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 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Tomioka is provided as the new primary reference. Nishida is used as a secondary reference to modify Tomioka.
Regarding the arguments over the holding members as claimed, Tomioka is newly applied to provide the holding members. Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding Nishida and the holding members are moot.
Applicant submits that the straightening roll 50 cannot simultaneously serve as both the roller having the projection that enlarges the uncoated region and the pair of holding members that hold the already-enlarged uncoated region downstream of the roller. However, the combination as presented below is such that Tomioka provides the pair of holding members and Nishida provides the roller corresponding to the roller having the projection. Therefore, the straightening roll of Nishida is not simultaneously serving as two different components and the arguments are moot.
Applicant further submits that Nishida does not provide the claimed sequential arrangement of first the roller with a projection and then the pair of holding members. In the combination below, Tomioka provides that he holding members are in the middle of multiple rollers (see e.g., Tomioka; fig. 4). The modification then provides the roller with a projection of Nishida to be positioned before the holding members. This modification may be performed because Tomioka provides that there are rollers on either side of the holding members, and Nishida further provides that there are rollers such on either side of the straightening rollers (see e.g., Nishida; [0054]-[0055], fig. 5). Furthermore, Nishida discloses that the straightening rolls may at least one roll located in each of intervals from the speed control roll 22 and the nip roll 24 to the press rolls 16 a and 16 b , and from the press rolls 16 a and 16 b to the speed control roll 42 and the nip roll 44 can be the straightening roll 50 (see e.g., Nishida; [0054]). That is, Nishida discloses that the straightening roller can be a selected from a wide range of rollers along the manufacturing line. Therefore, in the modification of Nishida with Tomioka, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected one of the rollers before the holding members to be the straightening roll.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (JP-2014013689-A) (see translation), and in further view of Nishida (US- 20220140308-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tomioka discloses
a manufacturing method of an electrode structure (see e.g., Tomioka; [0006], regarding method of manufacturing) comprising: conveying a belt-like member in which a surface of a current collector is coated with an active material-containing layer (see e.g., Tomioka; figs. 3-4, [0027], wherein the belt-like member is the current collector and active material 121a, 122a, 121, that is being conveyed), and an uncoated region not coated with the active material-containing layer is formed in one of a pair of long edges along a longitudinal direction and a vicinity thereof in the current collector (see e.g., Tomioka; [0028], fig. 5, wherein the uncoated portion 12b of the current collector corresponds with an uncoated region); rolling the active material-containing layer in the conveyed belt-like member (see e.g., Tomioka; figs. 4-5, [0027], regarding rolling the coated current collector); pulling the belt-like member toward a downstream side (see e.g., Tomioka; fig. 4, [0027], wherein a downstream side may be the direction which the coated current collector is conveyed towards), on the downstream side of a rolling unit configured to roll the active material-containing layer (see e.g., Tomioka; fig. 4, [0027], wherein supply roller 31 may correspond to a rolling unit), thereby applying a tension in the longitudinal direction to the belt-like member between a pulling unit configured to pull the belt-like member and the rolling unit (see e.g., Tomioka; fig. 4, [0027], wherein winding roller 32 may correspond to a pulling unit and tension is applied between rollers 31 and 32); and bringing, between other rollers and the pulling unit, a pair of holding members into contact with the uncoated region of the current collector from opposite sides in a thickness direction of the belt-like member to which the tension is applied and in which the uncoated region is enlarged by the projection of the roller, thereby holding the uncoated region between the pair of holding members (see e.g., Tomioka; figs. 4, 5, [0028], regarding press parts 40 and 50 which sandwich the electrode, the press parts having a section 42 corresponding to projection which presses the uncoated portion 12b of the current collector).
Tomioka does not explicitly disclose pushing the uncoated region of the current collector against the belt-like member to which the tension is applied, by using a projection projecting toward an outer peripheral side in a roller between the rolling unit and the pulling unit, thereby enlarging the uncoated region in the longitudinal direction, and such that the holding members are between the roller with the projection and the pulling unit. However, Nishida discloses pushing the uncoated region of a current collector against the belt-like member to which the tension is applied, by using a projection projecting toward an outer peripheral side in a roller between the rolling unit and the pulling unit (see e.g., Nishida; figs. 5, 6a-b, [0054]-[0055], [0057], wherein rollers such as 16a and 16b may correspond to the claimed roller between the rolling unit and the pulling unit, wherein the rollers 16a, 16b may be a straightening roll 50, the straightening roll 50 having large diameter portions 52 corresponding to the claimed projection projecting toward an outer peripheral side which contacts the uncoated region of the current collector), thereby enlarging the uncoated region in the longitudinal direction (see e.g., Nishida; [0058], regarding how the straightening rolls 50 elongate the non-coated regions R2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the roller with the projection as disclosed by Nishida to the electrode manufacturing method positioned as disclosed by Tomioka such that the holding members are between the roller with the projection and the pulling unit in order to prevent wrinkles and cracks (see e.g., Nishida; [0013]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tomioka teaches the method according to claim 1, and Tomioka provides wherein in a case where a contact range within which the pair of holding members come in contact with the uncoated region of the current collector is defined, a dimension of the contact range in the longitudinal direction of the belt-like member is not less than twice a width of the uncoated region (see e.g., Tomioka; fig. 5, which shows the contact of the uncoated region 12b with the pressing parts 42 along the whole width of the uncoated region).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tomioka teaches the method according to claim 1, and Tomioka provides wherein each of the pair of holding members comes in contact with the uncoated region of the current collector in a nonrotatable state (see e.g., Tomioka; fig. 5, wherein the holding members are flat, and the instant specifications do not describe the press members rotating).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tomioka teaches the method according to claim 1, and Tomioka provides wherein each of the pair of holding members comes in contact with the uncoated region over an entire width between the one of the pair of long edges and a coating end of the active material-containing layer, in a widthwise direction of the belt-like member (see e.g., Tomioka; fig. 5, wherein the press parts 42 hold the entire uncoated region over the whole width between one of the long edge ends of the current collector and the end of the coating layer).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (JP-2014013689-A) (see translation) and Nishida (US- 20220140308-A1), and further in view of Cho (KR-20220095663-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tomioka teaches the method according to claim 1. Tomioka does not explicitly disclose the rolling unit pushes the active material-containing layer from both sides in the thickness direction of the belt-like member by sandwiching the active material- containing layer between a pair of press rollers. However, Nishida discloses a rolling unit such as carry-in section 21 comprising speed control roll 22 and nip roll 24 (see e.g., Nishida; fig. 5, [0039]). The control roll 22 and the nip roll 24 therefore pushes the active material-containing layer from both sides in the thickness direction of the belt-like member by sandwiching the active material-containing layer between a pair of press rollers (see e.g., Nishida; fig. 5, [0039], wherein pressive device 26 presses the nip roll 24 against the speed roll 22, which therefore sandwiches the active material-containing layer). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rolling unit of Tomioka to be the pair of rollers sandwiching the coated current collector from both sides in the thickness direction as disclosed by Nishida in order to prevent wrinkles and cracks (see e.g., Nishida; [0013]).
In the modification above, Nishida discloses that the material of the nip roll 24 may be flexible and non-slip such as rubber (see e.g., Nishida; [0039]). Tomioka does not explicitly disclose a material forming the holding members is softer than a material forming the press rollers. However, Cho discloses a pressing apparatus for battery manufacturing with a shape-variable roll wherein the material of the roll is a silicone-based rubber (see e.g., Cho; [0049], [0027], [0018], [0035], [0042]), which is a type of rubber softer than traditional rubber. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the holding members of modified Tomioka to be a silicone-based rubber as disclosed by Cho. Thus, a material forming the holding members is softer than a material forming the press rollers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a material which allows the electrode to be manufactured with high productivity by performing the pressing action continuously (see e.g., Cho; [0042]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (JP-2014013689-A) (see translation) and Nishida (US- 20220140308-A1), and further in view of Jiang (CN-114094195-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tomioka teaches the method according to claim 1. Tomioka does not explicitly disclose wherein the pulling unit pulls the belt-like member to the downstream side in a state in which the belt-like member is sandwiched between a pair of pulling rollers. However, Nishida discloses rollers 42 and 44 (see e.g., Nishida; fig. 5, [0050]-[0051]) which corresponds with the claimed pulling unit pulls the belt-like member to the downstream side in a state in which the belt-like member is sandwiched between a pair of pulling rollers. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulling unit of Tomioka to be a pulling unit comprising a pair of pulling rollers sandwiching the coated current collector as disclosed by Nishida in order to prevent wrinkles and cracks (see e.g., Nishida; [0013]).
Nishida discloses that the speed control roll 42 is metallic and the nip roll 44 may be formed of rubber (see e.g., Nishida; [0050]). Tomioka does not explicitly disclose a friction coefficient of the holding members is smaller than that of the pulling rollers. However, Jiang discloses a pressing device for lithium battery manufacturing comprising of a carrier film which contacts and conveys the lithium battery to be hot pressed (see e.g., Jiang; [0008], figs. 1, 5), wherein the material of the carrier film may be any one of release paper, plastic film, paper film, kraft paper film, PET film or Teflon film (see e.g., Jiang; [0016]). The materials, such as at least Teflon, has a lower friction coefficient than rubber and metal. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the material such as Teflon as disclosed by Jiang as the material of the holding members in modified Tomioka. Thereby, a friction coefficient of the holding members is smaller than that of the pulling rollers in modified Tomioka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select this material to provide anti-stick and high-temperature properties (see e.g., Jiang; [0016], [0034]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomioka (JP-2014013689-A) (see translation) and Nishida (US- 20220140308-A1), and further in view of Matsuya (US-20210210764-A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tomioka teaches the method according to claim 1. Tomioka does not explicitly disclose wherein in the coating the surface of the current collector with the active material-containing layer, the current collector is coated with the active material-containing layer such that a width of the uncoated region in a widthwise direction of the belt-like member is larger than 25 mm. However, Matsuya discloses a positive electrode with an uncoated portion wherein the uncoated portion in the widthwise direction is 30 mm (see e.g., Matsuya; figs. 3-4, table 1, [0047], regarding uncoated portion Lu of 30 mm), which overlaps with the claimed range of larger than 25 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the uncoated region of Tomioka by providing a width of 30 mm disclosed by Matsuya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a current collector suitable for connecting with other terminals by welding or the like (see e.g., Matsuya; [0032]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights