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
Claims 1 and 3-39 are currently pending;
Claims 1, 3-20, and 24-29 are currently withdrawn;
Claims 1 and 19 are amended.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, Species A2 and Species B2. in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-20, and 24-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group and/or Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/26/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “124a” has been used to designate both the at least one second press on both mill lines 120a and 120b in fig. 1. In contrast, the instant specification, paragraph [0046] designates “Each of the mill lines 120a, 120b may further comprise at least one second press 124a, 124b” and “the second press 124a may include working rolls 125a-1, 125a-2”. The second press on mill line 120b should be corrected from 124a to 124b. 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. 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 § 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 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the powder mixture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 30, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube (US-20210151737-A1) in view of Carl et al. (WO-2021118834-A1), hereinafter Carl.
Regarding claim 21, Dube teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a free-standing electrode film for an electrode of an energy storage device, the apparatus comprising a mill line (fig. 1) including one or more presses ([0041]; [0048] pressure applied by rollers to reduce film thickness), at least one of the one or more presses including a pair of opposing working rolls (fig. 1-2; working rollers 18a and 18b; [0048]) and a backing roll associated with each working roll (figs. 1-2; backup rollers 20a and 20b), a barrel of at least one of the backing rolls having a diameter that is at least 1.5 times a diameter of a barrel of the associated working roll (fig. 2).
Dube fails to teach that the barrels of the opposing working rolls each having a total indicated runout (TIR) of less than 5 μm.
Carl is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of roll apparatuses for pressing a substrate ([0002]; [0058]). Carl teaches that the barrels of the opposing working rolls each having a total indicated runout (TIR) of less than 5 μm ([0020] total indicator runout of less than 50 μm; [0058] TIR of less than 10 μm). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dube such that the TIR is less than 5 μm as in Carl. Doing so allows the roll apparatus to press a substrate consistently without significant TIR that may otherwise significantly change the thickness, shape, or other characteristics of a substrate being pressed by the roll apparatus (Carl [0058]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Dube also teaches wherein the barrels of the opposing working rolls each have a surface finish of ISO N8 or smoother ([0041] surface roughness of the working rollers minimal to produce a thin film of quality; [0064] chrome coating with an average surface roughness between 0.025 microns and 0.5 microns, which corresponds to smoother than ISO N8, as someone of ordinary skill in the art would know that ISO N8 is an average roughness of 3.2 μm, as evidenced by CNC Machining Shops “Surface Roughness Chart: Complete Engineering Guide For Machining Processes, Ra Values, and Surface Finish Optimization” attached as an NPL.
Regarding claim 30, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Dube also teaches wherein a barrel of at least one of the working rolls or at least one of the backing rolls has a greater diameter at a lengthwise center of the barrel than at both lengthwise ends of the barrel (fig. 3 working rolls 18a and 18b; figs. 4A-4C [0049]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 34, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Dube also teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more presses further includes at least one additional backing roll associated with each working roll ([0041] it is also contemplated that a plurality of backup rollers can be used to apply pressure on each working roller such as two pairs of backup rollers on either side of the working rollers; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the embodiment of figs. 1-4C of Dube could be modified to have multiple backup rollers on each working roller as it is disclosed as a modification by Dube, and Dube also teaches that modifications and variations can be included within the scope of the art [0082]).
Regarding claim 35, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Dube also teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more presses is arranged to reduce a thickness of the free-standing electrode film produced by the mill line ([0041] thickness of sheet 14 is reduced by working rollers 18a and 18b, transforming the sheet into a film).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Carl as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (KR-20100078816-A), hereinafter Kwak.
Regarding claim 22, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Modified Dube fails to teach wherein the barrels of the opposing working rolls are separated by a roll gap that is adjustable with better than 5 μm resolution.
Kwak is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of rollers (abstract). Kwak teaches wherein the barrels of the opposing working rolls are separated by a roll gap that is adjustable with better than 5 μm resolution (pg. 4, paragraph 6 resolution of 1 μm from the absolute position sensor for controlling the roll gap/cylinder position).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the position sensor of Kwak with a resolution of 1 μm for roll gap control in the roll mill of Dube. Doing so provides a sensor that stores the absolute position even when power is off, and has a long life with east maintenance for controlling the roll gap with a resolution of 1 μm (Kwak pg. 4, paragraph 6). Further, the adjustment of the roll gap allows for the error rate to be improved (Kwak pg. 3 paragraph 3).
Claim 31-32 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Carl as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Miyamoto et al. (WO-2005068857-A1), hereinafter Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 31, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Modified Dube fails to teach wherein the mill line further includes a plurality of individually controllable heating elements arranged to heat respective lengthwise regions of a barrel of at least one of the opposing working rolls or at least one of the backing rolls.
Miyamoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of press rolls ([0002]). Miyamoto teaches wherein the mill line further includes a plurality of individually controllable heating elements arranged to heat respective lengthwise regions of a barrel of at least one of the opposing working rolls or at least one of the backing rolls (fig. 3; pgs. 33-34 under [0059]/[0023]-[0024]; heating elements 14, 15, and 16 that are individually controlled, wherein the central band is heated higher than the side bands to correct unevenness).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dube and provided a plurality of individually controllable heating elements arranged to heat respective lengthwise regions of a barrel of at least one of the opposing working rolls or at least one of the backing rolls. Doing so corrects unevenness in the roll (Miyamoto [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 32, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 31. Modified Dube does not explicitly teach further comprising a human machine interface for receiving user input, wherein the plurality of heating elements are individually controllable based at least in part on the user input.
However, a human machine interface for receiving user input would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art. Miyamoto discloses changing the ratio of current flowing through the heating means (pg. 33, last paragraph, under the [0059]/[0023]) to control the heating elements. It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the ratio would be changed by a human, and therefore a human interface must inherently exist for the heating elements of Miyamoto.
Regarding claim 38, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Dube is silent wherein a surface temperature of respective barrels of the working rolls and backing rolls is controllable to have less than +/- 3 °C variation across a length of each barrel.
Miyamoto is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of press rolls ([0002]). Miyamoto teaches wherein a surface temperature of respective barrels of the working rolls and backing rolls is controllable to have less than +/- 3 °C variation across a length of each barrel (pg. 34, paragraphs 3-4 equalize surface temperature; [0018]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dube and provide a heating means such as in Miyamoto in order to equalize the surface temperature of the respective barrels. Doing so allows for high surface temperature accuracy and almost elimination of axial temperature differences and variations (Miyamoto, pg.13, paragraph 1 under [0022]/[0011]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Carl and Miyamoto as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Tada et al. (JP-2014042922-A), hereinafter Tada.
Regarding claim 33, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 31. Dube also teaches further comprising one or more thickness sensors operable to take one or more thickness measurements of the free-standing electrode film produced by the mill line (Dube [0042] optical system to measure a thickness of the film).
Modified Dube fails to teach wherein the plurality of heating elements are individually controllable based at least in part on the one or more thickness measurements.
Tada is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of roll pressing ([0001]). Tada teaches wherein the plurality of heating elements are individually controllable based at least in part on the one or more thickness measurements ([0037]-[0039]; [0042]-[0043] thickness gauge measure thickness of pressed material; based on the thickness from the gauge, a control panel calculates control values which then controls the amount of current supplied to the heater).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have further modified Dube such that the plurality of heating elements are individually controllable based at least in part on the one or more thickness measurements. Doing so helps minimize the energy supplied to the heater (Tada [0044]), allowing for high precision compression processing (Tada [0010]).
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Carl as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US-7508651-B2), hereinafter Mitchell.
Regarding claim 36, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Dube fails to teach wherein the at least one of the one or more presses is arranged to press the powder mixture into the free-standing electrode film.
Mitchell is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of press rolls for the manufacture of free-standing electrode films (Mitchell col. 26, lines 15-51). Mitchell teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more presses is arranged to press the powder mixture into the free-standing electrode film (Mitchell col. 26, lines 15-51 roll mill used to press powder into a self-supporting film).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the roll mill of Dube could be utilized to press a powder mixture into a free-standing electrode film such as in Mitchell as both include roll mills for reducing pressing the material and reducing the thickness of the material (Dube [0041]; Mitchell col 27, lines 7-52; col. 26, lines 5-14). Doing so would be a simple substitution yielding a predictable result of compacting the manufactured material. Further the mill roll of Dube improves the mechanical strength of a film (Dube [0076]) and allows for a constant thickness of a film (Dube [0010]) when utilized in a process producing free-standing electrode films such as in Mitchell.
Regarding claim 37, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 21. Dube fails to teach wherein the at least one of the one or more presses is part of a mill line expansion module that is insertable into the mill line to increase the number of presses.
Mitchell is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of press rolls for the manufacture of free-standing electrode films (Mitchell col. 26, lines 15-51). Mitchell teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more presses is part of a mill line expansion module that is insertable into the mill line to increase the number of presses (col. 27, lines 40-52 additional calendaring steps can be used to further reduce the film’s thickness and increase tensile strength).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the roll mill of Dube as an expansion module to increase the number of presses. Doing so can help further reduce the film’s thickness and increase the tensile strength (Mitchell col. 27, lines 40-52).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dube in view of Carl and Miyamoto as applied to claim 38 above, and further in view of Mitchell et al. (US-7508651-B2), hereinafter Mitchell.
Regarding claim 39, modified Dube teaches all of the limitations of claim 38. Dube fails to teach wherein the surface temperature is controllable to be between 70 °C and 200 °C. However, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the surface temperature of the barrels is adjustable dependent on the type of material being pressed.owev
For example, Mitchell teaches pressing a powder into free-standing electrode film using multiple presses (figs. 2a, 2g and 3; roll mill 32, calender rolls 38, heated roll mill 52; col. 30, lines 31-40; col 27, lines 40-52). Mitchell teaches that the temperature in each section of the mill line is dependent according to the material softening/melting point (col. 27, lines 27-39 and col. 29, lines 23-34). As such the surface temperature is optimizable. "[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).
Further, Mitchell also teaches, in the case of the free-standing electrode film of Mitchell, that the temperature at the roll mill 32 in fig. 2g is about 100 °C ((67)). Mitchell also teaches a temperature at a roll mill 52 in fig. 3 is at a temperature between 100 °C and 300 °C (col. 30, lines 31-40). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the rolling mill rollers of Dube could be utilized in a process forming a free-standing electrode such as in Mitchell as both include roll mills for reducing pressing the material and reducing the thickness of the material (Dube [0041]; Mitchell col 27, lines 7-52; col. 26, lines 5-14). Doing so would be a simple substitution yielding a predictable result of compacting the manufactured material. Further the mill roll of Dube improves the mechanical strength of a film (Dube [0076]) and allows for a constant thickness of a film (Dube [0010]) when utilized in a process producing free-standing electrode films such as in Mitchell.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-20180226630-A1 teaches that the working roll has a smaller diameter than the backing roll to prevent wrinkle occurrence and strengthen the work roll ([0014]);
US-20080098590-A1 teaches a lower press roll diameter of 300 mm and a backup roll diameter of 700 mm ([0025]), wherein when the press rolls are small in diameter, the forming load upon press forming may be low ([0041]).
JP-2011098472-A teaches a method of press fitting a graphite powder to a base material for use in a battery (Technical Field). The diameter of the backup rolls is larger than that of the work rolls (fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights