DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 07/24/2023. Claim(s) 1–13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2015/036590 to Fujita (citations are directed to Applicant’s machine translation).
Fujita discloses an electrode sheet drying device for drying an electrode slurry coated on a sheet-type current collector and its associated method of use (Fig. 1; ¶ 0060), comprising: a main body part (12) having an accommodation space for drying (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0026, 0035–0036, 0052), the main body [part] (12) having an inlet and an outlet (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0026, 0035–0036, 0052); at least one guide rollers (66) installed inside the main body part (12) (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0026, 0035–0036, 0052), wherein the guide roller (66) supports and drives an electrode sheet by rotational motion (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0026, 0035–0036, 0052); and a vacuum pump (56) for applying a negative pressure to the inside of the guide roller (66) (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0026, 0035–0036, 0052), wherein a plurality of perforated holes are formed on an outer circumferential surface of the guide roller (12) such that the negative pressure is present in the perforated holes and configured to cling the electrode sheet to the guide roller (12) (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0026, 0035–0036, 0052).
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 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.
Claims 2–4, 6–9, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of EP 857,821 to Voith (citations are directed to the machine translation provided by Applicant).
With regard to claim 2, Fujita fails to disclose each of the plurality of perforated holes are configured to be opened and closed. Voith teaches each of the plurality of perforated holes are configured to be opened and closed (¶¶ 0010, 0022). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the sheet dryer of Fujita with the closable perforations of Hiroyuki because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing the suction to be turned on/off to pick up/release the article being dried.
With regard to claim 3, Fujita further discloses the plurality of perforated holes are distributed over the entire outer circumferential surface of the guide roller (12) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0034).
With regard to claim 4, Fujita as previously combined with Voith further discloses a controller for controlling the opening and closing of the perforated holes (Voith: ¶¶ 0010, 0022).
With regard to claim 6, Fujita as previously combined with Voith further discloses a suction tube located at the lower part of the guide roller (Voith: 20) (Voith: ¶ 0010), wherein the suction tube is connected to the [vacuum source].
Fujita as combined with Voith fails to explicitly disclose that the vacuum source is a vacuum pump. However, vacuum pumps are old and well-known in the art as a means for generating a vacuum. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the roller dryer of Fujita with a vacuum pump as known in the prior art because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing a means for generating the vacuum.
With regard to claim 7, Fujita as previously combined with Voith further discloses the suction tube includes a partition (Voith: 23) positioned to divide the inside of the suction tube (¶ 0010).
With regard to claim 8, Fujita fails to disclose the suction tube has a length corresponding to the length of the guide roller. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a suction tube with a length corresponding to the length of the guide roller, since such a modification would have involved 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. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 9, Fujita further discloses a hot air supply part configured to spray hot air toward an electrode sheet (¶ 0041; the term “hot” is relative).
With regard to claim 12, Fujita fails to disclose the diameter of the perforated hole range from 0.1 mm to 10 mm. Diameter size is a known results-effective variable because the greater the diameter, the greater the suction (by volume). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a perforated hole diameter from 0.1 mm to 10 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 & 10–11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Steven B McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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 J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
March 5, 2026