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 claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/26.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oleksandrovych et al. (UA40508; hereafter ‘508) in view of Zhang et al. (CN111326740; hereafter ‘740).
Claims 1 & 2: ‘508 is directed towards a production line for producing electrode plates (title), comprising:
a first coating device configured to apply a coating material on a first side of a current collector plate (machine 5, Fig. 1; pgs 3 & 4);
a perforating device configured to perforate the current collector (machine 4, Fig. 1; pgs 3 & 4);
a second coating device configured to apply a second material on the second side of the current collector (machine 6, Figs. 1 & 2; pgs 3 & 4),
wherein the perforating device is upstream of the first coating device and the second coating device is located downstream of the perforating device along the travel path of the current collector (see Fig. 1 & pgs 3-4).
‘508 does not teach that the perforating device is downstream of the first coating device and is configured to perforate the current collector after the first side is coated and before the second side is coated or that the perforating device perforates the current collector from the second side of the current collector, the second side being opposite to the first side.
However, ‘740, which is also directed an apparatus for producing porous electrode sheets (¶ 2) discloses an apparatus wherein the perforating device is downstream of the active material coating device (see ¶s 27-31 and Figs. 1 & 5), wherein perforating after deposition of the active material overcomes known issues of active coating material leakage and uneven coating (¶ 6). ‘740 teaches that the piercing can be blind or through holes (i.e. not perforated completely through; ¶s 33 & 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of ‘740 into the apparatus of ‘508 and rearrange the perforating unit and first coating unit such that the perforating device is downstream of the first coating device and the second coating device is located downstream of the perforating device along the travel path of the current collector and is configured to perforate the current collector after the first side is coated and before the second side is coated because the arrangement is an art recognized alternative which would have predictably improved the product by overcoming known issues of active coating material leakage and uneven coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose an arrangement of the perforating device such that said device is configured to perforate the current collector from a side opposite from the side upon which the first coating is applied because it is prima facie obvious to select from a limited number of choices and the combination teaches that it is desired to have a perforated current collectors with blind holes.
In regards to the materials used, it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Claim 3: The combination teaches forming blind holes (i.e. perforating the current collector but not the first coating).
Claim 4: The second coating device applies a coating on the surface and thus it is configured to cause at least part of the coating to fill the holes formed in the current collector.
Claim 5: The perforating device comprises a plurality of perforating units arranged at intervals in a vertical direction, and the plurality of perforating units are configured to perforate different positions of the current collector (the perforating device is comprised of needles on a roll, ¶ 14).
Claim 6: The plurality of perforating units are staggered in the vertical direction (the perforating units are an array of needles and it is arbitrary which direction is considered to be the vertical direction and there is at least one direction which can be used to describe the needles as staggered).
Claim 7: The device further comprises a supporting member, wherein the supporting member is configured to support the current collector when the perforating devices perforates the current collector (¶ 10).
Claim 8: The combination does not teach a detection unit arranged between the perforating device and the second coating device which is configured to detect the holes formed.
It is well known in the art to include detection devices in line in apparatus because it allows for observing the results of the apparatus and detect defects in real time which can reduce cost.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place a detection unit inline between the perforating device and the second coating device which is configured to detect the holes formed because it is recognized in the art to place detection devices in line with apparatuses to observe the results in real time because it allows for detecting defects and reducing cost which would have predictably improved the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘508 is directed towards a fluxing device and not a coating device for applying an active material coating; the Office does not find this argument convincing because it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘508 does not teach a first and second coating device; the Office does not find this argument convincing because “machine 5” and “machine 6” are coating devices in line of each other, as discussed in the rejection above and it is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
In regards to applicant’s argument that ‘740 does not teach two coaters as claimed; the Office does not find this argument convincing because ‘740 is not used for a teaching of two coaters but instead for the relative position of the perforating device to the coating device wherein ‘740 provides a rationale for placing the perforating device between the first and second coaters as claimed.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, ‘740 teaches placing the perforating device downstream of the first coating device is an art recognized alternative arrangement of components which would have predictably improved the product by overcoming known issues of active coating material leakage and uneven coating.
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 JAMES M MELLOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3593. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-4:30PM CST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/James M Mellott/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights