CTNF 18/284,193 CTNF 100108 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 , in the reply filed on 26 May 2026 is acknowledged. Summary This non-final office action for application 18/284,193 is a response to applicants reply, filed on 26 May 2026, to the election/restriction requirement dated 13 May 2026. Accordingly, claims 1-14 are under full considereation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the tab" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also, the term “ approximately equal ” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ approximately equal ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Seong (KR-20170063222-A) . Regarding Claim 1 , Seong discloses a laminating roller (lamination apparatus such as the roller unit; see [0040]) for laminating an electrode (laminating an electrode assembly using a roller ; see [0038]) and a separator (separator 220; see [0039]), the laminating roller comprising: a central portion (the region R550 corresponding to the longitudinal center of the electrode assembly of the roller; see [0043] and Fig. 5a), two end portions positioned at first and second opposite ends of the central portion with respect to a longitudinal direction of the central portion (see Fig. 5a), a heating member disposed within the laminating roller (lamination device may be designed to have a temperature difference by using a heating wire or a heating element; see [0041]), and wherein the laminating roller is configured to express a surface temperature of the two end portions that is higher than a surface temperature of the central portion (the temperature of the region L450 corresponding to the longitudinal center portion of the electrode assembly in the lamination apparatus L is set to be lower by about 15 to 30 DEG C than the temperature of the region corresponding to the longitudinal end portion of the electrode assembly; see [0040]). Regarding Claim 2 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1, wherein a length of the laminating roller is approximately equal to a length of the electrode assembly in a full-length direction excluding the tab (see Fig. 5a, Parts roller R and electrode assembly 500). Regarding Claim 3 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1, wherein the laminating roller is configured to express the surface temperature of the two end portions that is 10 to 30 o C higher than the surface temperature of the central portion (he temperature of the region L450 corresponding to the longitudinal center portion of the electrode assembly in the lamination apparatus L is set to be lower by about 15 to 30 DEG C than the temperature of the region corresponding to the longitudinal end portion; see [0040]). Regarding Claim 11 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1, wherein the laminating roller is configured to pressurize and heat the separator and the electrode (As used herein, the term “lamination device” is understood to mean any device that can be used to laminate an electrode assembly having an anode and a cathode stacked with a separator interposed therebetween by heat, pressure, or both; see [0036]) while traveling (this is necessary for the operation of a roller assembly) in a full-width direction of the electrode assembly (see Fig. 4). Regarding Claim 12 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1. The recitation that the electrode assembly is a bi-cell merely identifies the workpiece upon which the laminating roller operates and does not impart any additional structural limitations to the laminating roller. Therefore, the bi-cell electrode assembly is considered a functional limitation as it defines the what the laminating roller can operate on, and not a structural limitation of the laminating roller. The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley , 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb , Inc. , 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham , 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). Functional limitations that do not limit the structure need not be given further due consideration in determining patentability of an apparatus. Regarding Claim 13 , Seong discloses a laminating assembly comprising an upper laminating roller and a lower laminating roller (pair of roller units 270 and 270’; see [0039] and Fig. 2) each being the laminating roller according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection and Fig. 4) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR-20170063222-A) . Regarding Claim 4 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1, wherein the laminating roller is configured to express the surface temperature of the two end portions that is 60 to 80 o C (the lamination device region corresponding to the longitudinal end of the electrode assembly is set to a temperature range of about 80 to 120 DEG C; see [0040]), and the surface temperature of the central portion that is 65 to 80 o C (see [0040]). Seong does not explicitly teach the central portion expressing a surface temperature that is 40 to 60 o C. However, the Courts have held that differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such a temperature is critical ("Where 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)). Therefore, because Seong discloses the ability of the central portion to operate at a temperature range slightly higher than that claimed, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to optimize the operating temperature through routine experimentation. Regarding Claim 8 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same material for the central portion and the two end portions. KSR Rationale E (see MPEP 2141) states that it is obvious to choose “from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success”. The choice in this category is binary – either the material at the ends is the same as that in the center, or it is different. In the absence of any teaching that different materials are required to achieve a particular result, it would have been obvious to a select the known alternative of forming the end portions and central portion from the same material. Regarding Claim 9 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 8, wherein the heating member is configured to make the surface temperature of the two end portions of the laminating roller higher than the surface temperature of the central portion (the lamination device region corresponding to the longitudinal end of the electrode assembly is set to a temperature range of about 80 to 120 DEG C, and the temperature of the lamination device region L450 corresponding to the longitudinal center portion of the electrode assembly is about 65 to 80 DEG C; see [0040]). Regarding Claim 10 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of a length of the central portion to a length of each end portion is 2:1 to 5:1 (see Fig. 4) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR-20170063222-A) in view of Van Haag et al. (US-6209451-B1), hereinafter “Van Haag” . Regarding Claim 5 , Seong discloses the laminating roller according to claim 1. Seong does not explicitly teach the materials of which the rollers are made of. However, Van Haag discloses wherein the central portion and the two end portions are made of materials that are different from each other (An elastic cover 4 is disposed about the circumferential surface… on the two axial ends of the roll 1, the cover 4 leaves pin regions 7, 8 clear (see Col. 6 Lines 31-43). Seong and Van Haag are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of heated pressing rollers. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Van Haag offers the motivation of the cover causing a constant surface process temperature (see Col. 7 Lines 20-22). Regarding Claim 6 , Seong and Van Haag together disclose the laminating roller according to claim 5. Van Haag further discloses wherein the material of the two end portions has a higher thermal conductivity than the material of the central portion (elastic cover 4; see Fig. 1; and distributor chambers 12, 13 are disposed on the end faces of the displacement body 10. While heat conducting plates are shown in the distributor chamber 12, corresponding heat-conducting surfaces can also be disposed in the distributor chamber 13; see Col. 6 Lines 46-50). This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Van Haag offers the motivation of supplying the end faces with a greater quantity of heat (see Col. 8 Lines 7-8). Regarding Claim 7 , Seong and Van Haag together disclose the laminating roller according to claim 6. Seong further discloses wherein the heating member is configured to apply a same temperature to the central portion and the two end portions (the lamination device region corresponding to the longitudinal end of the electrode assembly is set to a temperature range of about 80 to 120 DEG C, and the temperature of the lamination device region L450 corresponding to the longitudinal center portion of the electrode assembly is about 65 to 80 DEG C; see [0040]). Specifically, the ranges disclosed by Seong overlap at the temperature of 80 o C, indicating that the heating member is capable/configured to apply a same temperature to each portion . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR-20170063222-A) in view of Kim (KR-20200067575-A) . Regarding Claim 14 , Seong discloses the laminating assembly according to claim 13. Seong does not explicitly teach a plurality of roller pairs. However, Kim discloses one or more additional pairs of rollers (the heating roller unit 120 includes a plurality of heating rollers 121; see [0042] and Fig. 2). Seong and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laminating rollers for an electrode assembly. This modification would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because Kim offers the motivation of gradually increasing the temperature of the electrode assembly (see [0046]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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. /A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774 /CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 2 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 3 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 4 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 5 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 6 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 7 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 8 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 9 Art Unit: 1774 Application/Control Number: 18/284,193 Page 10 Art Unit: 1774
Prosecution Insights