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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 11th, 2023, April 1st, 2025, and August 28th, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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, “wherein segments of the plurality of segments are widenable in a radial direction of the calender transport roller independently of a respective adjoining segment" (see Claim 16, Lines 3-5), "a widening mechanism which is operated by a motor and which individually actuates the plurality of segments electrically, hydraulically or mechanically" (see Claim 17, Lines 2-3), and "a plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings of different respective radial thickness" (Claim 24, Lines 2-3) must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“electrode band” in ¶0047 (Lines 3 and 5), ¶0065 (Line 5), and ¶0066 (Line 7) should read --electrode strip-- for consistency
“of the kind a transport roller” in ¶0036 should read --of the kind of transport roller
“, other” in ¶0037 (Line 1), ¶0038 (Line 1), and ¶0039 (Line 1) should read “, of a”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 16-18, 20-26, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 16-18 and 20-26 (Lines 1), "the calender transport roller" should read --a calender transport roller--
In Claim 28 (Line 1), "the calendering device" should read --a calendering device--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
a widening device in Claim 15 (Lines 9-10)
a widening mechanism in Claim 17 (Line 2)
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 limitations to avoid 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 limitations recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15-28 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “A calender transport roller for a calendering device for production of electrodes for a battery cell, wherein an electrode strip is conveyable by the calender transport roller to or from a pair of calendering rolls and wherein the electrode strip has a flat conductor strip and a coating which is applied in portions at least on a side that faces the calender transport roller, comprising” in Lines 1-5. It is unclear where the preamble ends. It is before the first wherein or is it before comprising? This renders the claim indefinite since metes and bound have not been established.
Claims 16 and 25-28, which depend on claim 15, are equally rejected.
Claims 17-18, which depend on claim 16, are equally rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “at most” in Line 2. The term “at most” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “A calender transport roller for a calendering device for production of electrodes for a battery cell, wherein an electrode strip is conveyable by the calender transport roller to or from a pair of calendering rolls and wherein the electrode strip has a flat conductor strip and a coating which is applied in portions at least on a side that faces the calender transport roller, comprising” in Lines 1-5. It is unclear where the preamble ends. It is before the first wherein or is it before comprising? This renders the claim indefinite since metes and bound have not been established.
Claims 20-23, which depend on claim 19, are equally rejected.
Claim 24, which depends on claim 23, is equally rejected.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “wherein an electrode strip” in Line 4. There is an electrode strip being claimed in Claim 15, which claim 25 depends on. It is unclear if this limitation is referring to the same electrode strip or a new electrode strip, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 28, which depend on Claim 21, is equally rejected.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “immediately” in Line 2. The term “immediately” is a relative and/or subjective term that renders the claim indefinite since metes and bounds for the term have not been established.
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 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teranishi (JP2014116141A), hereinafter "Teranishi". For text citation of Teranishi refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 19, Teranishi discloses a calender transport roller (Fig. 1, Element 30) for a calendering device (Fig. 1, Element 10) for production of electrodes for a battery cell (¶0006), wherein an electrode strip (Figs. 1-2, Element 155A(156B)) is conveyable by the calender transport roller (Fig. 1, Element 30) to or from a pair of calendering rolls (Fig. 1, Elements 11 and 12) and wherein the electrode strip (Figs. 1-2, Element 155A(156B)) has a flat conductor strip (Fig. 2, Element 151) and a coating (Fig. 3, Element 152) which is applied in portions at least on a side (Fig. 2, Element 151c) that faces the calender transport roller (Fig. 2, Element 30), comprising: a contact region (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below) on a shell surface of the calender transport roller (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below), wherein the contact region (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below) is contactable with the electrode strip; and at least one adjusting portion (Fig. 2, Element 35; ¶0037, Lines 1-5) that has at least one prefabricated adjusting ring (Fig. 2, Element 37; ¶0037, Lines 1-5) in the contact region (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below), wherein a diameter of the transport roller (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below; defined as twice the radius R. Examiner notes that the diameter of the transport roller is changeable during the manufacturing step of the transport roller) is changeable by the at least one prefabricated adjusting ring (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below; R1 versus R2) such that a height difference (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below) between a coated portion (Fig. 2, Element 151c) of the electrode strip and an adjoining uncoated portion (Fig. 2, Element 151b) of the electrode strip is compensated (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi
Regarding Claim 20, Teranishi anticipates the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 19 as explained above.
Teranishi further discloses , wherein the at least one prefabricated adjusting ring (Fig. 2, Element 37; ¶0037, Lines 1-5) is closed circumferentially (Fig. 2, Element 37).
Regarding Claim 23, Teranishi anticipates the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 19 as explained above.
Teranishi further discloses further comprising a roller body (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above) of rigid configuration (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above), wherein the at least one prefabricated adjusting ring (Fig. 2, Element 37; ¶0037, Lines 1-5) is disposed on the roller body (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced 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.
Claims 15 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Yamashita (JPS579667A), hereinafter "Yamashita". For text citation of Yamashita refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 15, Teranishi discloses a calender transport roller (Fig. 1, Element 30)
for a calendering device (Fig. 1, Element 10) for production of electrodes for a battery cell (¶0006), wherein an electrode strip (Figs. 1-2, Element 155A(156B)) is conveyable by the calender transport roller (Fig. 1, Element 30) to or from a pair of calendering rolls (Fig. 1, Elements 11 and 12) and wherein the electrode strip (Figs. 1-2, Element 155A(156B)) has a flat conductor strip (Fig. 2, Element 151) and a coating (Fig. 3, Element 152) which is applied in portions at least on a side (Fig. 2, Element 151c) that faces the calender transport roller (Fig. 2, Element 30), comprising: a contact region (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above) on a shell surface of the calender transport roller (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above), wherein the contact region (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above) is contactable with the electrode strip (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above); at least one adjusting portion (Fig. 2, Element 35; ¶0037, Lines 1-5) in the contact region (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above); , wherein a diameter of the transport roller (¶0037) in the at least one adjusting portion is changeable (¶0037. Examiner notes that the diameter of the transport roller is changeable during the manufacturing step of the transport roller) such that a height difference (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above) between a coated portion (Fig. 2, Element 151c) of the electrode strip and an adjoining uncoated portion (Fig. 2, Element 151b) of the electrode strip is compensated (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above).
Teranishi fails to disclose a widening device and the diameter of the transport roller in the at least one adjusting portion being changeable by the widening device.
Nonetheless, Yamashita teaches a widening device (Figs. 1-3; Abstract) and a diameter of a roller (Figs. 1-3; Abstract) being changeable by the widening device.
Teranishi and Yamashita are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamashita of using a widening device to change the diameter of the transport roller in the at least one adjusting portion into the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi to provide the adjusting portion with a variable radius-circumferential length widening device that can change the radius (and subsequently the diameter) of the transport roller in the adjusting portion in a fine amount by a slight amount of vertical motion (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 25, the prior art combination of Teranishi and Yamashita renders the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 15 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Teranishi and Yamashita further teaches wherein the at least one adjusting portion (Teranishi - Fig. 2, Element 35; Teranishi - ¶0037, Lines 1-5) extends in an axial direction (Teranishi - Fig. 2, Element AX) of the calender transport roller (Teranishi - Fig. 1, Element 30) over an entirety of the contact region (see annotated Fig. 2 of Teranishi reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 26, the prior art combination of Teranishi and Yamashita renders the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 15 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Teranishi and Yamashita further teaches wherein the at least one adjusting portion (Teranishi - Fig. 2, Element 35; Teranishi - ¶0037, Lines 1-5) is a plurality of adjusting portions (Teranishi - Fig. 2, Elements 36 and 37; Teranishi - ¶0037, Lines 1-5) that are disposed in an axial direction (Teranishi - Fig. 2, Element AX) of the calender transport roller (Teranishi - Fig. 1, Element 30).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Yamashita as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN110010847A), hereinafter "Wang". For text citation of Wang refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art combination of Teranishi and Yamashita renders the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 15 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Teranishi and Yamashita fails to teach wherein a plurality of segments are disposed in the at least one adjusting portion next to one another in an axial direction of the calender transport roller and wherein segments of the plurality of segments are widenable in a radial direction of the calender transport roller independently of a respective adjoining segment.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches wherein a plurality of segments (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below) are disposed in the at least one adjusting portion (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below) next to one another (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below) in an axial direction (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below) of the calender transport roller (Fig. 6, Element 1) and wherein segments of the plurality of segments (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below) are widenable (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below) in a radial direction of the calender transport roller (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below) independently of a respective adjoining segment (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced below).
Teranishi, Yamashita, and Wang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang of using a plurality of segments disposed in the at least one adjusting portion next to one another in an axial direction of the calender transport roller and wherein segments of the plurality of segments are widenable in a radial direction of the calender transport roller independently of a respective adjoining segment into the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi and modified by Yamashita to prevent wrinkles from forming on the electrode due to a large difference in the outer diameter of adjacent portions (¶0038).
PNG
media_image2.png
467
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6 of Wang
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art combination of Teranishi, Yamashita, and Wang renders the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 16 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Teranishi, Yamashita, and Wang further teaches , wherein segments of the plurality of segments (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) or all the plurality of segments (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) have a width (Wang - Fig. 2, Element L; Wang - ¶0031, Lines 16-18) of at most 2 mm (Wang - ¶0015; Wang - ¶0031, Lines 16-18) in the axial direction (see annotated Fig. 2 of Wang reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
354
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Wang
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Yamashita and Wang as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Langsch (DE19955099A1), hereinafter "Langsch". For text citation of Langsch refer to the machine translation provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art combination of Teranishi, Yamashita, and Wang renders the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 16 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Teranishi, Yamashita, and Wang fails to teach further comprising a widening mechanism which is operated by a motor and which individually actuates the plurality of segments electrically, hydraulically or mechanically.
Nonetheless, Langsch teaches a widening mechanism (¶0014, Lines 3-6 and Lines 15-18; ¶0015; ¶0053, Lines 1-4) which is operated by a motor (¶0053, “M”) and which individually actuates (¶0012; ¶0015) the plurality of segments (Fig. 2, Elements 10, 11, A, and B) electrically, hydraulically or mechanically (¶0053).
Teranishi, Yamashita, Wang, and Langsch are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Langsch of using a widening mechanism which is operated by a motor and which individually actuates the plurality of segments electrically, hydraulically or mechanically into the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi and modified by Yamashita and Wang to provide a widening mechanism in which a motor is control based on a plurality of selected parameters (¶0053) to actuate a plurality of segments to be radially widened or narrowed (¶0015).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Katz (US4917013A), hereinafter “Katz”.
Regarding Claim 21, Teranishi anticipates the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 19 as explained above.
Teranishi fails to disclose wherein the at least one prefabricated adjusting ring is made from steel.
Nonetheless, Katz teaches wherein the at least one prefabricated adjusting ring (Fig. 1, Element 12) is made from steel (Column 2, Lines 31-37).
Teranishi and Katz are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Katz of using a prefabricated adjusting ring made from steel into the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi to provide the at least one prefabricated adjusting ring with a highly wear resistant material (Column 2, Lines 31-37).
Claims 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teranishi in view of Wang.
Regarding Claim 22, Teranishi anticipates the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 19 as explained above.
Teranishi fails to disclose wherein the at least one adjusting portion has a plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings which are disposed next to one another in an axial direction of the calender transport roller.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches wherein the at least one adjusting portion (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) has a plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) which are disposed next to one another (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) in an axial direction (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) of the calender transport roller (Fig. 6, Element 1).
Teranishi and Wang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang wherein the at least one adjusting portion has a plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings which are disposed next to one another in an axial direction of the calender transport roller into the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi to prevent wrinkles from forming on the electrode due to a large difference in the outer diameter of adjacent portions (¶0038).
Regarding Claim 24, Teranishi anticipates the calender transport roller as claimed in Claim 23 as explained above.
Teranishi fails to disclose wherein the at least one adjusting portion has a plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings of different respective radial thickness which are disposed on the roller body.
Nonetheless, Wang teaches wherein the at least one adjusting portion (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) has a plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) of different respective radial thickness (see annotated Fig. 6 of Wang reproduced above) which are disposed on the roller body (Fig. 6, Element 1).
Teranishi and Wang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang wherein the at least one adjusting portion has a plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings of different respective radial thickness which are disposed on the roller body into the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi to prevent wrinkles from forming on the electrode due to a large difference in the outer diameter of adjacent portions (¶0038).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et al. (US20180226630A1), hereinafter “Yanai” in view of Teranishi and Yamashita.
Regarding Claim 27, Yanai discloses a calendering device (Fig. 5, Element 100) for production of electrodes for a battery cell (¶0012), comprising: a pair of calendering rolls (Fig. 5, Elements 101 and 102); and a first calender transport roller (see annotated Fig. 5 of Yanai reproduced below), wherein an electrode strip (Fig. 5, Element 300) is conveyable by the first calender transport roller (see annotated Fig. 5 of Yanai reproduced below) toward a nip (see annotated Fig. 5 of Yanai reproduced below) which is configured between the pair of calendering rolls (Fig. 5, Elements 101 and 102).
Yanai fails to disclose a first calender transport roller according to claim 15.
Nonetheless, the prior art combination of Teranishi and Yamashita teaches a calender transport roller according to claim 15 as explained above.
Yanai, Teranishi, and Yamashita are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor of rollers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to substitute first calender transport roller of Yanai with the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi and modified by Yamashita to provide a calender transport roller in which the uncoated portion is pressed more strongly against the calender transport roller by concentrating tension and stretching (Teranishi - ¶0008) and prevent distortion occurrence between the coated and uncoated of the flat conductor strip (Teranishi - ¶0002) and to provide the adjusting portion of the calender transport roller with a variable radius-circumferential length widening device that can change the radius (and subsequently the diameter) of the transport roller in the adjusting portion in a fine amount by a slight amount of vertical motion (Yamashita - Abstract).
PNG
media_image4.png
538
633
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Yanai
Regarding Claim 28, the prior art combination of Yanai, Teranishi, and Yamashita renders the calendaring device as claimed in Claim 27 unpatentable as explained above.
The prior art combination of Yanai, Teranishi, and Yamashita further teaches further comprising a second transport roller (see annotated Fig. 5 of Yanai reproduced below) which is disposed immediately downstream (see annotated Fig. 5 of Yanai reproduced above) of the pair of calendering rolls (Fig. 5, Elements 101 and 102) in a running direction (see annotated Fig. 5 of Yanai reproduced above) of the electrode strip (Fig. 5, Element 300).
The prior art combination of Yanai, Teranishi, and Yamashita fails to teach a second transport roller according to claim 15.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claim invention to also substitute the second transport roller of Yanai with the calender transport roller disclosed by Teranishi and modified by Yamashita to provide a calender transport roller in which the uncoated portion is pressed more strongly against the calender transport roller by concentrating tension and stretching (Teranishi - ¶0008) and prevent distortion occurrence between the coated and uncoated of the flat conductor strip (Teranishi - ¶0002) and to provide the adjusting portion of the calender transport roller with a variable radius-circumferential length widening device that can change the radius (and subsequently the diameter) of the transport roller in the adjusting portion in a fine amount by a slight amount of vertical motion (Yamashita - Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US20130074711A1, US20190131614A1, JP2019033041A, JP2003100286A & CN211027736U - Method and apparatus for manufacturing strip electrode
CN203410045U - Roller with adjusting portion
DE102012224301A1 -Method for operating calender apparatus
JPH0528990A & KR20200121502A - Roller with plurality of prefabricated adjusting rings
WO0236365A1 - Roller with adjusting portion comprising a plurality of segments with different thicknesses
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 ET.
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
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights