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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/22/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-9 are pending in the application and are presently examined. Claims 1 and 4-9 were rejected in the 4/1/2026 office action.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 6/22/2026 amendment, in response to the 4/1/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to additional prior art: JP2015090805A (Fujita), the primary reference of the 4/1/2026 office action, is replaced by US20220140308A1 (Nishida).
Applicant’s argument, that CN110010847A Wang’s roller with steps is a compression roller / pressing roller, but the presently-claimed roller with steps is a different roller in the method / manufacturing apparatus, is still applicable to the new primary reference Nishida. Although Wang’s roller with steps is a different roller, the purpose of Wang’s steps are still applicable to Nishida’s roller; therefore, the rejection of this claim limitation based on Wang still applies. See further discussion of this issue in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Claim 1 states:
“rolling the active material-containing layer in the conveyed belt-like member;
“pulling the belt-like member toward a downstream side, on the downstream side of a rolling unit configured to roll the active material-containing layer, 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”
It is unclear, from this claim language, (A) whether the “rolling the active material” is performed by the “rolling unit”; (B) whether “pulling the belt-like member” is performed by the “pulling unit”; and (C) how the pulling unit is configured to pull the rolling unit. The present specification provides some clarification for these issues (paragraph 30). Examiner suggests the following amendment, for clarification of these claims consistent with the present specification:
“rolling, by a rolling unit, the active material-containing layer in the conveyed belt-like member;
“pulling, by a pulling unit, the belt-like member toward a downstream side the rolling unit the pulling unit
Claims 4-8 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1, 4, & 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220140308A1 (Nishida) in view of CN110010847A (Wang). The Wang publication, attached to this office action, is a machine translation, except that Wang Example 4 (page 6, line 42 through page 7, line 35) is human translated by the USPTO.
With regard to claim 1, Nishida teaches the following claim limitations:
A manufacturing method of an electrode structure (paragraph 35) comprising:
conveying a belt-like member (Figure A below) in which a surface of a current collector (paragraph 25; figures 1A(b) & 6(a): metal base material 2) is coated with an active material-containing layer (paragraph 25; figures 1A(b) & 6(a): positive electrode mixture layer 3), and an uncoated region (Figure B below) 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 (2);
rolling (paragraphs 4, 36, 44, & 59; figure 5: press section 16) the active material-containing layer (3) in the conveyed belt-like member;
pulling the belt-like member toward a downstream side (paragraphs 45-52; figure 5: motor 43 & speed control roll 42), on the downstream side of a rolling unit (paragraphs 4, 36, 44, & 59; figure 5; Figure A: press section 16) configured to roll the active material-containing layer, thereby applying a tension in the longitudinal direction to the belt-like member between a pulling unit (Figure A) configured to pull the belt-like member and the rolling unit; and
enlarging the uncoated region of the current collector in the longitudinal direction by pushing the uncoated region against the belt-like member to which the tension is applied, by a projection (Figure B) projecting toward an outer peripheral side on a roller (paragraph 54; Figure A: straightening roll 50, of figure 6(a), can be the tension sensor roll 36, the pass roll 38, and/or the dancer roll 40) between the rolling unit (16) and the pulling unit (42 & 43), the uncoated region being pushed by the projection (Figure B) in which a projection length to a projection end is larger than a thickness of the active material-containing layer (paragraph 57; figure 6(a); Figure B: “small diameter portion 54 does not contact the positive electrode mixture layer 3 in the coated region R1”) rolled by the rolling unit, wherein
the belt-like member is conveyed in a state in which a rotational axis of the roller is taken along a widthwise direction of the belt-like member (Figures A & B)…
Figure A: Annotated Nishida Figure 5
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Annotated Nishida Figure 6(a)
PNG
media_image2.png
321
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nishida, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Wang:
in the projection, a projection end face as the projection end is formed over a predetermined width in an axial direction along the rotational axis of the roller (Figure C below),
in the projection, a projection amount changing portion, in which a projection amount (Figure C: “P”) reduces in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, is formed adjacent to the projection end face from one side in the axial direction (Figure C), and
in a state in which the projection pushes the uncoated region of the current collector, the projection amount changing portion is positioned between the projection end face of the projection and the active material-containing layer in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member, and the projection amount in the projection amount changing portion reduces toward a side where the active material-containing layer is positioned in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member (add steps of Figure C to the projection of Figure B)
a plurality of steps are formed in the projection such that a step on an outer peripheral side of the roller has a larger projection amount (Figure C), and
in the projection, a step on a most outer peripheral side of the plurality of steps forms the projection end face, and the projection amount in the projection amount changing portion of the projection reduces stepwise in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, due to a step height formed by each of the plurality of steps (Figure C),
the projection amount changing portion includes step height formation surfaces of the plurality of steps (Figure C)
Figure C: Annotated Wang Figure 6
PNG
media_image3.png
368
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang’s stretching part 2 [claimed steps] is intended to prevent wrinkles in the electrode sheet by stretching it. Wang’s stretching part 2 / steps increase friction with the electrode sheet, and thus improve stretching. This flattens a concave shape / arc / curve of the electrode sheet, resulting in improved battery safety. See Wang page 7, lines 1-22.
Wang’s stretching part 2 is part of a compression roller / pressing roller (page 5, line 12; page 4, lines 30-38). This seems to be equivalent to the presently-claimed rolling unit and to Nishida’s press rolls 16a and 16b in the press section 16 (paragraph 44; figure 5).
Nishida’s straightening roll 50 is intended to straighten a curve in the electrode sheet (paragraphs 4, 8, & 53-58). This is the same purpose of Wang’s stretching part 2 / steps. Thus, although Wang’s compression roller / pressing roller is in a different location of the electrode plate manufacturing tool, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to apply Wang’s stretching part 2 / steps to Nishida’s straightening roll 50 for improved electrode sheet stretching, roller to electrode sheet friction, and battery safety.
After applying Wang’s projection amount changing portion to Nishida, Nishida also teaches the following claim 1 limitation:
in the state in which the projection pushes the uncoated region of the current collector, a whole of the projection amount changing portion is positioned on a side where the uncoated region is positioned with respect to the active material-containing layer, in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member (paragraph 51; figure 6(a): “the small diameter portion 54 of the straightening roll 50 is formed to be longer than the coated region R1”)
Nishida modified by Wang would have the projection amount changing portion that is outside of the active material coated region, as indicated by the gap between Nishida’s projection and active material (Figure B above), and confirmed by Nishida’s statement of relative lengths in paragraph 51.
With regard to claim 4, modified Nishida teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 4 states:
the step height formed by each of the plurality of steps is larger than one-fold and not more than five-fold of the thickness of the active material-containing layer
Nishida fails to teach the steps. Wang teaches steps, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above; however, Wang fails to teach step height.
MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) provides guidance for this issue:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
The claimed range would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the following reasons: If the initial step height isn’t “larger than one-fold… of the thickness of the active material-containing layer”, then the current collector wouldn’t rest on that step at all. If the step height is too large, such as more than five-fold active material thickness, then the current collector could be stressed by too large of a bend.
35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejections can be overcome by secondary considerations, such as unexpected results (MPEP 2141). The present specification, however, fails to provide evidence of unexpected results for the claimed step height range. Instead, the present specification merely states that the claimed step height range is “preferred” (paragraph 51).
With regard to claim 8, modified Nishida teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Nishida also teaches the following limitation of claim 8:
forming the current collector from one or more of aluminum, an aluminum alloy, copper, zinc, stainless steel, and titanium (paragraph 24: metal base material 2 is made of an aluminum alloy)
With regard to claim 9, Nishida teaches the following claim limitations:
A manufacturing apparatus of electrode structure (paragraph 35; figure 5: positive electrode plate compression device 10) comprising:
a conveyance unit configured to convey a belt-like member (Figure A below) in which a surface of a current collector (paragraph 25; figures 1A(b) & 6(a): metal base material 2) is coated with an active material-containing layer (paragraph 25; figures 1A(b) & 6(a): positive electrode mixture layer 3), and an uncoated region (Figure B below) 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 (2);
a rolling unit (paragraphs 4, 36, 44, & 59; figure 5: press section 16) configured to roll the active material-containing layer (3) in the conveyed belt-like member;
a pulling unit (paragraphs 45-52; figure 5: motor 43 & speed control roll 42) configured to pull the belt-like member toward a downstream side, on the downstream side of the rolling unit (16), thereby applying a tension in the longitudinal direction to the belt-like member between the pulling unit (42 & 43) and the rolling unit (16); and
an enlarging unit including a roller (paragraph 54; Figure A: straightening roll 50, of figure 6(a), can be the tension sensor roll 36, the pass roll 38, and/or the dancer roll 40) and a projection (Figure B) projecting toward an outer peripheral side in the roller (36, 38, 40), and installed between the rolling unit (16) and the pulling unit (42 & 43), the enlarging unit being configured to enlarge the uncoated region of the current collector in the longitudinal direction by pushing the uncoated region by the projection against the belt-like member to which the tension is applied (Figure B), and a projection length of the projection to a projection end being larger than a thickness of the active material-containing layer rolled by the rolling unit (paragraph 57; figure 6(a); Figure B: “small diameter portion 54 does not contact the positive electrode mixture layer 3 in the coated region R1”), wherein
the belt-like member is conveyed in a state in which a rotational axis of the roller is taken along a widthwise direction of the belt-like member (Figures A & B)
Figure A: Annotated Nishida Figure 5
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1332
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Annotated Nishida Figure 6(a)
PNG
media_image2.png
321
902
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nishida, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Wang:
in the projection, a projection end face as the projection end is formed over a predetermined width in an axial direction along the rotational axis of the roller (Figure C below),
in the projection, a projection amount changing portion, in which a projection amount (Figure C: “P”) reduces in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, is formed adjacent to the projection end face from one side in the axial direction (Figure C), and
in a state in which the projection pushes the uncoated region of the current collector, the projection amount changing portion is positioned between the projection end face of the projection and the active material-containing layer in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member, and the projection amount in the projection amount changing portion reduces toward a side where the active material-containing layer is positioned in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member (add steps of Figure C to the projection of Figure B),
a plurality of steps are formed in the projection such that a step on an outer peripheral side of the roller has a larger projection amount (Figure C), and
in the projection, a step on a most outer peripheral side of the plurality of steps forms the projection end face, and the projection amount in the projection amount changing portion of the projection reduces stepwise in a direction away from the projection end face in the axial direction of the roller, due to a step height formed by each of the plurality of steps (Figure C),
the projection amount changing portion includes step height formation surfaces of the plurality of steps (Figure C)
Figure C: Annotated Wang Figure 6
PNG
media_image3.png
368
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wang’s stretching part 2 [claimed steps] is intended to prevent wrinkles in the electrode sheet by stretching it. Wang’s stretching part 2 / steps increase friction with the electrode sheet, and thus improve stretching. This flattens a concave shape / arc / curve of the electrode sheet, resulting in improved battery safety. See Wang page 7, lines 1-22.
Wang’s stretching part 2 is part of a compression roller / pressing roller (page 5, line 12; page 4, lines 30-38). This seems to be equivalent to the presently-claimed rolling unit and to Nishida’s press rolls 16a and 16b in the press section 16 (paragraph 44; figure 5).
Nishida’s straightening roll 50 is intended to straighten a curve in the electrode sheet (paragraphs 4, 8, & 53-58). This is the same purpose of Wang’s stretching part 2 / steps. Thus, although Wang’s compression roller / pressing roller is in a different location of the electrode plate manufacturing tool, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to apply Wang’s stretching part 2 / steps to Nishida’s straightening roll 50 for improved electrode sheet stretching, roller to electrode sheet friction, and battery safety.
After applying Wang’s projection amount changing portion to Nishida, Nishida also teaches the following claim 1 limitation:
in the state in which the projection pushes the uncoated region of the current collector, a whole of the projection amount changing portion is positioned on a side where the uncoated region is positioned with respect to the active material-containing layer, in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member (paragraph 51; figure 6(a): “the small diameter portion 54 of the straightening roll 50 is formed to be longer than the coated region R1”)
Nishida modified by Wang would have the projection amount changing portion that is outside of the active material coated region, as indicated by the gap between Nishida’s projection and active material (Figure B above), and confirmed by Nishida’s statement of relative lengths in paragraph 51.
Claims 5 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220140308A1 (Nishida) in view of CN110010847A (Wang), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20210210764A1 (Matsuya).
With regard to claim 5, modified Nishida teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 5 states:
the predetermined width of the projection end face is larger than 0 mm and not more than 15 mm
Nishida fails to teach the steps. Wang teaches steps, and thus also the projection end face, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection above; however, Wang fails to teach projection end face length.
MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) provides guidance for this issue:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
The claimed range would have been obvious to one skilled in the art for the following reasons:
Matsuya teaches 30 mm uncoated portion length (paragraph 47). Matsuya is directed to obtaining a target voltage (paragraphs 9-11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Nishida’s uncoated region to have a 30 mm length, as taught by Matsuya, to obtain a target voltage. Wang teaches three steps. If each step has the same length, and the uncoated region is about as long as the projection, then the projection end face length would be about 10 mm long (30mm/3).
35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejections can be overcome by secondary considerations, such as unexpected results (MPEP 2141). The present specification, however, fails to provide evidence of unexpected results for the claimed projection end face length range. Instead, the present specification merely states that the claimed projection end face length is “preferred” (paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 7, modified Nishida teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Nishida, however, fails to teach the following limitation of claim 7, which is taught by Matsuya:
a dimension of the uncoated region in the widthwise direction of the belt-like member is larger than 25 mm (paragraph 47: uncoated portion length = 30 mm)
Matsuya is directed to obtaining a target voltage (paragraphs 9-11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Nishida’s uncoated region to have a 30 mm length, as taught by Matsuya, to obtain a target voltage.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20220140308A1 (Nishida) in view of CN110010847A (Wang), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20210210764A1 (Matsuya) and US20190088981A1 (Chen). Nishida, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claim 6:
the projection length to the projection end is not less than 2 times to not more than 15 times the thickness of the active material-containing layer
Matsuya teaches 30 mm uncoated portion length (paragraph 47). Matsuya is directed to obtaining a target voltage (paragraphs 9-11). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Nishida’s uncoated region to have a 30 mm length, as taught by Matsuya, to obtain a target voltage.
Chen teaches 10 mm thick active layer (paragraph 149). Chen is directed to solving problems of lithium-ion battery storage and transportation (paragraphs 3-6). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Nishida’s positive electrode mixture layer to be 10 mm thick, as taught by Chen, as part of solving problems of lithium-ion battery storage and transportation.
The resulting uncoated region length / active material layer = 30 mm / 10 mm = 3. This is within the 2 to 15 range.
The uncoated portion length, however, is not necessarily the same as the projection length. It would make sense, however, for the projection length to be the same as, or slightly longer, than the uncoated portion length for the following reasons;
Optimal friction for best stretching would occur if the uncoated portion length is at least as long as the projection length.
The uncoated portion could be damaged if it extended beyond the projection.
The roller would take up extra space and would cost extra if it is larger than the uncoated portion.
MPEP 2144.05 II. A. provides the law for this issue:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
Thus, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve the 2 to 15 range of claim 6, based on the teachings of Nishida, Matsuya, and Chen.
Conclusion
Prior art not relied upon, but made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US20130326865A1 teaches the height of a single step / projection (paragraph 38, 46, & 79; figure 3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights