DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s amendment filed on December 16, 2025 was received. Claims 10-12, 15-16 and 18 were amended. Claim 19 was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action issued September 18, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the an exciter associated with the at least one shielding element and the exciter is provided with an exciter element that is adapted to be controlled, the exciter element being immersed in the powdered output component that has been filled into the roller gap feed section must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim limitation “control unit” in claims 15 and 16 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “control” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “unit” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.”
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 15 and 16 has/have been interpreted to cover “an electronic controller” corresponding to structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (Spec., para [00026]-[00027]).
Claim limitations “dosing device” and “gravimetric weighing unit” in claim 14 has/have NOT been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitation “gravimetric weighing unit” is associated with “dosing device”, and the limitation “gravimetric weighing unit” connotes sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2181(I)(A)).
Claims 15 and 16 depend on claim 14.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 11 has been interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to require one of:
1) an outlet opening that discharges the powdered output component under an effect of gravity directly into the roller gap feed section; or
2) an outlet opening that discharges the powdered output component onto a transport chute along which the powdered output component is conveyed in a horizontal direction to a transport chute end, where the powdered output component is then discharged vertically into the roller gap feed section.
Claim 16 has been interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to require one of:
1) the control unit controls the dosing device in order to adjust the amount of powdered output component to be fed to the reservoir; or
2) the control unit controls the first ultrasonic or electrical exciter of the sieve and/or the second ultrasonic or electrical exciter of the transport chute in order to adjust a flow of the powdered output component towards the roller gap feed section.
Claim 18 has been interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to require one of:
1) the at least one shielding element is connected to an exciter that vibrates the at least one shielding element in order to support a flow of the powdered output component in a direction of the roller gap; or
2) wherein an exciter, that is associated with the at least one shielding element, is provided with an exciter element that is adapted to be controlled, the exciter element being immersed in the powdered output component that has been filled into the roller gap feed section; or
3) the shielding element extends to just in front of the roller gap, so as to be separated from the roller gap by a partial height.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
In regards to claim 18 partially and claim 19, states “an exciter, that is associated with the at least one shielding element, is provided with an exciter element that is adapted to be controlled, the exciter element being immersed in the powdered output component that has been filled into the roller gap feed section". However, as the claim uses the term of “associated”, which has an interpretation of connected, this claim arrangement is not clearly depicted in drawings supplied by the applicant or disclosed in the applicants’ specification.
A review of paragraphs 17 and 32 applicants’ specification and figures 4 & 5 demonstrates the exciter 47 is in active connection (direct/connected) with the exciter element 49 OR the exciter 47 is in direct connection with the two shielding elements 39.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown and Oldham on claims 10-11 are withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Oldham, Okabe and McKnight on claim 12 is withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Oldham and Plagemann on claim 13 is withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Oldham, Okabe, McKnight, Schunemann and Blickley on claims 14-16 are withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, Oldham and Mochizuki on claims 17-18 are withdrawn because independent claim 10 has been amended.
Claims 10-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2022/0293952) in view of Oldham (USP 3,114,930), Okabe (US 2001/0038051) and McKnight (US 2009/0223612).
In regards to claims 10-12, Brown teaches a process arrangement to produce an electrode for a battery cell by coating a current collector foil (32) with electrode material (1), the process arrangement comprising:
a discharge system (38) to coat the current collector foil (32) with the electrode material (1) (fig. 4a; para. 0125-0129), the discharge system comprising:
a pair of rotating calender rollers (30a,b) spaced from each other by a roller gap (fig. 4a; para 0128), and
a roller gap feed section upstream of the roller gap, such that a powdered output component of the electrode material (1) is filled into the roller gap feed section in a dry state and then compacted in the roller gap under pressure and shear to form an electrode material film (11a) that is applied to the current collector foil (32) (fig. 4a; para 0128).
Brown further teaches a material feeder (discharge system, not shown) for providing powder into the roller gap (see para 0126).
Brown does not explicitly teach that the discharge system permits an adjustable dosage of the powder into the roller gap,
the discharge system has a reservoir with an outlet opening that discharges the powder from the outlet opening onto a transport chute along which the powder is conveyed in a horizontal direction to a transport chute end, where the powder is then discharged vertically into the roller gap feed section, such that a linear discharge of the powder occurs and
the outlet opening of the reservoir is covered by a sieve for powder dosing, through which the powdered output component located in the reservoir is discharged under the effect of gravity.
However, Oldham teaches a discharge system that permits an adjustable dosage of powder into a roller gap of densifier 29, for the benefit of ensuring a continuous uniform feed of powdered material (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 1-30).
Oldham further teaches that the discharge system has a reservoir (see feed source 11 and a hopper 16) with a sieve/sifting device (13) at an outlet, where the reservoir has a feed inlet (outlet opening) that discharges the powder from the feed inlet (outlet opening) onto a transport chute (17) along which the powder is conveyed in a horizontal direction to a transport chute end, where the powder is then discharged vertically via chamber 19 into the roller gap feed section, such that a linear discharge of the powder occurs, for the benefit of enabling powder to be fed to the nip of the calendar rolls (29) (fig. 1-2; col. 4, lines 50-70).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material feeder to include a reservoir and to provide an adjustable dosage of powder, horizontal transport chute, and vertical discharge direction in the apparatus of Brown, as taught by Oldham, for the benefit of ensuring a continuous uniform feed of powdered material to the nip of the calendar rolls (30a,b).
Brown and Oldham do not explicitly teach that the outlet opening of the reservoir is covered by a sieve for powder dosing, through which powder located in the reservoir is discharged under the effect of gravity, wherein the sieve is adapted to be put into vibration via a first ultrasonic or electrical exciter.
However, Okabe teaches an outlet opening (12a) of a reservoir (12) is covered by a sieve (20) for powder dosing, through which the powder located in the reservoir (12) is discharged under the effect of gravity, wherein the sieve (20) is adapted to be put into vibration via a first ultrasonic or electrical exciter (21) (fig. 1; para 0025, 0030, 0036, 0042, 0064), for the benefit of supplying and discharging powder particles based on particle size (para 0064).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify sifting in the apparatus of the previous art combination by vibrating a sieve that covers an outlet of the reservoir, as taught by Okabe, for the benefit of supplying and discharging powder particles based on particle size.
Brown, Oldham and Okabe do not explicitly teach the transport chute (17) is adapted to be put into vibration via a second ultrasonic or electrical exciter.
However, McKnight teaches a transport chute (406) adapted to be put into vibration via a second ultrasonic or electrical exciter (403), for the benefit of enhancing movement of the powder (fig. 4; para 0119).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine an additional electrical exciter with the horizontal transport chute in the apparatus of the previous art combination above, as taught by McKnight, for the benefit of enhancing movement of the powder.
In regards to claim 19, the previous art combination above as discussed, but do not explicitly teach an exciter, that is associated with the at least one shielding element, is provided with an exciter element that is adapted to be controlled, the exciter element being immersed in the powdered output component that has been filled into the roller gap feed section.
However, Oldham teaches an exciter comprises drive means (23) and a feed screw (20, exciter element) which is immersed in a powder within a conical chamber (19), where the powder is outputted to pressure rolls densifier (29). Oldham teaches the feed screw is adjacent to check plates (30), which are adjacent to pressure rolls densifier (29) (fig. 1; col. 3, lines 50-60, col. 4, lines 45-55, col. 7, lines 20-45).
Oldham teaches the feed screw aids in conveying the powder to the pressure rolls densifier (col. 4, lines 45-55, col. 5, lines 10-25).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drive means moving the feed screw in the conical chamber in the apparatus of the previous art combination above, as taught by Oldham, for the benefit of improving movement of the powder.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2022/0293952), Oldham (US 3,114,930), Okabe (US 2001/0038051), and McKnight (US 2009/0223612) as applied to claims 10-12 and 19 above, and in further view of Plagemann (US 5,271,319).
In regards to claim 13, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach that the powder dosage to the roller gap feed section is carried out over a coating width extending in a roller axial direction of the rotating calendar rollers, the coating width corresponding to an outlet opening of a transport chute.
However, Plagemann teaches a powder dosage to a roller gap is carried out over a width extending in a roller axial direction of the calendar rollers (2,4), the width corresponding to an outlet opening of a transport chute (6), for the benefit of forming a seal (fig. 1-2; col. 3, lines 30-60).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet of chamber 19 in the apparatus of the previous art combination above to extend across the width of the calendar rolls, as taught by Plagemann, for the benefit of forming a seal.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2022/0293952), Oldham (US 3,114,930), Okabe (US 2001/0038051) and McKnight (US 2009/0223612) as applied to claims 10-12 and 19 above, and in further view of Schunemann (US 2025/0108400) and Blickley (US 2011/0198197).
In regards to claims 14 to 16, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach the claimed control loop.
However, Schunemann teaches a dosing device for feeding powder to a powder conveyor 702, a control loop which has a level sensor (713) that detects a fill level of powder in roller gap (104), and a control unit (724) capable of controlling the dosing device on the basis of the detected fill level in the roller gap (104), for the benefit of adjusting the amount of powder transferred and preventing the fill level in the roller gap (104) from falling below a minimum threshold (fig. 17; para 0161-0164).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a dosing device and fill level sensor with the apparatus of the previous art combination above, as taught by Schunemann, for the benefit of adjusting the amount of powder transferred and preventing the fill level in the roller gap from falling below a minimum threshold.
The previous art combination above does not explicitly teach that the dosing device is a gravimetric weighing unit.
However, Blickley teaches a dosing device for feeding powder to a surge hopper 38 (reservoir) via valve 32, wherein the dosing device comprises gravimetric weighing units (39, 26a, 26b), for the benefit of maintaining the mass of powder within hopper 38 (reservoir) relatively constant (fig. 3; para 0050-0052, 0056-0058).
A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. See MPEP 2141.03.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the control unit and provide the dosing device as a gravimetric weight unit in the apparatus of the previous art combination above, as taught by Blickley, for the benefit of maintaining the mass of powder within the hopper reservoir relatively constant.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2022/0293952), Oldham (US 3,114,930), Okabe (US 2001/0038051) and McKnight (US 2009/0223612) as applied to claims 10-12 and 19 above, and in further view of Mochizuki (JPH01316402, see Espacenet translation, previously provided).
In regards claims 17 to 18, the previous art combination above does not explicitly teach a shielding element that shields powder from the surfaces of the rotating calender rollers (30a,b).
However, Mochizuki teaches shielding elements (7,8) in the roller gap so that powder is filled into the roller gap and pre-compaction of the powder in the roller gap is avoided, wherein the shielding elements (7,8) shield the surfaces of the rolls 1,2 forming a sliding zone in which the powder slides along the shielding elements (7,8) and free of contact with the surfaces of the rolls (7,8) in a direction of the roller gap, wherein the shielding elements (7,8) are connected to an exciter (9) that vibrates the shielding elements (7,8), for the benefit of improving flowability of the powder (fig. 1; see pgs. 5, 6, and 9).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine shielding elements with the calendar rollers (30a,b) in the apparatus of the previous art combination above, as taught by Mochizuki, for the benefit of improving flowability of the powder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s principal arguments are:
Applicant submits that Oldham fails to represent relevant prior art for the specific technical field and purpose addressed by the present invention. In this regard, one skilled in the art would not look to the sieve and horizontal transport chute for a process arrangement for coating electrode material onto a current foil collector. Thus, regardless of the sieve teachings of Okabe, one skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify Brown utilizing Oldham.
Mochizuki fails to disclose an exciter having an exciter element that is immersed in the powdered output component 3 that is provided in the roller gap feed section at rollers 1 and 2. Accordingly, Mochizuki fails to disclose the features of newly added claim 19, and thus fails to cure the deficient teachings of Brown and Oldham.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, please consider the following comments:
In response to applicant's argument that Oldham is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Oldham is analogous, as it employs mechanisms such as reservoirs, sifters, moving powder along the chamber, so that the powder is delivered between rollers, where at least the delivery of powder between rollers is similar to applicants.
A new grounds rejection of Brown, Oldham, Okabe and McKnight is presented above to address newly add claim 19.
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 Binu Thomas whose telephone number is (571)270-7684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 8:00AM-5:00PM PT.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/Binu Thomas/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights