheets may be characterized by an equation L=D(W1/W2).
The space (S) between adjacent cathode sheets, according to one embodiment, is a function of the first speed (W1) of cathode web movement relative to the second speed (W2) of anode web movement. Cutting the cathode web may involve cutting the cathode web with at least one rotating die blade separated by a circumferential blade spacing (D), such that the space (S) between adjacent cathode sheets is a function of the first speed (W1) of cathode web movement relative to the circumferential die blade spacing (D) and the second speed (W2) of the rotary die. For example, the space (S) between adjacent cathode sheets may be characterized by an equation S=D((W2/W1)−1). Cutting the laminated anode web may further involve detecting the space between adjacent cathode sheets, such as by optical or mechanical techniques [col 2 lines 27-66 and col 3 lines 1-8]. Thus, it is the Examiners position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified
Hanson as Hanson is capable of using the same technique that separates the cathode web between cathode sheet and detect the space between adjacent sheets to separate the plurality of electrodes from the webs and arrive at the claimed invention. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
As noted above, the italicized language is intended use and Miyazaki in view of Hanson teaches the claimed structural configuration, thus is capable of performing the intended use of the claimed apparatus
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729