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 Species IB, claims 10-20 in the reply filed on 4/20/26 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)).
Claims 1-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species IA, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse dated 4/20/26.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the method associated with a pair of rollers (see claim 10, lines 5-6). Therefore, the preamble should be updated to include the associated rollers the use of:
-- A method for manufacturing a current collector for an electrode of a battery cell by using rollers, the method comprising step of: --
The terms or phrase: “a first roller and a second roller “(claim 10, line 5) should also be updated to: -- “a first roller and a second roller of the rollers” --, as so to reflect changes as suggested in the preamble above. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-20 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.
Further, since the step of “supplying current to the first roller and the second roller to heat the wire mesh current collector” (occurrence in lines 7-8) operatively associated with the power source, it is suggested prior to supplying above, step of:--” providing a power supply source connected to the rollers “--, for clarity of the method inventive features.
The phrase: “to at least one of fuse, bond and weld the wires at the mesh junctions” (claim 10, line 8-9) awkwardly worded should be more specific. The use of: -- to fuse and weld the wires together at the mesh junctions” --, is suggested.
“at the mesh junctions” (claim 10, line 9) should be updated to:-- “at the mesh junctions by the power supply source”—for clarity of the claims.
The recites “the predetermined gap is greater than or equal to the diameter of the wires” (claim 11, lines 1-2) should be more specific, the use of: -- “the predetermined gap is equal to the sum diameter of the wires” --, for clarity of the method claim formats. Also, in order to heat and fuse the wires at the mesh junction the wires have to be directly in contact with the rollers surface to ensure and secure the bond/weld thereto.
Scope of the claim 19 is not clear since the base claim directed to a method and claim 19 directed to the outside structure element (e.g., rollers). Which does not further limit the claimed method.
Claims 12-18, 20 as indefinite, so rendered by virtue of their dependency upon the indefinite subject matter of independent claim 10.
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) 10-20 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolff (US 4915898) in view of Guindy (US 5772703).
Wolff discloses the claimed method for manufacturing a current collector for an electrode of a battery cell, comprising:
providing a wire mesh current collector 40 including wires that have a diameter and form mesh junctions (see Fig. 1 and Figs. 3A-3C), depicts that wire mesh 40 in crossed pattern);
rolling the wire mesh current collector using a first roller 62 and a second roller 64, wherein the first roller and the second roller are spaced by a predetermined gap (see Fig. 1); and wherein the predetermined gap is less than 2 times the diameter of the wires of the wire mesh current collector (by visual at rollers section 60 (see Fig. 1 at location 60).
The Wolff does not expressly disclose or teach process of “supplying current to the first roller and the second roller to heat the wire mesh current collector to at least one of fuse, bond and weld the wires at the mesh junctions”. Regarding to the above refer to col. 2 about ¶ [0006-0007], in conjunction with Fig. 4 for the teaching of the above limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Guindy’s teaching as noted above onto the Wolff invention in order to facilitate the fabrication process for various known benefits that includes the above.
As applied to claims 11, 14, regarding to the gap configuration between n the rollers. the skilled person would implement the gap configurations as recited in above claims in order to improve its stiffness or density without exercising any inventive skills.
As applied to claim 12, regarding to the diameter configurations of the wires mesh of claim 12. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to incorporate such diameter of the wires mesh includes the above wires mesh diameter range, 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, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
As applied to claim 13, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the material as set forth in claim 13 above, since materials such as Cu or Al are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and dielectric properties.
As applied to claims 15-16, refer to Fig. 3 of the Guindy which depicts the substantially process of claims 15-16 where the wires mesh is coated with active material 336.
Limitations of claims 17-18 noting that Fig. 6 of the Guindy which depicts the slurry coating includes active material 636 for coating wires mesh therefrom.
As applied to claim 19, refer to Guindy ‘s Fig. 6 which show the associated structure outer layer. Therefore, not inventive method feature when departing from combination of Wolff/ Guindy as applied and modified above without exercising any inventive skills.
As applied to claim 20 refer to Fig. 6 of the Guindy for the coating wires mesh therefrom. Regarding to the material selection from a group consisting of tin (Sn), indium (In), bismuth (Bi), zinc (Zn), and combinations thereof. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the material as set forth above onto the modified Wolff/Guindy invention for various known benefits including design considerations as so to improve its stiffness or density without exercising any inventive skills.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
5/14/26
Prosecution Insights