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
This Office action addresses claims 1, 3-20. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 3-20 remain rejected under 35. U.S.C. 102(a)/103. Accordingly, this action is made final.
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, 3-7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jamadar et al. (DE 102021206617; hereinafter Jamadar). A machine translation is used for the citations.
Regarding claim 1, Jamadar teaches a roll press for manufacturing electrodes (see figure 1 below) comprising: a top roller (figure 1 below) and a bottom roller (see figure 1 below) separated from the top roller by a gap (see figure 1 below); wherein at least one of the top roller and the bottom roller comprises a raised region (31, figure 1 below) and an indented region (29, figure 1 below), the raised region comprising a first radius (d2, figure 1 below) and the indented region comprising a second radius (d1, figure 1 below) less than the first radius, wherein an interface between the raised region and the indented region is non-coplanar and comprises a negatively sloped tapered profile (see figure 3 below); wherein the gap comprises a distance selected to accommodate a current collector (1, figure 1 below), the current collector comprising a bare portion (uncoated region, figure 1 below) and a coated portion (coated region, figure 1 below) having thereon an electrode material of a first thickness; and wherein a difference between the first radius and the second radius is selected, based on the first thickness, to evenly distribute stress across the bare portion and the coated portion of the current collector during a calendering process for forming a tailored porosity electrode. See the machine translation for citation.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Modified figure 2 from Jamadar
PNG
media_image2.png
374
587
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 Jamadar figure 4
PNG
media_image3.png
389
1016
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3: Jamadar modified figure 4
Regarding claim 3, Jamadar teaches the roll press including an indented region aligned to the coated portion of the current collector (see figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Jamadar teaches the roll press including a raised portion aligned to the bare portion of the current collector (see figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Jamadar teaches a heating element on the raised region, the heating element configured to conductively heat the bare portion of the current collector (elements 31 are heated by heating elements 33, figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Jamadar teaches a slip ring (a thin ring [0021]) having an inner radius configured such that the slip ring can be slid over the raised region (the inner diameter of the ring element is equal to the diameter of the roller [0021]), the slip ring having an outer radius larger than the first radius (d2>d1, figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, Jamadar discloses a roll press for manufacturing tailored porosity electrodes, the roll press comprising: a top roller; a bottom roller separated from the top roller by a gap; and a slip ring installed over at least one of the top roller and the bottom roller (see figure 4 above); wherein the slip ring comprises a first radius and the respective top roller or bottom roller onto which the slip ring is installed comprises a second radius less than the first radius (figure 4: ring element 41, roll press 43), the slip ring further comprising a negatively sloped tapered profile, wherein an interface between the slip ring and the respective top roller or bottom roller is non- coplanar (see figure 3 above); wherein the gap (figure 1) comprises a distance selected to accommodate a current collector, the current collector comprising a bare portion (figure 1) and a coated portion (figure 1) having thereon an electrode material of a first thickness (figure 1); and wherein a difference between the first radius and the second radius is selected, based on the first thickness, to evenly distribute stress across the bare portion and the coated portion of the current collector during a calendering process for forming a tailored porosity electrode.
PNG
media_image4.png
221
455
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4: Figure 9 from Jamadar
Regarding claim 8, Jamadar, teaches the roll press and a ring element
aligned to the bare portion of the current collector (see figure 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Jamadar teaches the roll press and teaches a heating element on the slip ring (heating element 33 with a control loop 39, heating/cooling the ring element [0022] (or alternatively different segments of the roller that are consisting of materials with different heat expansion coefficients and thus expanding at different rates [0014]) directly via induction, infrared or by blowing hot air [0022]) configured to conductively heat the bare portion of the current collector (Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Jamadar teaches the roll press, including the slip ring wherein the first radius is an outer radius of the slip ring, and an inner radius of the slip ring is larger than the second radius such that the slip ring can be slid over the respective top roller or bottom roller onto which the slip ring is installed (See figure 3 above).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadar et al. (DE 102021206617; hereinafter Jamadar) in view of Hideaki (WO-2022270604-A1: hereinafter Hideaki). Machine translations are used for the citations.
Regarding claim 14, Jamadar teaches the roller. Jamadar further discloses the installation of a slip ring (ring is installed by pressing it onto the roller [0021]) and the alignment of the current collector and its bare and coated regions with the press roller. Jamadar further describes that the aim of the process is to reduce stress (wrinkling) in/of the electrode and discloses, the slip ring further comprising a negatively sloped tapered profile, wherein an interface between the slip ring and the respective top roller or bottom roller is non- coplanar (see figure 3 above).
Jamadar fails to disclose any other methods. Hideaki, in the same field of endeavor namely battery electrode manufacturing discloses a battery electrode manufacturing device and a battery manufacturing method. The setup is similar to the claimed invention and Jamadar’s disclosure, comprising a top roller and bottom roller (see figure 4 below) separated from the top roller by a gap (see figure 4 below); and a slip ring comprising a second radius less than the first radius (inherently taught figure 4).
Therefore, in seeking an improved manufacturing efficiency and quality of the battery electrode prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known method as disclosed by Hideaki to a similar device with the motivation to obtain predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Jamadar discloses a method comprising: providing a top roller; providing a bottom roller separated from the top roller by a gap (see figure 1); and installing a slip ring over at least one of the top roller and the bottom roller to adjust a thickness of a portion of the respective roller (ring is installed by pressing it onto the roller)); wherein the slip ring comprises a first radius and the respective top roller or bottom roller onto which the slip ring is installed comprises a second radius less than the first radius (see figure 40 above), the slip ring further comprising a negatively sloped tapered profile, wherein an interface between the slip ring and the respective top roller or bottom roller is non- coplanar (see figure 3 above); wherein the gap comprises a distance selected to accommodate a current collector (1, figure 1 above), the current collector comprising a bare portion ((uncoated region, figure 1 above) and a coated portion ((coated region, figure 1 above) having thereon an electrode material of a first thickness; and wherein a difference between the first radius and the second radius is selected, based on the first thickness, to evenly distribute stress across the bare portion and the coated portion of the current collector (to avoid component distortion between the central coated substrate strip area and the uncoated substrate strip edges, abstract) during a calendering process for forming a tailored porosity electrode ( both calender rollers 10 can adapt to the cross-sectional contour of the endless substrate strip 1 during the calendering process [0044]).
PNG
media_image5.png
368
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Modified Figure 9 from Hideaki
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadar et al. (DE 102021206617; hereinafter Jamadar) as applied to claim 7 in view of Hideaki (WO-2022270604-A1: hereinafter Hideaki) and in further view of Hoeftner et al. (EP2986442B1: hereinafter Hoeftner) and claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamadar et al. (DE 102021206617; hereinafter Jamadar) in further view of Hoeftner et al. (EP2986442B1: hereinafter Hoeftner). Machine translations are used for the citations.
Regarding claims 11, 12 and 18 and 19, Jamadar teaches the roll press including a ring element that can be installed on the press (is pressed onto the roller, [0028]) but fails to teach that the roll press comprises a clamp that can be tightened to secure the slip ring. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art to interchangeably use either the pressed ring elements as disclosed in the prior art, or the clamped sliding ring as disclosed by the applicant. Both elements would perform the same function. Using a clamp would not solve any stated problem and presents no unexpected result. An example of a roller system without clamps is Hoeftner. Hoeftner, in the same field of endeavor namely rollers for a roller press, first discloses a press role with releasable segments fastened with clamping rings (Hoeftner: fig.1, 2 and [0011]). The rings are attached with clamping bolts, functionally equivalent to the teachings of the present disclosure. Hoeftner later discloses that the rings can be alternatively fixed by thermal treatment (thermal transverse bonding) and thus shrunk onto the segments (Hoeftner: [0012]).
Regarding claims 13 and 20, Jamadar teaches the roll press with a roller and a ring element fixed by pressing it onto a roller but fails to disclose a slip ring that comprises a collar, which wraps around a peripheral edge of the respective top roller or bottom roller (roller segment, see figure below) onto which the slip ring is installed. Hoeftner however, in the same field of endeavor, namely roller presses teaches a slip ring (fixing ring, see figure below) with a collar (6b, see figure below). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to apply fixing clamps as disclosed by Hoeftner to the press roller disclosed by Jamadar and the motivation to do so would have been that both fixing methods were known in the prior art, functionally equivalent and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image6.png
600
484
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
601
892
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Hoeftner figure 1 Figure 3: Modified Hoeftner Fig. 2
Response to Arguments
Applicant has revised Fig. 6. The objection regarding Fig. 6 is withdrawn.
Claim 13 has been amended. The rejection of claim 13 under 35. U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn.
Claim 20 has been amended. The rejection of claim 20 under 35. U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 102/103 rejections filed 05/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. While the examiner agrees that Jamadar’s discloses a roll press with an un-tapered roller in Fig. 3, similar to figure 5B of the current application, Jamadar further discloses a tapered profile Fig. 4 (Jamadar, Fig. 3 above) and discloses that the calendering process is thereby improved, and no wrinkles occur [0008].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO2022218694A1: Discloses a calender transport roller and calendering device for the production of electrodes for a battery cell.
CN116544357A: Discloses a roller including a roll body and a peripheral reducing structure.
US20250262831A1: Discloses an electrode rolling apparatus for applying pressure to a non-coated portion of an electrode.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMANTHA LEE HANYON whose telephone number is (571)272-8881. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
