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 .
2. Claims 1-14 are pending in this office action.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. Information disclosure statements (IDS), submitted July 11, 2023; August 15, 2024; and, August 29, 2024, have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morishima et al. (US 2014/0308434 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Morishima et al. disclose in Figures 1-5 and 7, an electrode manufacturing apparatus, called a coating apparatus (40), comprising: a supply part, called a current collector apparatus (not shown), configured to supply a substrate, or current collector; a coating part, including a first die head (41), configured to coat, through a discharge port (48), at least one surface of the supplied substrate with an electrode layer, called an electrode (30), divided into coated portions, called slurry coated portions (S), wherein the coated portions (S) are coated with an electrode slurry, called an active material (29), positioned in two or more regions spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the substrate is supplied, and a non-coated portion, called a slurry non-coated portion (C), positioned between the coated portions (S) (paragraphs 0038-0039); a drying part, called a drying furnace (51), configured to dry the electrode slurry (29) to manufacture an electrode film (30); and a recovery part, called a support roll (52), configured to recover the electrode film (30), wherein the recovery part (52) comprises: a bobbin, called a cored bar (22) and including a surface layer (23), around which the electrode film (30) is wound; and a variable ring, called a protruding portion (24), fitted with the bobbin (22) and configured to be movable in a longitudinal direction of the bobbin (22), the variable ring (24) positioned to correspond to a position of the non-coated portion (C) (paragraphs 0035-0036; See Figures).
With regard to Claim 4, Morishima et al. disclose in Figures 2-3, wherein a thickness of the variable ring (24) is 0.2 mm ≤ (r-R) ≤ 5 mm (paragraphs 0048-0049), which meets the claimed limitation of 1 mm to 5 mm.
With regard to Claim 6, Morishima et al. disclose in Figures 2, 4, 6 and 7, wherein the electrode slurry (29) is coated in three regions, called slurry coated portions (S), spaced apart from one another with two non-coated portions (C) positioned therebetween, and wherein the recovery part (52) comprises two variable rings (24) positioned to correspond to positions of the two non-coated portions (C) (paragraphs 0039-0045).
With regard to Claim 7, Morishima et al. disclose in Figures 1-8, an electrode roll comprising: an electrode film, called an electrode (30), comprising a substrate, called a current collector, and an electrode layer, called an active material (29), disposed on at least one surface of the substrate and divided into coated portions, called slurry coated portions (S), wherein the coated portions (S) are coated with an electrode slurry (29) positioned in two or more regions (S) spaced apart from one another in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the substrate, and a non-coated portion, called a non-coated slurry portion (C), positioned between two coated portions (S) (paragraphs 0038-0039, 0045); a bobbin, called a cored bar (22) including a surface later (23), around which the electrode film (30) is wound; and a variable ring, called a protruding portion (24), fitted with the bobbin (22) and configured to be movable in a longitudinal direction of the bobbin (22), the variable ring (24) positioned to correspond to the position of the non-coated portion (C) (paragraphs 0035-0036).
With regard to Claim 10, Morishima et al. disclose in Figures 2-3, wherein a thickness of the variable ring (24) is 0.2 mm ≤ (r-R) ≤ 5 mm (paragraphs 0048-0049), which meets the claimed limitation of 1 mm to 5 mm.
With regard to Claim 12, Morishima et al. disclose in Figures 2, 4, 6 and 7, wherein the coated portions (S) are positioned in three regions in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the substrate with two non-coated portions (C) positioned therebetween, and wherein the variable rings (24) are positioned to correspond to positions of the two noncoated portions (C) (paragraphs 0039-0045).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et al. (US 2014/0308434 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 above, and in further view of Uematsu et al. (US 2012/0076933 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the variable ring is an elastic band.
Uematsu et al. disclose in Figures 1-3, a double-sided coating apparatus (10) including a coating roller (42) and a presser roller (52) (paragraph 0022). Uematsu et al. disclose wherein the coating roller (42, 52) has a small-diameter portion (42a, 52a) and a large-diameter portion (42b, 52b) (corresponding to the variable ring) having different diameters along an axial direction and configured so that the small-diameter portion (42a, 52a) is opposite to the coating region (Sa) and the large-diameter portion (42b, 52b) is opposite to the non-coating region (Sb) (paragraphs 0026, 0028). Uematsu et al. also disclose wherein the large-diameter portion (42b, 52b) is formed of an elastic member (Claim 6). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the electrode manufacturing apparatus of Morishima et al. to include the variable ring being formed of an elastic band, because Uematsu et al. teach that this material is well known in the art of coating rollers.
With regard to Claim 8, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the variable ring is an elastic band.
Uematsu et al. disclose in Figures 1-3, a double-sided coating apparatus (10) including a coating roller (42) and a presser roller (52) (paragraph 0022). Uematsu et al. disclose wherein the coating roller (42, 52) has a small-diameter portion (42a, 52a) and a large-diameter portion (42b, 52b) (corresponding to the variable ring) having different diameters along an axial direction and configured so that the small-diameter portion (42a, 52a) is opposite to the coating region (Sa) and the large-diameter portion (42b, 52b) is opposite to the non-coating region (Sb) (paragraphs 0026, 0028). Uematsu et al. also disclose wherein the large-diameter portion (42b, 52b) is formed of an elastic member (Claim 6). Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the electrode manufacturing apparatus of Morishima et al. to include the variable ring being formed of an elastic band, because Uematsu et al. teach that this material is well known in the art of coating rollers.
12. Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morishima et al. (US 2014/0308434 A1), as applied to Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 and 12 above.
With regard to Claim 3, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein a width of the variable ring is less than a width of the non-coated portion. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the width of the variable ring to be less than a width of the non-coated portion, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 5, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the electrode layer (30) is divided into three regions (S) spaced apart from each other (paragraphs 0039-0045), but do not specifically disclose wherein the electrode layer is divided into two regions spaced apart from each other and wherein the recovery part comprises a single variable ring corresponding to the non-coated portion disposed therebetween. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the electrode layer to be divided into two regions spaced apart from each other and wherein the recovery part comprises a single variable ring corresponding to the non-coated portion disposed therebetween, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 9, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein a width of the variable ring is less than a width of the non-coated portion. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the width of the variable ring to be less than a width of the non-coated portion, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 11, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, including wherein the electrode layer (30) is divided into three regions (S) spaced apart from each other (paragraphs 0039-0045), but do not specifically disclose wherein the coated portions are disposed in two regions spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the substrate having the non-coated portion disposed therebetween. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the coated portions are disposed in two regions spaced apart from each other in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the substrate having the non-coated portion disposed therebetween, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size and/or shape of a component. A change in size and/or is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 13, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the width of the variable ring is 0.1 to 0.99 times the width of the non-coated portion. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the variable ring to have a width 0.1 to 0.99 times the width of the non-coated portion, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
With regard to Claim 14, Morishima et al. disclose the electrode manufacturing apparatus in paragraph 7 above, but do not specifically disclose wherein the width of the variable ring is 0.1 to 0.99 times the width of the non-coated portion. Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to manufacture the variable ring to have a width 0.1 to 0.99 times the width of the non-coated portion, since such a modification would only involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIE O APICELLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 5:00PM 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/KARIE O'NEILL APICELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725