The arguments and amendments submitted 12/31/2025 have been considered. In light of amendments made, all prior claim objections and USC § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable over the prior art as set forth below.
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.
Claims 2-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2-4 each recite "upper peeler". This term is not previously recited in the parent claim and thus does not have antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this term refers to the upper peeling wedge or not. For the purpose of examination, claims 2-4 each read on "upper peeling wedge". Dependent claims fall herewith.
Claim 2 recites "lower peeler". This term is not previously recited in the parent claim and thus does not have antecedent basis. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this term refers to the lower peeling wedge or not. For the purpose of examination, claim 2 reads on "upper peeling wedge". Dependent claims fall herewith.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US PG Pub 2014/0076501) in view of Yoshida (JP 2009029564A) and Wang (Wang, Y., “The Effect of Peeling Rate and Peeling Angle on the Peeling Strength”, Master’s Thesis, University of Akron, May 2014).
Claims 1-11 and 17-20 recite various materials worked upon and/or formed by the claimed apparatus, including, for example, recitation(s) of foil layers, laminated electrode stack, carrier layers, and SSE layers. These recited materials are not part of the system and do not limit the apparatus being claimed per MPEP § 2115. See also the following: “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Similarly, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Kim teaches a peeling device (10 in Figs. 1, 4, and 5) for manufacturing a battery electrode (this is merely a preamble recitation of intended use and therefore is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction per MPEP § 2111.02.II), the device comprising:
an upper peeler (including 220, 240 or 242, and 210a) comprising an upper lifting roller (220) on an output side of the upper peeler (as shown in Figs. 1, 4-5), the upper lifting roller rotating in a first direction to lift (as shown in Fig. 5) an upper film layer away from a laminated stack (lifting upper film 26 away from laminated stack 20); and
a lower peeler oriented opposite the upper peeler (including 230, 250, and 210b) and comprising a lower lifting roller (230) on an output side of the lower peeler (as shown in Figs. 1, 4-5) rotating in a second direction, opposite the first direction (as shown in Fig. 5), to lift a lower film layer away from the laminated stack (lifting lower film 28 away from laminated stack 20).
Kim does not teach upper and lower peeling wedges, each comprising a lifting roller located at a corresponding edge of a substantially flat feeding surface and a sloped peeling surface of the peeling wedge and wherein the lifting roller is on an output side of the peeling wedge.
However, Yoshida teaches a peeling device (Fig. 3) with a peeling wedge (14) comprising a lifting roller (16) located at a corresponding edge (as shown in Figs. 3a and 3b) of a substantially flat feeding surface (upper surface of 14) and a sloped peeling surface of the peeling wedge (lower surface of 14) and wherein the lifting roller is on an output side of the peeling wedge (as shown in Fig. 3b where the side of the wedge tip is the output side).
It is well-known in the peeling arts that when removing an adhesive layer from a substrate a large peeling angle, such as that provided by Yoshida’s peeling wedge, reduces the peeling strength needed for removal (see, for example, Wang abstract, pp. 5-6, Fig. 1, and Appendix D on pg. 36).
Per MPEP §2143.I, applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale D) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In view of the teachings of Yoshida and Wang and/or KSR rationale D, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Kim’s upper and lower peeler’s to each utilize Yoshida’s configuration of a peeling wedge and lifting roller to predictably obtain the benefit of reduced peel strength necessary for the peeling operations.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the laminate is fed between the feeding surfaces of the upper peeler and the lower peeler (as shown in Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida teaches the sloped peeling surface of the upper peeler is opposite the feeding surface of the upper peeler (as shown in Figs. 3a, 3b).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida teaches the peeling surface and the feeding surface of the upper peeler define a peeling angle (as shown in Figs. 3a, 3b).
Regarding claim 5, Kim and Yoshida do not explicitly teach this feature.
However, the peeling angle is a known result-effective variable per Wang’s teachings (abstract, pp. 5-6, Fig. 1, and Appendix D on pg. 36). Thus, the recitation of claim 5 merely represents optimization of a result-effective variable and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. “[Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art,” and the presence of such a known result-effective variable would be one … motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and also MPEP § 2144.05.II.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the upper peeler further comprises: a support roller adjacent the lifting roller (240 or 242 in Figs. 4 or 5), the support roller rotating in a direction opposite the first direction in response to the rotation of the lifting roller (implicit per Figs. 4 and 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoshida and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Jeong (US PG Pub 2014/0060748).
Regarding claim 6, Kim and Yoshida do not explicitly teach this feature.
However, Jeong teaches a roller peeler uses plastic-based construction material (para. 0040 and claim 7), which provides durability and electrical safety (para. 0040).
In view of Jeong’s teachings, it would have been obvious to select plastic-based construction material for Kim’s peelers to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Jeong as cited above.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoshida and Wang, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Franke (CA 1093366A).
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches an upper collector receiving the lifted upper film layer (212a in Figs. 1, 4).
Kim does not teach rotation of the upper collector removes the upper film layer from the upper peeler.
However, Franke teaches a collector which rotates to remove the upper film layer from the upper peeler wedge (collector 20 in Fig. 3).
In view of Franke’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify Kim’s peeler to include this collector to predictably facilitate peeling of the film from Kim’s peeler.
Regarding claim 9, Kim does not teach this feature.
However, Franke teaches a first mounting plate and a second mounting plate, the upper peeler extending between the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate (as shown in Fig. 3).
In view of Franke’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify Kim’s peeler to include two mounting plates to predictably and conventionally provide a housing for mounting Kim’s peeler.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yoshida and Wang, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, further in view of Rangasamy (US PG Pub 2022/0052307).
Regarding claim 11, Kim does not teach this feature.
However, Rangasamy teaches a device for manufacturing a battery electrode (abstract and Fig. 3) wherein the laminated electrode stack is received from a pressing device that laminates an upper SSE layer to the conductive foil (steps 240-250 in Fig. 2 using pressing device 340a, 340b in Fig. 3) while separating the upper carrier layer from the upper SSE layer (step 260 in Fig. 2 and as shown at right in Fig. 3), which could obviously be performed using Kim’s peeling device.
In view of Rangasamy’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify Kim’s apparatus with Rangasamy’s pressing device to predictably obtain the capability to provide the laminated electrode stack in a single apparatus which also performs the separation of the carrier.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rangasamy in view of Yoshida and Franke.
Regarding claim 17, Rangasamy teaches a system for manufacturing a battery electrode (Figs. 2-3), the system comprising:
a pressing device (340a, 340b) partially separating, through pressure applied to an electrode stack (330), a carrier film (350) from a solid-state electrolyte (SSE) layer (paras. 0039, 0046, 0053) of the electrode stack (as indicated in Fig. 3).
Rangasamy does not explicitly teach the other features in the claim.
However, Yoshida teaches a peeling device (Fig. 3) comprising a lifting roller (16) located at a shared edge (as shown in Figs. 3a, 3b) of a planar surface and a sloped surface of a peeling wedge (14), the lifting roller on an output side of the peeling wedge (as shown in Fig. 3b where the side of the wedge tip is the output side) and removing the partially separated carrier film from a laminated stack in a continuous piece (as shown in Fig. 3);
In view of Yoshida’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine Yoshida’s conventional peeling device with Rangasamy’s apparatus to predictably obtain suitable means for performing Rangasamy’s operations in an efficient roll-to-roll manufacturing configuration.
Rangasamy and Yoshida do not teach a collector collecting the peeled carrier film in the continuous piece.
However, Franke teaches a collector which rotates to remove a film layer from a peeler wedge (collector 20 in Fig. 3).
In view of Franke’s teachings, it would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Rangasamy in view of Yoshida to include this collector to predictably facilitate collection of the film.
Regarding claim 18, Yoshida teaches the peeling device further comprises: a planar surface along which the film is pulled (as shown in Figs. 3a, 3b) and a sloped surface opposite the planar surface along which the peeled film in the continuous piece is pulled along (as shown in Figs. 3a, 3b) and Franke teaches that the film at least partially by a pulling force from the collector (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida teaches the lifting roller is in contact with the carrier and rotating to apply a lifting force on the carrier to peel the carrier from the stack (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshida teaches the sloped surface is angled relative to the planar surface, the angle of the sloped surface selected to maintain the peeled film in the continuous piece as the film is separated from the stack (as shown in Figs. 3a, 3b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered.
However, these arguments are directed toward the new features added to claims 1 and 17 via the present amendment and have been addressed in the rejections above, which are necessitated by the present amendments. In particular, the newly cited Yoshida reference teaches these new features and renders them obvious modifications to the other references cited above, thus rendering the arguments regarding the failure of the previous references to teach these new features moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights