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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horie (US 2024/0291016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Horie teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a battery, the apparatus comprising: a conductor conveyor configured to convey a conductor (21) adapted to function as an electrode that is an element of the all-solid state battery using a gel polymer electrolyte ([0027] & [0057]); an insulator conveyor (1200+1400) to convey an insulator adapted to function as an insulating member that is an element of the battery ([0055], [0059] & [0067]); a cutter configured to form an insulating frame (35) that is an element of the battery, in the insulator, a cutter configured to punch and cut the insulator in corresponding with a shape of the insulating member ([0059]); and a laminator-pressurizer configured to laminate and pressurize the conductor conveyed by the conductor conveyor and the insulator punched and cut by the cutter ([0058]); wherein, the conductor conveyor includes two types of conveyor: a positive electrode conductor conveyor for transporting conductors that will become positive electrodes, and a negative electrode conductor conveyor for transporting conductors that will become negative electrodes ([0054] & [0057]); and furthermore, the apparatus continuously produces unit cells in which a solid electrolyte layer is laminated between positive electrodes obtained as a continuous body in the positive electrode transport system and negative electrodes obtained as a continuous body in the negative electrode transport system ([0003], [0070] & [0148]).
Regarding claim 2, Horie teaches the insulator conveyor conveying the insulator together with a carrier sheet (40B) while fitting the carrier sheet on the insulator such that the insulator and the carrier sheet are layered on each other ([0151]), and the cutter forming a cut in the insulator conveyed by the insulator conveyor ([0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Horie teaches a peeler provided downstream of the laminator-pressurizer in a conveying direction of the insulator conveyor, and configured to peel off a portion of the insulator, the portion being other than a portion shaped by the cutter into the insulating member that is the element of the all-solid state battery ([0071]-[0073]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie (US 2024/0291016 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 2014/0059855 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Horie teaches the apparatus of claim 1 but is silent as to at least one of the conductor conveyor or the insulator conveyor including a tensioner configured to hold the conductor or the insulator under a tension in an area upstream of the laminator-pressurizer in a conveying direction of the conductor conveyor and the insulator conveyor. Miyazaki teaches an apparatus for producing a battery, the apparatus comprising a tensioner configured to hold an insulator (13) under a tension in an area upstream of a laminator-pressurizer (26) in a conveying direction of an insulator conveyor (130) ([0022]-[0023], [0025]-[0026] & [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention, to provide a tensioner, as presently claimed, in order to set the tension of the separator comparatively low and prevent possible problems, such as the separator snapping or contracting after folding and also to prevent problems such as creases being produced and warping during folding due to the tension of the separator being too weak.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 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. As presently claimed, the subject matter of claims 1-2 & 4 is found to be anticipated by Horie with claim 3 being found obvious in view of Miyazaki as noted in the above updated rejection. Thus, in view of the foregoing, claims 1-4 stand rejected.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL T ZEMUI whose telephone number is (571)272-4894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm (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, BARBARA GILLIAM can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/NATHANAEL T ZEMUI/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights