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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hitachi (WO2014024316 as cited within IDS and see attached translation).
As to claim 1, Hitachi discloses a strip defect repair device (figure 10, page 8, discussed throughout) configured to repair a coating defect of a strip (figure 10, page 8, discussed throughout), the strip defect repair device (figure 10 #231, page 8 and 9, discussed throughout) comprising: a detection module configured to detect the coating defect of the strip and feedback a position signal corresponding to the coating defect (figure 10 #232, #233, #234 and #253, page 8 and 9, ); a transfer module (figure 10 #202, #203 and #205, page 8 and 9, discussed throughout); and a repair module (figure 10 #236, page 8 and 9, discussed throughout); wherein: the transfer module is configured to respond to the position signal and drive the repair module to move to a position corresponding to the coating defect (figure 10 page 8 and 9, the rollers are moving the strip forward and thus to a position wherein the repair module will repair the strip); and the repair module is configured to add a supplementary material to the coating defect so as to repair the coating defect (figure 10, pages 8-9, but best seen in figures 8A-9A, discussed throughout).
As to claim 2, Hitachi discloses wherein, the repair module comprises: a repair mechanism configured to add the supplementary material to the coating defect (figure 10, pages 8-9, but best seen in figures 8A-9A, discussed throughout); and a leveling mechanism configured to level the supplementary material added to the coating defect (figure 10 #210 and #209, discussed throughout).
As to claim 3, Hitachi discloses wherein, the supplementary material is slurry (page 6, discusses the active material is a slurry and the added material can be an active material with a different particle size, discussed throughout), and the repair mechanism comprises: a storage bin configured to store the supplementary material; and a discharge assembly, wherein the discharge assembly is in communication with the storage bin, and the discharge assembly is configured to add the supplementary material to the coating defect (page 7, inkjet has a discharge assembly and stores the slurry, discussed throughout).
As to claim 5, Hitachi discloses wherein, the leveling mechanism comprises: a flattening roller; a scraper; or a flattening member and a flattening driving member, the flattening driving member being configured to drive the flattening member to move in a thickness direction of the strip, so as to flatten the supplementary material added to the coating defect (figure 10 #210 and #209, page 8 and 9, discussed throughout).
As to claim 6, Hitachi discloses wherein, the repair module further comprises: a drying mechanism configured to dry the supplementary material added to the coating defect (figure 10 #204 or #208, page 8 and 9, discussed throughout).
As to claim 9, Hitachi discloses wherein, the detection module is a first detection module (figure 10 #231); the strip defect repair device (figure 10 #231 and #241, page 8-9, discussed throughout) further comprising: a second detection module (figure 10 #241, discussed throughout) located upstream of the first detection module and the repair module (figure 10 discussed throughout), wherein the second detection module is configured to detect the coating defect of the strip and transmit an area signal corresponding to the coating defect (figure 10 #246, #245, #244 and #243, page 8-9, discussed throughout); wherein the transfer module (figure 10 #206 and #207, page 8-9, discussed throughout) is configured to respond to the area signal and drive the repair module to move to an area corresponding to the coating defect (figure 10 #246, page 8-9, discussed throughout), and then respond to the position signal and drive the repair module to move to the position corresponding to the coating defect (figure 10, discussed throughout).
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 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi as applied to claims 1 and 6 above.
As to claim 8, Hitachi discloses wherein, the repair mechanism (figure 10 #236, discussed throughout), the leveling mechanism (figure 10 #210 or #209, discussed throughout), and the drying mechanism (figure 10 #204 or #208). Hitachi is silent to wherein the components are arranged in sequence in a traveling direction of the strip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to add an addition press rollers (figure 10 #210 and/or #209) before entering the second defect defection system (figure 10 #241) as a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04) to insure uniform thickness throughout the process.
As to claim 10, Hitachi is silent to wherein, further comprising: a marking module located downstream of the repair module; wherein: the detection module is further configured to detect whether a repaired coating defect is acceptable; and the marking module is configured to mark the strip in response to the detection module detects that the repaired coating defect is unacceptable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to add and additionally repaired devices (figure 10 #241) as a mere duplication of parts (see MPEP 2144.04) to increase redundancy or in case a device needs to be taken down for maintenance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hitachi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Amasaki (WO 2016079821 see attached translation).
As to claim 7, Hitachi is silent to wherein, the drying mechanism comprises at least one of a heat gun or an infrared lamp. Amasaki discloses a method of producing a battery (page 1 and 2) wherein, an infrared lamp is used in the drying furnace. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use an infrared lamp within the drying furnace of Hitachi from Amasaki as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724