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 § 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Foreign Patent Document, KR20130088378A.
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a conveyor adapted for a battery manufacturing process (Paragraph [0010], line 2), the conveyor comprising: a roller configured to convey a long sheet material (Paragraph [0010], lines 2-3); a shaft through the roller (Paragraph [0010], line 3); a bearing installed between the roller and the shaft (Paragraph [0010], lines 4-5); and a driver configured to rotate the shaft in a same direction as a rotating direction of the roller conveying the long sheet material (Paragraph [0010], line 4), wherein the driver is configured to rotate the shaft to assist rotation of the roller caused by static friction force between the roller and the long sheet material (Paragraph [0010], line 4),
Choi does not disclose the assist due to rotation of the shaft being transmitted to the roller solely by friction torque of the bearing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the magnets of Choi, and have the assist due to rotation of the shaft being transmitted to the roller solely by friction torque of the bearing, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlsen, 136 USPQ 184. Additionally, it has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP § 2111, MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Since the structure of Choi is equivalent to applicant’s claimed invention in that the bearing is between the shaft and the roller, the driver would thus be capable of performing the intended use as claimed, where an assist due to rotation of the shaft is transmitted to the roller by friction force of the bearing). One would have been motivated to make this modification to simplify the mechanism and structure of the roller.
Regarding claim 2, Choi discloses wherein the driver is further configured to rotate the shaft such that circumferential speed of the roller is equal to conveyance speed of the long sheet material (Paragraph [0029]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Foreign Patent Document, KR20130088378A, in view of Ha, Foreign Patent Document, KR20140128473A.
Regarding claim 3, Choi discloses the invention substantially as claimed, however Choi fails to disclose wherein the driver transmits driving force to the shaft via a magnet coupling.
Ha teaches a conveyor wherein the driver transmits driving force to the shaft via a magnet coupling (driver 3, magnetic coupling 4 and 5, shaft 7, Figure 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the conveyor of Choi to add the magnetic coupling as taught by Ha to “minimize the generation of foreign matter such as particles” (Abstract, lines 8-10; Ha).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Choi does not disclose the driver is configured to rotate the shaft to assist rotation of the roller caused by static friction force between the roller and the long sheet material, the assist due to rotation of the shaft being transmitted to the roller solely by friction torque of the bearing, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the magnets of Choi, such that the assist due to rotation of the shaft being transmitted to the roller solely by friction torque of the bearing, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlsen, 136 USPQ 184. Additionally, it has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. MPEP § 2111, MPEP § 2112 - MPEP § 2112.02. Since the structure of Choi is equivalent to applicant’s claimed invention in that the bearing is between the shaft and the roller, the driver would thus be capable of performing the intended use as claimed, where the assist due to rotation of the shaft is transmitted to the roller by friction force of the bearing). One would have been motivated to make this modification to simplify the mechanism and structure of the roller. Applicant’s arguments are therefore not persuasive.
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 KATELYNNE BURRELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1344. The examiner can normally be reached 12:00pm - 6:00pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at 571-270-5788. 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.
/K.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619