DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-9 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “forming a cutting groove on an upper surface of the active material layer along a boundary of the masking tape at a bottom and the active material” is indefinite because it is unclear what “a bottom” designates. The dependent claims are rejected for depending on claim 1. The claim has been interpreted broadly to refer a cutting groove on an upper surface of the active material layer along an edge of the masking tape.
Claim 5 is additionally rejected for the limitation “formed on a side of the active material positioned on the masking tape around the boundary line of the masking tape and the active material.” The term “around” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “around” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim has been interpreted broadly to refer to a cutting groove formed with reference to the boundary.
Claim 8 is additionally rejected because it is unclear what “a partial form of the cutting groove” means. What would it mean to “include an entire form”? the entire length? something else? what exactly does “form” mean here? The claim has been interpreted broadly to refer to a natural boundary between the active material and the uncoated portion once the masking tape is removed according to the method of claim 1.
The word “designating” is not a natural English word choice when combined with the preposition “into,” as in the first claim—“designating into” is a strained verb-preposition pair. The first claim appears to require a step of designating which portions of a collector surface are to be coated and which are to be uncoated, and then applying a making to the uncoated portion. Correction is encouraged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayakawa (JP 2005-183181 to Hayakawa et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayakawa teaches:
a method for preparing an electrode comprising selecting coated and uncoated portions of a current collector surface 1, and attaching a masking tape 2 to the uncoated portion (Figs. 1-2, p. 4)
laminating an active material on the current collector and masking tape to form an active material layer (Fig. 3, pp. 4-5)
PNG
media_image1.png
324
284
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
forming a cutting groove, via half-cutting, on an upper surface of the active material layer along a boundary of the masking tape at the active material in order to make the subsequent removal of the masking tape along the cutting groove to form the uncoated portion(s) easier, and reduce the chances of the masking tape breaking during removal (p. 6)
Regarding Claim 4, Hayakawa teaches:
coating and pressing (pp. 5-6)
Regarding Claim 5, Hayakawa teaches:
the cutting groove formed along the active material-masking tape boundary line to make it easier to remove the masking tape (p. 6)
Regarding Claim 6, Hayakawa teaches:
wherein the masking tape is a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape comprising a film substrate with adhesive (p. 5)
Regarding Claim 7, Hayakawa teaches:
steps implemented by a roll-to-roll process (Fig. 11, p. 6)
Regarding Claim 8, Hayakawa teaches:
lamination on a surface, wherein a corner portion of the active layer adjacent to the uncoated portion would have an upper surface and a side wall formed from the removal of the masking tape, substantially the same as the instant invention (p. 6)
Regarding Claim 9, Hayakawa teaches:
wherein the sidewall faces the uncoated portion where a tab is formed (Fig. 10)
PNG
media_image3.png
288
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa (JP 2005-183181 to Hayakawa et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Ezoe (JP 2010-027843 to Ezoe et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) and Littlewood (US 2011/0215076 to Littlewood et al.).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Hayakawa does not explicitly teach:
cutting the groove with a laser after supplying moisture to the cutting groove forming site
Ezoe, however, from the same field of invention, regarding forming a cutting groove along a masking tape boundary upon which a coating layer has been applied to make it easier to remove the masking tape, teaches using a laser cutter (¶ 0024). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Littlewood, meanwhile, from the field of laser ablation, teaches wetting a porous layer that is to be cut via laser, in order to improve energy absorption in the layer and improve the cutting line (abstract, etc.). It would have been obvious to moisten the cutting line area of a laser-cut, porous, active material layer in order to improve the precision of the cutting line, as suggested by Littlewood.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights