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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 4/28/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendments to the claims. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/28/2026, are directed towards newly amended claims that are addressed hereinafter.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the non-coated part at a location between adjacent portions”; however, there is no requirement of adjacent portions or a non-coated part therebetween and therefore this requirement lacks antecedent basis in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and therefore are similarly rejected.
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(s) 1, 11-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20210108758 A, hereinafter KR 758 taken with US Patent Application Publication 20180226630 by Yanai et al.
Claim 1: KR 758 discloses a manufacturing apparatus of an electrode for a secondary battery comprising: a transfer unit that transfers a current collector from an unwinder (“unwinder 21 in which an electrode sheet 10 having an electrode mixture layer applied on one or both surfaces is wound”); a coating unit that applies an electrode active material to at least one surface of the current collector (“electrode sheet 10 having an electrode mixture layer applied on one or both surfaces is wound”, necessary includes a coating unit as claimed to achieve the coating); a rolling unit that is arranged on the transfer unit and rolls an electrode active material layer composed of the electrode active material (“the main rolling roll 30”); and a pressing unit that is arranged adjacently to the rolling unit (“rolling unit 50 is disposed on the inlet side of the main rolling roll 30”) and presses a non-coated part of the current collector to which the electrode active material is not applied, wherein the pressing unit comprises: a roll member (53); and a ring assembly that is detachably coupled to the roll member and comes into contact with the non-coated part to press the non-coated part (51 and 52, such “may be coupled to the shaft 53 constituting the rotation shaft” and discloses adjusting the position of the rolling units fastening frames and such are independently movable), see Figure 2, 7 and accompanying text.
KR 758 discloses a rolling process using a roll unit and discloses using the rolling unit to and a plurality of ring assembly including a first and second ring assembly located at the first and second ends of the roll member spaced apart in the longitudinal direction parallel to the rolling axis to press the uncoated region (See Figures); however, fails to disclose the ring assembly includes a third ring assembly spaced apart from the first and second assemblies and configured to press the non-coated part a location between adjacent portions. However, Yanai, also in the art of a press roller for forming an electrode including a pressing unit and pressing the uncoated regions (same as taught by KR 758) and Yanai discloses the pressing unit with assemblies and the coating can be arranged such that a first and second assemblies are both on the longitudinal ends as well as a third assembly arranged between the ends, e.g. in the middle (see Figure 2A, Figure 10). Yanai discloses the coating can be either a full strip (as exemplified by KR 758) or a multiple strips (see e.g. Figure 2A, Figure 3, Figure 4A) and therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to have modified KR 758 to use the pressing assembly with a third roller in the middle as suggested by Yanai as a known and suitable pressing assembly for electrode formation and Yanai discloses an alternative to a single strip coating would be multiple strip coatings with uncoated portion therebetween.
While the KR 758 discloses the intended use of the instant claims, see entire reference, the examiner notes that the above italics is mere intended use of the claimed apparatus and therefore such is met by the prior art structure that is capable of being operated as claimed. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 11: KR 758 discloses opposing ends of the roll member are connected to an elevation arm (upward movement can be met by the prior art and thus reads on “elevation arm”) and a cylinder (what can reasonably be considered a cylinder, see e.g. driving device), respectively, so that the roll member is displaced with respect to the current collector (see e.g. Figure 2 and accompanying text, stating “may be moved in the longitudinal direction of the shaft 53 as necessary and then fixed at a suitable position. In addition, the shaft 53 may be configured to be movable in the vertical direction and the front-rear direction based on the moving direction of the electrode sheet 10 through a separate driving device (not shown)”)
Claim 12: KR 758 discloses additional ring assemblies arranged at equal intervals on the roll member (see e.g. Figure 2, 7). Yanai discloses the uncoated parts are arranged equal intervals (see e.g. Figure 2A, Figure 3, Figure 4A) and therefore it would have been obvious to arrange the ring assemblies as needed, including equal intervals, to press the uncoated portion of the substrate.
Claims 13: Yanai discloses apparatus includes two pressing units, spaced apart from each other and arranged at the front and rear of the rolling unit such that the two pressing units are spaced apart with the rolling unit between the two pressing units in the direction of travel (Figure 5 and accompanying text, 0036 related to the pressing roller arranged at the entry side and exit side of the roller pressing unit). As such, providing a pressing unit in the entry and exit side of the rolling unit would have been obvious to provide a rolling unit with reduced wrinkling formation as suggested by Yanai.
Claim 14 and 18: KR 758 discloses the current collector includes a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, and the pressing unit is configured so as to press the non-coated part of the first surface of the current collector and the non-coated part of the second surface of the current collector (Figures 2,7 and accompanying text).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR758 with Yanai and further with KR 20100047645A, hereinafter KR 645.
As noted above, KR 758 discloses the rolling members include ring assembly that 51 are coupled to the rolling shaft by fastening frames so that they are independently movable; however, the reference fails to disclose the first and second ring as claimed. However, KR 645 discloses a method of fastening a roller member to a shaft and discloses including a first, second and third ring as claimed (see Figure 2-3 and accompanying text) and therefore modifying KR 758 to include the fastening as taught by KR 645, including a first ring coupled to shaft, second ring with larger diameter and attached to first ring and third ring on an outer periphery of the second ring member would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a roller onto a rotating shaft.
Claim 3: The roller of KR 645 would necessarily meet the “elastic” requirement as the degree of elasticity is not specifically defined by the claims.
Claim 10: The width of the members are configured to be smaller than the width of the non-coated part (see KR 758 Figure 2, 7).
Claim 15-16: The limitations of these claims are specifically addressed above.
Claim 17: KR 645 discloses a depressed part formed on the inner surface of the third ring, a protrusion on the outer surface of the second ring and the protrusion part fitting into the depressed part of the third ring (see Figure 5 and accompanying text).
Claim 19: KR 645 discloses the first ring member and the second ring member are fixed to each other by connection members disposed oppositely between the first ring member and the second ring member (see Figure 3 and accompanying text, connection members are teeth on first ring and recesses on second ring).
Claim 20: The connection members extending from first member are coupled to a groove in the second ring (see Figure 3 and accompanying text), the requirement of rotatably coupled, the prior art coupling is around the ring and such is rotated and thus meets this requirement of rotatably coupled.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR758 with Yanai and KR 645 and further with WO 2009113127, hereinafter WO 127.
KR758 with Yanai and KR 645 discloses all that is taught above and while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above, the examiner cites here WO 127, also in the art of rollers arranged on shaft and contacting substrate and discloses including an elastic third ring, including rubber on the outer periphery of the roller, so that the objects contacted are prevented from being damaged (see background, abstract). Therefore using rubber would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reap the benefits of preventing damage to the substrate.
Claim 5: KR 645 discloses a depressed part formed on the inner surface of the third ring, a protrusion on the outer surface of the second ring and the protrusion part fitting into the depressed part of the third ring (see Figure 5 and accompanying text).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR758 with Yanai and KR 645 and further with US Patent 5810157 by Nolan and US RE 26591 by Kay.
KR758 with Yanai and KR 645 discloses all that is taught above and discloses fastening the roller to the rotating shaft; however, fails to disclose the claims extension parts. However, Nolan, also in the art of attaching a roller to a shaft and discloses including a clamping collar and screws to provide for locking to the shaft (see Figures 6-8, column 3, lines 1-5). Additionally, Kay discloses a roller attached to a rolling member shaft by using a clamping collar with extensions (Figure 1-3). Kay and Nolan discloses the clamping collar includes a ring with opposing free ends and Kay discloses the clamping collar include extensions at both ends, wherein the extensions include opening for screw coupling (see Figure 3). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to secure the roller to the shaft using a clamping collar as suggested by Nolan by using extension parts extending from each end of the member with an opening for a screw coupling as suggested by Kay to reap the benefits of attaching the rollers/ring members to the rolling member.
Claim 7: Kay discloses the extensions run parallel to the shaft (see Figures 1-3, specifically Figure 1).
Claim 8: The requirement of rotatably coupled, the prior art coupling is around the ring and such is rotated and thus meets this requirement of rotatably coupled.
Claim 9: Kay discloses extensions are vertically from each of the free ends (see Figure 3).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights