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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings, specifically Figure 1, are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show no overlapping between opposite ends of each of the rollers of the plurality of pair of rollers and the plurality of strip electrode layers as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2, Line 15: it is unclear what “press facility” means
Page 2, Line 16: it is unclear what “facility” means
Page 2, Line 27: “object” should read “objective”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: "The method of manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, comprising" should read "The method of manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery according to claim 1, further comprising" . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “as a roller of the pair of rollers that is located on the first surface” followed by the limitation “a roller is used that has a protruding portion”. It is unclear if both terms (a roller) are referring to the same roller or if a new roller is introduced. For the purpose of examination, the term “a roller is used that has a protruding portion” is interpreted as “the roller is used that has a protruding portion” first introduced as “a roller of the pair of rollers”. Claim 3, which is dependent on claim 2, is similarly rejected.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishikawa et al. (JP2008226502A), hereinafter “Nishikawa”. For text citation of Nishikawa, refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Nishikawa discloses a method of manufacturing an electrode (Fig. 1) for a secondary battery, the method comprising:
preparing an electrode sheet (Figs. 1-2, Element 1) including a plurality of strip electrode layers (Figs. 1-2, Element 11) provided on a first surface (front surface, see annotated Figs 1-2 of Nishikawa for distinction between the first, front, and second, back, surface reproduced below) of a substrate (Figs. 1-2, Element 10), the strip electrode layers being arranged at intervals in a first direction (Fig. 1, Elements 12a-c adjacent in the width direction “W”), and a sheet electrode layer (Figs. 1-2, Element 11) provided on a second surface (back surface, see annotated Figs 1-2 of Nishikawa for distinction between the first, front, and second, back, surface reproduced below) of the substrate (Figs. 1-2, Element 10) opposite to the first surface (see annotated Figs 1-2 of Nishikawa for distinction between the first, front, and second, back, surface reproduced below), the sheet electrode layer (Figs. 1-2, Element 11) being continuous in the first direction (see annotated Figs 1-2 of Nishikawa for continuity in the width direction “W” reproduced below); and pressing the electrode sheet (Fig. 1, Element 1) transported in a transport direction crossing the first direction (Fig. 1, longitudinal direction “Y”), using a plurality of pairs of rollers arranged to be displaced from each other in the first direction (Fig. 1, Elements 21U and 21D, 22U and 22D, and 23U and 23D displaced from each other in the width direction “W”), wherein
in the pressing, the plurality of pairs strip electrode layers (Fig. 2a, Elements 11)
and the sheet electrode layer (Fig. 2a-b, Elements 11) are held between rollers of the plurality of pairs of rollers (Figs. 2a-2b, Elements 21U, 21D, 22U, 23D, 23U, 22D) in a state in which opposite ends, in the first direction, of each of the rollers are located at respective positions that do not overlap the plurality of strip electrode layers, as seen in a normal direction to the surface (see “gap” between opposite ends of each of the rollers and the plurality of strip electrode layers in the annotated Figs. 2a-b of Nishikawa reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
513
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Nishikawa (reproduced)
PNG
media_image2.png
844
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2a-b of Nishikawa (reproduced)
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Tawara (JP2014103068A), hereinafter “Tawara”. For text citation of Tawara, refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Nishikawa anticipates the method of manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery of Claim 1 as explained above.
Nishikawa further discloses a mechanism that uses rollers to enter a gap between the strip electrode layers, however, Nishikawa introduces new rollers rather than using rollers with a protruding portion to enter this gap. Thus, Nishikawa fails to teach a roller of the pair of rollers that is located on the first surface, the roller having a protruding portion to enter a gap between the strip electrode layers adjacent to each other in the first direction as seen in the normal direction to the first surface, the protruding portion being provided at an end of the roller, the end being located between the strip electrode layers adjacent to each other in the first direction.
Nonetheless, Tawara teaches a roller (Fig. 4, Element 20a) of a pair of rollers (Fig. 4, Elements 20a-b) with a protruding portion (Fig. 4, Element 22) provided at the end of the roller (Fig. 4, Element 20a), the protruding portion being used to press non-coated parts (Fig. 4, Element 14) adjacent to the coated parts (Fig. 4, Element 13) of the surface of a substrate (Fig. 4, Element 10).
Nishikawa and Tawara are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of electrode manufacturing methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Tawara of using a roller of a pair of rollers with a protruding portion located at the end of the roller into the method disclosed in Nishikawa to enter the gap between the strip electrode layers (Nishikawa, Fig. 1, Element 13b-c) and press coated portions (Nishikawa, Fig. 1, Element 12a-c) and uncoated portions (Nishikawa, Fig. 1, Element 13b-c) simultaneously, to shorten the time required to for the process of making the film thickness constant while preventing the remaining of wrinkles (¶0022, Line 1-4 of the machine translation of Tawara provided by the Examiner), a phenomenon associated with poor quality winding (¶0003, Line 3-5 of the machine translation of Nishikawa provided by the Examiner) and disclosed by both Tawara and Nishikawa.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, the prior art reference combination of Nishikawa in view of Tawara renders the method of manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery as claimed in Claim 2 unpatentable as explained above.
Tawara further discloses wherein in the pressing, in a region corresponding to the gap (see the region corresponding to “the gap” in the annotated Fig. 4 of Tawara reproduced below), the substrate (Fig. 4, Element 10) and the sheet electrode layer (Fig. 4, Element 11) are held between a roller of the pair of rollers that is located on the second surface (Fig. 4, Element 20b) and the protruding portion (Fig. 4, Element 22) (the annotated Fig. 4 of Tawara reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
678
846
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 of Tawara (reproduced)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Terasawa et al. (WO2020100561A1), hereinafter "Terasawa". For text citation of Terasawa, refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 4, Nishikawa anticipates the method of manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery of Claim 1 as explained above.
Nishikawa further discloses measuring, at a site downstream of each plurality of pair of rollers in the transport direction, a thickness of the strip electrode layers pressed by the plurality of pairs of rollers (Fig. 1, Elements 31a-31c; ¶0055, Line 1-2 of the machine translation of Nishikawa provided by the Examiner).
Examiner Note: Although Nishikawa Fig. 1 illustrates the thickness means as being located upstream of the press device, Nishikawa discloses that this measuring means can measure is provided to measuring the thickness before (upstream) and/or after pressing (downstream) (¶0055, Line 1-2 of the machine translation of Nishikawa provided by the Examiner).
Although Nishikawa further teaches a method of adjusting the position in the thickness direction of the electrode sheet (Fig. 1, Element 1) of either one or both of the plurality of pairs of rollers (Fig. 1, Elements 21U and 21D, 22U and 22D, and 23U and 23D) using and adjustment mechanism, (Fig. 3, Elements 28 and 29) based on the measured thickness, it fails to teach feeding back, to the pressing, information about the measured thickness, wherein in the pressing, a press pressure for each of the plurality of pairs of rollers is adjusted based on the fed back information.
Nonetheless, Terasawa discloses a roll press device that uses a thickness gauge (Fig. 2, Element 70) provided on the output side of the pair a pair of rollers (Fig. 2, Elements 11 and 12) to continuously measure the thickness of an electrode sheet (Fig. 1, Element 2). Terasawa further discloses feeding back, to the pressing, information about the measured thickness (Fig. 2, Element 80; ¶0118, Line 24-42 of the machine translation of Terasawa provided by the Examiner), wherein in the pressing, a press pressure for each of the plurality of pairs of rollers is adjusted based on the fed back information (Fig. 3, Element 819; ¶0118, Line 34-42 of the machine translation of Terasawa provided by the Examiner).
Nishikawa and Terasawa are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of roll pressing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Terasawa of measuring thickness at a site downstream of each of the plurality of pairs of rollers and feeding this information back to the pressing wherein in the pressing, a press pressure for each of the plurality of pairs of rollers is adjusted based on the fed back into the method disclosed in Nishikawa to measure the thickness of the pressed, strip electrode layers as to control the thickness of the rolled material after pressing to a target thickness value in the entire width immediately after a change in thickness is measured and ensuring a good thickness can be obtained over the entire length of the electrode sheet (¶0083, Line 4-7 of the machine translation of Terasawa provided by the Examiner).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishikawa in view of Zhang (CN217172653U), hereinafter "Zhang". For text citation of Zhang, refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 5, Nishikawa anticipates the method of manufacturing an electrode for a secondary battery of Claim 1 as explained above.
Nishikawa fails to teach wherein at least one pair of rollers among the plurality of pairs of rollers differs from another pair of rollers, in a width in the first direction.
Nonetheless, Zhang teaches a pressing roller (Fig. 3, Element 20) with a plurality of rollers (Fig. 3, Element 22), wherein the plurality of rollers has different outer diameters and/or different width (¶n0021, Line 1-3 of the machine translation of Zhang provided by the Examiner).
Nishikawa and Zhang are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of conveying system and battery production. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify at least one pair of rollers among the plurality of pairs of rollers disclosed in Nishikawa with the plurality of rollers with different width disclosed by Zhang to increases the adaptability of the pressing roller and the conveying system to different types and specifications of sheets, expands the application range of the conveying system, and improves the conveying efficiency (¶n0022, Line 1-3 of the machine translation of Zhang provided by the Examiner).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US20220285665)
Goishibara et al. (JP2006179401)
Haga et al. (US20220293901A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALONDRA MICHELLE ORTIZ-ORTIZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9539. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/A.M.O./ Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725