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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 1, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 06/05/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 2015/0210497).
With regards to claim 1, Zhou teaches a roller for advancing sheet material or web material (abstract) comprising a cylindrical section (16) and a tapered section (20) extending from one end portion of the cylindrical section (Fig. 1, Fig. 2). As seen in Figure 2 the tapered section has a shape in which an outer diameter gradually decreases towards the distal end portion away from the cylindrical section.
With regards to the limitation in claim 1 that the roller is “an electrode running roller configured to move an electrode sheet in which a current collector is coated with an electrode active material” in the preamble, this limitation is interpreted as reciting an intended use of the roller device. As discussed in MPEP 2115 the material or article worked upon does not limit apparatus claims and as discussed in MPEP 2111.02 preamble statements of intended use are interpreted in whether they recite structure or mere statements of purpose. No particular structure is apparent in the statement of intended use in the claim.
With regards to claim 3, Zhou teaches a truncated conic taper in which the taper is cylindrical towards a blunt ended cone (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites the material worked upon by the roller in the discussing the electrode and the manner in which the device is used discussing the relationship between the non-coating portion position with respect to the taper. As discussed in MPEP 2114 the manner of operating a device does not distinguish an apparatus over the prior art, and as discussed in MPEP 2115 the material or article worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim. While the claim uses the language “configured to” to describe the intended use there is no apparent structure of the roller itself necessary to be configured to perform the intended use or work upon the intended material.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, the claim recites the manner in which the device is used with respect to a workpiece. As discussed in MPEP 2114 the manner of operating a device does not distinguish an apparatus over the prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2015/0210497) as applied to claim 1 above.
With regards to claim 2, Zhou teaches a roller having a cylindrical portion and a tapered portion at a distal end as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Zhou is silent with respect to the relative length of the cylindrical portion to the tapered portion. Barring a showing of unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to vary the ratio of the length of the cylindrical section to the tapered section including 4:1 to 1:1 as mere changes in relative size and shape present a case of prima facie obviousness in the absence of unexpected results as discussed in MPEP 2144.04.IV.A and 2144.04.IV.B. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to change the relative dimensions depending on desired web width and amount of spreading needed (¶ 0030-0032).
With regards to claim 4, Zhou is silent with respect to the incline angle; however, Zhou teaches that the taper is adjustable from an incline to a decline (Fig. 2-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to utilize an angle of 0.2-0.5 through routine optimization of the workable range taught by Zhou with an adjustable taper (¶ 0030-0032).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brunner et al. (US 4667863) teaches a tapered roller (Fig. 1).
Hasegawa et al. (US 2008/0230588) teaches a roller with a taper at only one end of the cylinder (Fig. 3).
Page (US 3225717) teaches a bullet shaped roller (Fig. 10, 118)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GALEN H HAUTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM to 6 PM 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743
