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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims have been entered. Claims 19, 21, 35 are currently amended. Claims 1-18, 20, 33 are cancelled. Claim 37 is new. Claims 19, 21-32, 34—37 are pending and under examination. The amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection (amended claim 19 is rejected under the same grounds of rejections previously applied to previous claim 20).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 19, 22 – 29, 32, and 34 – 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA et al. (US 2016/0216031 A1; “Fujiwara” ; of record), in view of Cui et al. (US 2010/0330423 A1; of record), and further in view of Murata et al. (US Pat. No. 8,283,084 B2; of record).
Regarding claim 19. Fujiwara teaches an apparatus for processing battery electrodes (drying device 10 of an electrode roll 20 [0020], FIG. 1), the apparatus comprising:
a core (winding core 22) configured for use in forming an electrode roll (“an electrode roll 20 configured from an electrode base material 21 wound around a winding core 22” [0021]), wherein the core (22) is configured to engage a sheet comprising electrode material [0021] applied on a current collector (“An electrode roll 20 is configured from a long electrode base material 21 wound around a hollow winding core 22, as also illustrated in FIG. 2. The electrode base material 21 is configured from active material layers formed on both sides of a current collector.” [0022]), and
wherein the engaging comprises rolling the sheet on the core to create concentric alternating layers of electrode material and current collector around an internal space formed by the core (see Fujiwara [0021 – 0022]);
a thermal rod (e.g., support sieve part 34 comprising an axial-side heater 50 [0021], [0023]) configured for engaging the electrode roll (20) via the internal space of the core (22) such that, once the electrode roll is engaged, at least a portion of the thermal rod is disposed within the concentric alternating layers of electrode material and current collector (see FIG. 1 and [0021] “The axial-side heater 50 heats the electrode roll 20 housed in the drying oven 30 from the winding core 22 side.”);
wherein the thermal rod (34 comprising heater 50) is further configured for providing thermal transfer into the electrode roll (20) via the core (22) during processing of the electrode roll ([0025] “The axial-side heater 50 is disposed on the axial center of the support sieve part 34, and transfers heat towards the surface from the core portion of the electrode roll 20.”); and
one or more thermal sources (outer-side heaters 40, FIG. 1, [0021, 0024]) disposed external to the electrode roll (see FIG. 1), the one or more thermal sources (40) being configured for providing thermal transfer in conjunction with the thermal rod (50) (see Fujiwara [0021, 0024 – 0026]).
Fujiwara does not explicitly disclose, the processing comprising pyrolysis processing of the electrode roll, and wherein the thermal rod is configured for providing both of cooling thermal transfer and heating thermal transfer.
Fujiwara, however, discloses at [0023] that the drying oven is configured from a vacuum chamber in which airtightness is heightened so that air does not flow into the inner portion after pressure reduction; further comprising: [0028] a general temperature sensor such as a thermocouple, and/or a non-contact type thermometer such as an infrared radiation thermometer can be used for sensor 70; [0029] a control unit 80 carries out the drying of the electrode roll 20 by executing with the CPU a control program stored in the ROM, carrying out “the switching between heating start and heating stop of the switch 51 for the axial-side heater 50, and the switching between operation start and operation stop of the pressure reducer 60 are outputted from the control unit 80 – Consequently, Fujiwara’s apparatus for processing battery electrodes would be capable of performing the claimed pyrolysis of the electrode roll.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Fujiwara need not to explicitly disclose that the apparatus for processing battery electrodes performs the “processing comprising pyrolysis processing of the electrode roll” recited in claim 19, as long as Fujiwara discloses structure that would be capable of performing the claimed functions. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that where there is reason to conclude that the structure of the prior art is inherently capable of performing the claimed function, the burden shifts to the applicant to show that the claimed function patentably distinguishes the claimed structure from the prior art structure). See MPEP § 2111.02 (II).
In the same field of endeavor of fabrication techniques for electrode layers used in rechargeable batteries (Cui et al. [0004 – 0005]), Cui et al. teaches an electrode roll comprising a mandrel (608; FIG. 6A, [0068]), which has a “common arrangement,” “wound design,” wherein “Long and narrow electrodes are wound together with two sheets of separator into a sub-assembly, sometimes referred to as a jellyroll, shaped and sized according to the internal dimensions of a curved, often cylindrical” [analogous to the claimed “core configured to engage a sheet comprising electrode material applied on a current collector,” and “concentric alternating layers of electrode material and current collector around and internal space of the core” (e.g., Cui et al. [0067]);
Cui at [0040] “A polymer-based template may also be partially or completely pyrolized or carbonized. For example, carbonization may help to improve thermal stability and surface properties for subsequent processing,” … “Carbonization or pyrolysis may be performed in various environments, which are typically inert or reducing” (for example, Fujiwara teaches the apparatus operates as a vacuum chamber);
Cui at [0070] “A cylindrical design may be desirable for some lithium ion cells because the electrodes swell during cycling and exert pressure on the casing. A round casing may be made sufficiently thin and still maintain sufficient pressure.”
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the parameters in the apparatus for processing battery electrodes of Fujiwara for a processing comprising pyrolysis processing of the electrode roll (e.g., such as a polymer-based electrode material, as taught by Cui et al.), for the purpose of help to improve thermal stability and surface properties for subsequent processing, as taught by Cui et al. [0040]. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(G).
The examiner notes that the claim attempt to further limit the apparatus by defining the intended use and/or manner of operating the apparatus (i.e., the processing comprising pyrolysis processing”), as well as by specifying the material worked upon (i.e., electrode roll). However, the operation of the apparatus or the material worked upon, is not germane to the apparatus patentability thereof and such fails to further limit the structure of the apparatus. Applicant is respectfully reminded that, as per MPEP 2114 (II), the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claim from the prior art:
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).“A claim is only limited by positively recited elements.” Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115.
As to the amended limitation “wherein the thermal rod is configured for providing both of cooling thermal transfer and heating thermal transfer”. Fujiwara does not disclose the thermal rod being configured for providing both cooling/heating thermal transfer.
Fujiwara, however, at [0036] – [0045] recognizes the need for thermal transfer modulation to avoid exceeding the heat-resistant temperature of the electrode at locations close to the heat source, e.g., FUJIWARA discloses that when “heat transmitted from both the outer and winding core 22 sides is increased, in order to transmit heat to the center portion of the electrode roll 20, the heat-resistant temperature of the electrode base material 21 will be exceeded, at locations close to the heat source. For this reason, the temperature of the outermost portion of the electrode roll 20 or the temperature of the core portion cannot be raised unnecessarily, by applying heat from both the outer and winding core 22 sides.”
In the same field of endeavor of methods and apparatus for processing battery electrodes, Murata teaches an apparatus for processing battery electrodes (“a hollow-shaped membrane electrode assembly for a fuel cell (battery), which implements cost reduction and its downsizing by being formed in a hollow shape,” Murata Col. 1, lines 5 – 15), the apparatus comprising -inter alia- a thermal rod (“rod-like member,” 10 – see Col. 16, lines 60 – 63) configured for engaging the electrode roll (see Col. 16, lines 62 – 63, and elements 10 & 11 in Fig. 5), the thermal rod 10 also functions as a current collector (Col. 11, ll. 48 – 51), made from material having corrosion resistance to endure in operation environment of a fuel cell (Col. 16, ll. 6 – 14);
wherein the thermal rod (10) is further configured for providing thermal transfer into the electrode roll via the core during processing of the electrode roll (Col. 16, ll. 60-63); “preferably a heat exchanging member to cool/heat a hollow shaped cell,” reducing “the number of constituent members of a fuel cell and the size thereof (to downsize a fuel cell)” (Col. 16, ll. 60 – 67).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal rod (Fujiwara’s 34 comprising heater 50) in the apparatus for processing battery electrodes of Fujiwara/Cui, so that the thermal rod can be configured for providing one of both of heating thermal transfer or cooling thermal transfer, as taught by Murata et al., for the purpose of e.g., providing fine-control of the electrode roll temperature generated from/provided by the thermal rod (notice that both Fujiwara [0041] and Cui et al. [0048] require precise processing temperature ranges) and/or making the cooling step faster in the process of Fujiwara (see Fujiwara at [0050]), see MPEP § 2143 (I)(C), since "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). MPEP § 2141 (I).
Regarding claim 22. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the thermal rod (Fujiwara 34 comprising heater 50) is configured for engaging the electrode roll (20) by insertion via the internal space (see Fujiwara FIG. 1 and [0025]).
Regarding claim 23. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the core (Fujiwara 22) comprises a hollow cylindrical core (see Fujiwara FIG. 2) creating a corresponding cylindrical internal space (see Fujiwara Fig. 2) within the electrode roll (Fujiwara 20) once formed, and wherein the thermal rod (Fujiwara 34 comprising heater 50) is configured for engaging the electrode roll (20) by insertion via the cylindrical internal space (see Fujiwara FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 24. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein one or both of a shape and a size of the thermal rod (Fujiwara 34 comprising heater 50) are configured based on the core (Fujiwara 22) – see Fujiwara’s FIG. 1.
Nonetheless, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure one or both of a shape and a size of the thermal rod are configured based on the core, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A):
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
One would have been motivated to scale the size of the thermal rod (Fujiwara’s 34 comprising heater 50) to be based on the core (22) size in order to corroborate that the thermal rod will be able to be inserted inside the hollow core.
Regarding claim 25. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the core (22) comprises a hollow cylindrical core creating a corresponding cylindrical internal space (Fujiwara FIG. 1), and wherein one or both of the shape and the size of the thermal rod are configured to match the cylindrical internal space.
Nonetheless, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure one or both of a shape and a size of the thermal rod are configured to match the cylindrical internal space, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV) (A):
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.
One would have been motivated to scale the size of the thermal rod to be configured to match the cylindrical internal space in order to corroborate that the thermal rod will be able to be inserted inside the hollow core.
Regarding claim 26. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein a composition of at least a portion of the thermal rod is configured based on at least one component of the electrode roll.
Regarding the thermal rod (modified Fujiwara’s 34 comprising axial-side heater 50 of Fujiwara/Cui in view of Murata rod-like member 10) composition, Fujiwara discloses the axial-side heater could be configured from electric heater [0026]; Murata (Col. 17, ll. 65 – 67, cont. Col. 18, lines 1 – 7) discloses that the thermal rod (rod-like member 10) is a heat exchanging member and also functions as the current collector (which is “a component of the electrode roll”); When allowing the rod-like member to function as the heat exchanging member and the current collector, the rod-like member material thereof may be appropriately selected to have a heat-conducting property, corrosion resistance and strength so as to endure operation environments of a fuel cell and a good electrical conducting property.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the composition of the thermal rod (modified Fujiwara’s 34 comprising heater 50) in the apparatus for processing battery electrodes of Fujiwara/Cui/Murata wherein a composition of at least a portion of the thermal rod is configured based on at least one component of the electrode roll, as suggested by the prior art, for the purpose of providing the rod-like member composition material to have a heat-conducting property, corrosion resistance and strength so as to endure operation environments of a fuel cell (e.g., the electrode roll) and a good electrical conducting property, as taught by Murata (Col. 17, ll. 65 – 67, cont. Col. 18, lines 1 – 7). See MPEP § 2143 (I)(G).
Regarding claim 27. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the thermal rod comprises same material as the current collector (see Murata Col. 17, ll. 65 – 67, cont. Col. 18, lines 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 28. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 27, wherein the same material comprises copper (see Murata Col. 17, ll. 65 – 67, cont. Col. 18, lines 1 – 7).
Regarding claim 29. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the electrode roll comprises a same material as the core (e.g., Cui et al. [0011] discloses the electrode roll may include carbon, titanium, silicon, aluminum, and/or copper, and at [0068] “mandrel 608 [core] may be made of conductive material, and, in some embodiments, it may be a part of a cell terminal).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujiwara/Cui/ Murata’s apparatus for processing battery electrodes so that the electrode roll comprises a same material as the core, since it has held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 32. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, comprising an insulator disposed over at least a portion of an exterior surface of the electrode roll (Cui [0066] “In certain embodiments, the edges of the separator sheets 506a and 506b extend beyond the outer edges of at least the negative electrode layer 504a to provide electronic insulation of the electrode from the other battery components.”).
Regarding claim 34. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the one or more thermal sources and the thermal rod are configured to provide thermal transfer into the electrode roll (e.g., see Fujiwara [0021, 0024 – 0029], and Murata Col. 17, lines 34 – 49 and Col. 18, lines 49 – 60), hence, capable of creating uniform thermal change within the electrode roll during a pyrolysis processing.
Regarding claim 35. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein during the processing of the electrode roll, the one or more thermal sources are configured to provide one of cooling thermal transfer and heating thermal transfer (e.g., Fujiwara’s 40, see [0021 – 0030]), and the thermal rod is configured to provide another one of cooling thermal transfer and heating thermal transfer (see Murata Col. 17, lines 34 – 41 and .Col. 18, lines 1 – 10).
Regarding claim 36. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the thermal rod (Fujiwara 34 comprising heater 50) is configured for enabling movement of the electrode roll (Fujiwara 20), once the thermal rod (Fujiwara 34 comprising heater 50) is engaged to the electrode roll (20), during the processing of the electrode roll (e.g., see Fujiwara [0030] “Winding the electrode roll 21 into a roll is in consideration of the convenience of transport, and the like.” See Fujiwara [0050] “The dried electrode roll 20 is transported from the drying oven 30 to a dry room, and a battery is manufactured.”).
Regarding claim 37. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the apparatus further comprises circuitry configured for controlling the thermal transfer into the electrode roll, and wherein the controlling comprises adjusting operation of one or both of the thermal rod and the one or more thermal sources based on at least one performance criterion that comprises, at least, uniform heating.
For example, Fujiwara teaches circuitry configured for controlling the thermal transfer into the electrode roll (see Fujiwara’s FIG. 1, control unit 80 comprising circuitry in communication with elements 40, 41, 50, 51, 60 – capable of controlling the thermal transfer by adjusting operation of one or both of the thermal rod and the one or more thermal sources”; see [0042] “The control unit 80, at time t=t1, detects that the temperature of the outermost portion of the electrode roll 20 has reached the target temperature, then, turns off the switch 41 for the outer-side heater 40 [analogous to the claimed “the one or more thermal sources”], stops the heating from the outer-side of the electrode roll 20, reduces the pressure within the drying oven 30, and carries out pressure reduction and heating from the winding core 22 side.”; and see [0047] “The control unit 80, at time t=t2, detects that the temperature of the core portion of the electrode roll 20 has reached the target temperature, then, transitions to a temperature adjustment control in which the switch 51 for the axial-side heater 50 [analogous to the claimed “thermal rod”] is controlled to turn on/off, and adjusts the temperature so that the temperature of the core portion of the electrode roll 20 is maintained at the target temperature. Heat applied from the outer-side of the electrode roll 20 is transmitted radially inward, heat applied from the winding core 22 side of the electrode roll 20 is transmitted radially outward, and the temperature of the center portion of the electrode roll 20 is raised.”; see also [0010], [0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that uniformed heating could be achieved from the combined operation of Fujiwara’s control unit 80 circuit detecting the temperatures at the core portion of the electrode roll and at the outermost portion of the electrode roll, since the control unit circuit is in communication with the outer-side heater 40, the axial-side heater 50, and the switches 41, and 51, e.g., through a well-known control loop such as a PID (proportional, integral, derivative control loop).
Furthermore, Fujiwara discloses that, “If the heat transmitted from both the outer and winding core 22 sides is increased, in order to transmit heat to the center portion of the electrode roll 20, the heat-resistant temperature of the electrode base material 21 will be exceeded, at locations close to the heat source. For this reason, the temperature of the outermost portion of the electrode roll 20 or the temperature of the core portion cannot be raised unnecessarily, by applying heat from both the outer and winding core 22 sides.” [0036], and that, “The temperature of the electrode roll 20 is raised in the order of: the outermost portion; the core portion; and the center portion. Since heat is applied to the electrode roll 20 from both the outer and winding core 22 sides in the radial direction, the heat necessary when drying the electrode roll 20 can be applied evenly and in a short period of time.” (Fujiwara [0040], FIG. 5A).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configured the circuitry in the control unit of Fujiwara/Cui/Murata for controlling the thermal transfer into the electrode roll, wherein the controlling comprises adjusting operation of one or both of the thermal rod (e.g., modified Fujiwara/Murata) and the one or more thermal sources (e.g., Fujiwara’s 40) based on at least one performance criterion that comprises, at least, uniform heating, for the purpose of avoiding exceeding the heat-resistant temperature of the electrode base material, at locations close to the heat sources, as taught by Fujiwara [0036]. See MPEP 2143(I)(G).
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA et al. (US 2016/0216031 A1; of record), in view of Cui et al. (US 2010/0330423 A1; of record) and Murata et al. (US Pat. No. 8,283,084 B2; of record), as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Christian et al. (US 2013/0108897 A1; of record).
Regarding claim 21. Applicant is reminded that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art based on recited structure. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.").
Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 20, except for, wherein the thermal rod is configured for providing cooling thermal transfer (modified Fujiwara/Cui 50 with Murata Col. 16, lines 60 – 63), except for, based on a predefined cooling model for the electrode roll.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the “configured for” language in claim 21 as describing functional capabilities of the thermal rod. Since, Fujiwara/Cui/Murata discloses that the thermal rod is capable of providing heating and/or cooling thermal transfer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found Fujiwara/Cui/Murata’s thermal rod as capable of providing cooling thermal transfer based on a predefined cooling model for the electrode roll. Furthermore, Fujiwara teaches thermal control through sensors 70, and a control unit 80.
In the same field of endeavor of control of thermal transfer in batteries, Christian discloses a method of controlling temperature in an automobile propulsion system, which includes arranging a heat exchange member (e.g., a thermal rod), to be in thermal communication with the battery cell, and transferring at least a portion of the heat contained within the at least one battery cell to the heat exchange member, adding a variation on this aspect, a method of assembling a passive heat exchange member by placing, affixing or otherwise coupling a graphene layer to a flexible substrate (such as a flexible polymeric-based substrate) [0014].
Christian further discloses that to achieve a desirable balance between battery life and performance, only small temperature variations between the modules of the pack be permitted, asserting that based on current battery state-of-the-art, such module-to-module differences should be kept to no more than about 5°C.
Furthermore, Christian determined that certain types of batteries, such as Li-Ion batteries, operate best at temperatures between 25°C and 40°C, consequently, the cooling plates (thermal rod) can be designed for a specific operating temperature that satisfies the optimum battery cell (a predefined cooling model for the electrode roll) [0028].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Fujiwara/Cui/Murata’s thermal rod so as to be configured for providing cooling thermal transfer based on a predefined cooling model for the electrode roll, since Christian teaches that controls of thermal transfer can be designed for a specific operating temperatures that satisfies the optimum battery cell [0028]. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(G).
Claim(s) 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA et al. (US 2016/0216031 A1; of record), in view of Cui et al. (US 2010/0330423 A1; of record) and Murata et al. (US Pat. No. 8,283,084 B2; of record), as applied to claim 19 above, and as evidenced by NPL’1 (Document retrieved from THAIMETCOAT CO., LTD.; of record).
Regarding claim 30. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 19, comprising a lubricant (fluorine resin; Murata Col. 18, ll. 29 – 47) disposed between the thermal rod and the core.
Murata discloses that in the case of allowing the rod-like member (10) to function as the heat exchanging member and the current collector, an insulating layer may be disposed on the inner circumferential surface of the rod-like member to prevent electrical leakage to the heating medium flowing in the heating medium channel, if necessary, and further discloses there may be a method to coat the inner circumferential surface of the rod-like member with a material having a good electrical insulating property, heat-conducting property and corrosion resistance, for instance, a fluorine resin such as a polytetrafluoroethylene resin (PTFE) (see Murata Col. 18, lines 29 – 47), as evidenced by NPL’1 – Fluorine resin is a generic of synthetic resin (plastic), that combines a fluorine atom and a carbon atom. NPL’1 discloses that Fluorine resins are used as lubricants due to its Coefficient of friction being Low, keeping good lubrication performance without lubricant oil being applied in a wide range field, e.g., denatured PTFE is mainly used for lubrication.
Claim(s) 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJIWARA et al. (US 2016/0216031 A1; of record), in view of Cui et al. (US 2010/0330423 A1; of record) and Murata et al. (US Pat. No. 8,283,084 B2; of record), as evidenced by NPL’1, as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Kark (US. 2007/0104817 A1; of record).
Regarding claim 31. Fujiwara/Cui/Murata teaches the apparatus of claim 30, apparatus of claim 30, except for specifically disclosing, wherein the lubricant comprises graphite. Although Cui et al. discloses the use of graphite as carbon-based materials used in template materials for the electrode (Cui et al. [0033]).
Nonetheless, as per MPEP § 2144.07: The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Kark, directed to an apparatus for the forming of a strip in a continuous run on the surface of a rotating drum, which is to be heated and/or to be cooled in predetermined stationary regions [0001], discloses that the drum may slide directly on the surface of the carrier body. If the latter has a sufficiently low coefficient of friction, such as is the case with a suitable choice of material (for example, graphite), the use of a liquid intermediate layer is expedient, specifically not only to lower the friction, in the case of any desired material pairing, but also as a heat exchange medium [0007].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fujiwara/Cui/Murata’s apparatus to incorporate a lubricant which within its composition comprises graphite, since it has held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use.
One would have been motivated to do so, for the purpose of not only to lowering the friction, in the case of any desired material pairing, but also as a heat exchange medium, as taught by Kark [0007].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19, 21-32 and 34-36 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KUBIK KLAUS (DE 100 48 984 C2, “Kubik”): Kubik teaches a roller body heating device (analogous to the claimed “thermal rod”) for thermal treatment of web (e.g., sheets) goods, which achieves heating as uniform as possible across the web over the length of the roller (Kubik lines 2-16). Kubik discloses that the heated roller comprises temperature control means capable of providing the heated roller with the capabilities of heating or cooling (Kubik lines 50-87 “the electrical Temperature control elements by means of the electrical energy supplied directly be acted upon. In this case, for example, it is electrical Heating rods or cooling rods operated by means of Peltier elements.”, see also lines 103-134 “a fluid Heat transfer medium”, lines 235-247 “roller body 1 is preferably heated or cooled in the peripheral region of the point 35 (depending on whether the fluid heat transfer medium is heated or cooled), as a result of which an impact can be counteracted.”, lines 262-263 “a gaseous heat transfer medium, for example heated or cooled compressed air.”).
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 EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742