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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on July 2, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-12 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 2, 2025.
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 7-9 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 7 recites the limitation “the powder adhering to the raised portion of the first roller.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “powder adhering to the raised portion of the first roller“ was not previously established*. For examination purposes, the claim will be interpreted as “the powder adhering to the raised portion of the first roller” (the word “the” was deleted).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claim 7.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Enohara (JP2018063776A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claim 1, Enohara teaches a powder transfer roller device (Abstract) comprising:
a first roller having a raised portion provided in a part of a circumferential surface of the first roller (Fig. 1- transfer roll 12; Fig. 2- convex part 30);
a second roller opposed to the first roller (Fig. 1- supply roll 11), the second roller that compacts, between the second roller and the raised portion of the first roller, powder supplied between the first roller and the second roller [0011]; and
a powder supplying device configured to supply the powder between the first roller and the second roller ([0012]- An electrode material 22 is supplied by a feeder).
Regarding Claim 2, Enohara further teaches the second roller has a circumferential surface which is flat throughout (See Figs. showing flat supply roll 11).
The limitation of “the second roller has a recessed portion in an area of the circumferential surface of the second roller, the area excluding circumferential surfaces of both axial end parts of the second roller” is not given significant patentable weight because the claim recites “the second roller has a circumferential surface which is flat throughout, or the second roller has a recessed portion in an area of the circumferential surface of the second roller, the area excluding circumferential surfaces of both axial end parts of the second roller”. Since Enohara teaches the second roller has a circumferential surface which is flat throughout, the second roller has a recessed portion in an area of the circumferential surface of the second roller, the area excluding circumferential surfaces of both axial end parts of the second roller is not required thus rendering any further limitations regarding the second roller having a recessed portion not required. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation is addressed separately below.
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Enohara further teaches the speed of the transfer roll and the supply roll may be the same or different [0029] thus meeting the instant limitations of the second roller rotates at a circumferential velocity greater than a circumferential velocity of the first roller and the first roller rotates at a circumferential velocity greater than a circumferential velocity of the second roller.
Regarding Claim 10, Enohara further teaches the powder is electrode material powder of a storage battery (Fig. 1- electrode material 22), and
the raised portion of the first roller is formed to have a shape and a size that correspond to the shape and the size of an electrode of the storage battery [0007]; [0014].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enohara (JP2018063776A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Jeong (PGPub 2023/0187600; foreign priority date: August 21 2020).
Regarding Claim 2, Enohara does not specify the second roller has a recessed portion in an area of the circumferential surface of the second roller, the area excluding circumferential surfaces of both axial end parts of the second roller.
Jeong teaches an alternative coating unit (Abstract) wherein the second roller has a recessed portion in an area of the circumferential surface of the second roller, the area excluding circumferential surfaces of both axial end parts of the second roller (Fig. 1- coating groove 122a) in order to uniformly apply material that passes through the transfer and discharge roller [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transfer device of Enohara to include a coating groove as taught by Jeong with reasonable expectation of success to uniformly apply material that passes through the transfer and discharge roller [0024].
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Enohara further teaches the speed of the transfer roll and the supply roll may be the same or different [0029] thus meeting the instant limitations of the second roller rotates at a circumferential velocity greater than a circumferential velocity of the first roller and the first roller rotates at a circumferential velocity greater than a circumferential velocity of the second roller.
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enohara (JP2018063776A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Kusano et al (JP2020146625A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claims 4, 6, and 8, Enohara does not specify the device further comprising a sheet member that moves so as to contact the second (or first or third) roller, the sheet member moving at a moving velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the second (or first or third) roller.
Kusano teaches an alternative powder coating device [0001] comprising a sheet member that moves so as to contact a roller (Fig. 1- base material 20 on roll 16), the sheet member moving at a moving velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the roller ([0014]- VA<VB<VC) in order to suppress transfer defects [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Enohara to include a sheet member moving at a velocity greater than the respective roller in contact with the sheet as taught by Kusano with reasonable expectation of success to suppress transfer defects [0007] thus meeting the instant limitations of the device further comprising a sheet member that moves so as to contact the second (or first or third) roller, the sheet member moving at a moving velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the second (or first or third) roller.
Regarding Claim 7, Enohara further teaches a third roller which is opposed to the first roller (Fig. 1- backup roll 13) and has a circumferential surface that is flat throughout (See Figs. showing flat surface) and to which the powder adhering to the raised portion of the first roller is transferred [0031]-[0032].
Enohara teaches utilizing the relevant speed of a conventional backup roll [0031] but does not specify the third roller rotating at a circumferential velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the first roller.
Kusano teaches a third roller rotating at a circumferential velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the first roller ([0014]- VA<VB<VC) in order to suppress transfer defects [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Enohara and Jeong to include a third roller rotating at a circumferential velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the first roller as taught by Kusano with reasonable expectation of success to suppress transfer defects [0007].
Claims 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enohara (JP2018063776A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Jeong (PGPub 2023/0187600; foreign priority date: August 21 2020) and Kusano et al (JP2020146625A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith).
Regarding Claims 4, 6, and 8, Enohara and Jeong do not specify the device further comprising a sheet member that moves so as to contact the second (or first or third) roller, the sheet member moving at a moving velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the second (or first or third) roller.
Kusano teaches an alternative powder coating device [0001] comprising a sheet member that moves so as to contact a roller (Fig. 1- base material 20 on roll 16), the sheet member moving at a moving velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the roller ([0014]- VA<VB<VC) in order to suppress transfer defects [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Enohara and Jeong to include a sheet member moving at a velocity greater than the respective roller in contact with the sheet as taught by Kusano with reasonable expectation of success to suppress transfer defects [0007] thus meeting the instant limitations of the device further comprising a sheet member that moves so as to contact the second (or first or third) roller, the sheet member moving at a moving velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the second (or first or third) roller.
Regarding Claim 7, Enohara further teaches a third roller which is opposed to the first roller (Fig. 1- backup roll 13) and has a circumferential surface that is flat throughout (See Figs. showing flat surface) and to which the powder adhering to the raised portion of the first roller is transferred [0031]-[0032].
Enohara teaches utilizing the relevant speed of a conventional backup roll [0031] but does not specify the third roller rotating at a circumferential velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the first roller.
Kusano teaches a third roller rotating at a circumferential velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the first roller ([0014]- VA<VB<VC) in order to suppress transfer defects [0007].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Enohara and Jeong to include a third roller rotating at a circumferential velocity greater than the circumferential velocity of the first roller as taught by Kusano with reasonable expectation of success to suppress transfer defects [0007].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enohara (JP2018063776A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Kusano et al (JP2020146625A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) and Jamadar et al (PGPub 2021/0288302).
Regarding Claim 9, Enohara and Kusano do not specify a support roller which is opposed to the third roller and which presses, against the third roller, the sheet member disposed between the third roller and the support roller so as to support the sheet member.
Jamadar teaches an alternative coating device [0001] comprising a support roller (Fig. 1- roller 22h) which is opposed to the third roller and which presses, against the third roller (Fig. 1- roller 22h), the sheet member disposed between the third roller and the support roller so as to support the sheet member (Fig. 1- calendar roll 24) in order to calender the sheet material [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Enohara and Kusano to include a support roller as taught by Jamadar with reasonable expectation of success to calender the sheet material [0095].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enohara (JP2018063776A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) in view of Jeong (PGPub 2023/0187600; foreign priority date: August 21 2020), Kusano et al (JP2020146625A with references to the machine English translation provided herewith) and Jamadar et al (PGPub 20210288302).
Regarding Claim 9, Enohara, Jeong, and Kusano do not specify a support roller which is opposed to the third roller and which presses, against the third roller, the sheet member disposed between the third roller and the support roller so as to support the sheet member.
Jamadar teaches an alternative coating device [0001] comprising a support roller (Fig. 1- roller 22h) which is opposed to the third roller and which presses, against the third roller (Fig. 1- roller 22h), the sheet member disposed between the third roller and the support roller so as to support the sheet member (Fig. 1- calendar roll 24) in order to calender the sheet material [0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Enohara, Jeong and Kusano to include a support roller as taught by Jamadar with reasonable expectation of success to calender the sheet material [0095].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 1/7/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748