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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 09/09/2026 is acknowledged.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “mechanism” in claims 1-8 and 10-12, and “component” in claims 5 and 9.
Specifically, claims 1-8 and 10-12 provide the limitation “mechanism” with regards to the roller press mechanism, freezing mechanism, humidifying mechanism, cooling mechanism, suction mechanism, and drying mechanism, and claims 5 and 9 provide the limitation “component” with regards to the sprinkler component.
The claim limitation of the roller press mechanism provides the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with the functional language of roller pressing an electrode plate or cooling the roller press mechanism without reciting sufficient structure that defines the mechanism to perform the recited function.
The claim limitation of the freezing mechanism provides the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with the functional language of freezing the electrode plate without reciting sufficient structure that defines the mechanism to perform the recited function.
The claim limitation of the humidifying mechanism provides the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with the functional language of increasing the humidity of the electrode plate without reciting sufficient structure that defines the mechanism to perform the recited function.
The claim limitation of the drying mechanism provides the generic placeholder “mechanism” coupled with the functional language of drying the electrode plate without reciting sufficient structure that defines the mechanism to perform the recited function.
The claim limitation of the sprinkler component provides the generic placeholder “component” coupled with the functional language of providing freezing medium inside the freezing box without reciting sufficient structure that defines the mechanism to perform the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 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 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 1-12 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 limitations “mechanism”(claims 1-8 and 10-12, with regard to the roller press mechanism, freezing mechanism, humidifying mechanism, cooling mechanism, suction mechanism, and drying mechanism) and “component” (claims 5 and 9, with regards to the sprinkler component) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant specification and the claims do not provide the structure, material, or sufficient explanation do the function of each “mechanism” and “component”, with regards to the roller press mechanism, freezing mechanism, humidifying mechanism, cooling mechanism, suction mechanism, drying mechanism, and sprinkler component.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN-110752349-A) (see translation), and in further view of Mao (CN-111420853-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Xie discloses preparing an electrode plate by (step 3) freezing the wet electrode coated with the slurry in a low-temperature environment of -80℃ to -5℃ for 1h to 5h to freeze and solidify the wet electrode, causing the dispersing solvent in the wet electrode to solidify and crystallize, to obtain a solidified electrode (see e.g., Xie; [0012], [0043]), and subsequently (step 5) performing a roll pressing treatment on the sublimated electrode (see e.g., Xie; [0012], [0045]).
The roll press process disclosed by Xie necessitates that the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus in Xie comprises a roller press mechanism configured to roller press an electrode plate. The order of the processes disclosed by Xie is such that the freezing step is before the roller press step, which corresponds with the freezing mechanism disposed upstream of the roller press mechanism.
As above, Xie discloses that the low-temperature environment is -80℃ to -5℃, but Xie does not explicitly disclose wherein the low-temperature environment step is a freezing mechanism configured to freeze the electrode plate. However, Mao discloses a similar electrode manufacturing process including a freezing step wherein the temperature is similarly set to -50 °C to 0 °C for 2-4 hours, wherein the freezing process is performed in a freeze dryer (see e.g., Mao; [0010], [0035]) which corresponds to a freezing mechanism. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the freezing process disclosed by Xie performed in a freeze dryer as disclosed by Mao in order to inhibit binder migration, provide uniform binder distribution, improve adhesion of the battery electrode and current collector, reduce internal resistance, and provide better rate performance (see e.g., Mao; [0008]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1. Xie discloses a drying mechanism, wherein the drying mechanism is disposed downstream of the roller press mechanism, and the drying mechanism is configured to dry the electrode plate (see e.g., Xie; [0023], [0044], [0061], regarding vacuum sublimation step, which necessitates a vacuum sublimation mechanism, the vacuum sublimation process being after the roller press process which means being disposed downstream of the roller press, the sublimation process which dries the electrode plate).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN-110752349-A) (see translation) and Mao (CN-111420853-A) (see translation), and in further view of Sakai (JP-2019106260-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1. Xie discloses dispersing solvent to form an electrode slurry and coating the electrode slurry onto a current collector to form a wet electrode (see e.g., Xie; [0012]).
Xie does not explicitly disclose the apparatus further comprising: a humidifying mechanism, wherein the humidifying mechanism is disposed upstream of the freezing mechanism, and the humidifying mechanism is configured to increase humidity of the electrode plate. However, Sakai discloses a water addition device/humidifier to increase the water content of a current collector (see e.g., Sakai; fig. 4, [0018], [0037], [0038], regarding humidifier 42) corresponding to a humidifying mechanism configured to increase humidity of the electrode plate. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a humidifier configured to increase humidity of the electrode plate as disclosed by Sakai disposed upstream of the freezing mechanism in the apparatus of Xie. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve efficiency of coating the electrode slurry (see e.g., Sakai; [0008]). Because Sakai discloses the humidifier for increasing the water content of the current collector before the active material is coated, the addition of the humidifier would necessarily be introduced upstream of the freezing mechanism in modified Xie because Xie provides that the freezing process occurs after coating of the active material.
Regarding claim 3, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 2. In the same modification above regarding claim 2, Sakai provides that both sides of the current collector are coated (see e.g., Sakai; figs. 2, [0003]), and both sides of the current collector are subject to moisture content increase from the humidifier (see e.g., Sakai; fig. 4, [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the humidifier be one of two humidifying mechanisms of the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus, the two humidifying mechanisms being disposed opposite each other to form a containment space for the electrode plate to pass through in order to improve efficiency of coating the electrode slurry (see e.g., Sakai; [0008]) on both sides of the current collector.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN-110752349-A) (see translation), Mao (CN-111420853-A) (see translation), and in further view of Newman (US-20170138661-A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1. Xie does not explicitly disclose wherein the freezing mechanism comprises a freezing box, the freezing box being configured to contain a freezing medium, wherein the freezing medium is configured to freeze a portion of the electrode plate located inside the freezing box.
However, Newman discloses wherein a freezing mechanism comprises a freezing box (see e.g., Newman; fig. 1), the freezing box being configured to contain a freezing medium (see e.g., Newman; fig. 1, [0012-]-[0013], regarding cryogen spray 36), wherein the freezing medium is configured to freeze a portion of the material located inside the freezing box (see e.g., Newman; [0011], regarding frozen foods). While Newman provides the freezing system for food processing, the cryogenic freezer is pertinent art to Xie and Mao because Xie provides that the low temperature environment is -80 °C to -5 °C (see e.g., Xie; [0043]) and the LN2 or CO2 cryogen spray 36 as provided by Newman (see e.g., Newman; [0012]) may provide a low enough temperature environment in the temperature range as disclosed. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the cryogenic freezer as disclosed by Newman for the low temperature environment freezing treatment in Xie to thereby provide a freezing box, the freezing box being configured to contain a freezing medium, and wherein the freezing medium is configured to freeze a portion of the electrode plate (the wet electrode coated with slurry as disclosed by Xie) located inside the freezing box. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to solidify and crystallize the wet electrode (see e.g., Xie; [0043]) and obtain high energy density lithium-sulfur batteries (see e.g., Xie; [0009]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 4.
In the same modification above regarding claim 4, Xie modified with Newman provides wherein: the freezing box is equipped with a medium outlet for discharging the freezing medium contained in the freezing box (see e.g., Newman; fig. 1, [0011], regarding inlet 18); and the freezing mechanism further comprises a sprinkler component, wherein the sprinkler component is disposed within the freezing box, the sprinkler component is configured to provide the freezing medium to the inside of the freezing box (see e.g., Newman; fig. 1, [0012], regarding nozzles 34 distributing cryogenic spray 36), and the sprinkler component is disposed downstream of the medium outlet (see e.g., Newman; fig. 1, wherein the nozzles 34 are disposed in the middle between the inlet 18 and the outlet 20, which is downstream of the inlet 18).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN-110752349-A) (see translation), Mao (CN-111420853-A) (see translation), Newman (US-20170138661-A1), and in further view of Xu (CN-210816709-U) (see translation).
Regarding claim 6, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 5. Xie does not explicitly disclose the apparatus further comprising: a cooling mechanism, the cooling mechanism being configured to direct the freezing medium discharged from the freezing box through the medium outlet to the roller press mechanism to cool the roller press mechanism.
However, Xu discloses a cooling mechanism, the cooling mechanism being configured to direct the freezing medium discharged to the roller press mechanism to cool the roller press mechanism (see e.g., Xu; figs. 5, 9, [0059], [0065], regarding transporting coolant inside the roll press mechanism which cools the roller press mechanism). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus of Xu by providing a cooling mechanism, the cooling mechanism being configured to direct the freezing medium discharged from the freezing box through the medium outlet of modified Xie to the roller press mechanism to cool the roller press mechanism as provided by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to compensate for correct slight deformation of the pressing roller, reduce the possibility and degree of deviation in electrode thickness, and thus improve and stabilize product quality (see e.g., Xu; [0010]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 6.
In the same modification above regarding claim 6, Xie modified with Xu provides wherein: the roller press mechanism comprises two press rollers (see e.g., Xu; figs. 1, 3, 5), the two press rollers being disposed opposite each other to roller press the electrode plate passing between the two press rollers (see e.g., Xu; figs. 1, 3, 5); and the cooling mechanism comprises two branch pipes (see e.g., Xu; figs. 3, 5, 9, wherein the two branch pipes may correspond with two of the inlet 551 and outlet 552 pipes connected to both press rollers), each of the two branch pipes being connected to the medium outlet to guide the freezing medium discharged from the medium outlet to the two press rollers (see above regarding claim 6 wherein the modification provides that the connection is from the freezing medium discharge of modified Xie to the press rollers).
Regarding claim 8, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 7. “and/or” is interpreted as “or” according to BRI.
In the same modification above regarding claims 6 and 7, Xie modified with Xu provides a second adjusting switch is disposed on the branch pipe, and the second adjusting switch is configured to adjust flow through the branch pipe (see e.g., Xu; fig. 9, [0061], [0063], regarding duel-pass rotary joint 54, which is a type of joint that transfers two independent streams of media simultaneously between a stationary supply and rotating equipment, thereby adjusting the flow through rotation motions).
Therefore, modified Xie with Xu teaches wherein the cooling mechanism comprises: a first adjusting switch, wherein the first adjusting switch is disposed at the medium outlet, and the first adjusting switch is configured to adjust flow of the freezing medium discharged from the medium outlet; and/or a second adjusting switch, wherein the second adjusting switch is disposed on the branch pipe, and the second adjusting switch is configured to adjust flow through the branch pipe.
Regarding claim 9, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 5. Xie does not explicitly disclose further comprising: multiple transmission rollers for winding the electrode plate, wherein the transmission rollers are configured to convey the electrode plate.
However, Xu discloses multiple transmission rollers for winding the electrode plate, wherein the transmission rollers are configured to convey the electrode plate (see e.g., Xu; fig. 3, [0051], regarding winding and unwinding rollers 11, 81, and guide rollers). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the multiple transition rollers as disclosed by Newman to convey the electrode plate of Xie in order to convey and take up the electrode sheet (see e.g., Xu; [0012], [0071]-[0072]).
Xie does not explicitly disclose the multiple transmission rollers are disposed inside the freezing box and located upstream of the sprinkler component. However, Newman discloses that transmission rollers are disposed inside the freezing box and located upstream of the sprinkler component (see e.g., Newman; fig. 1, regarding the conveyer in the cryogenic freezer box, part of which is disposed upstream of the sprinkler component). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Xie such that the multiple transmission rollers inside the freezing box and located upstream of the sprinkler component as disclosed by Xie in order to convey and take up the electrode sheet (see e.g., Xu; [0012], [0071]-[0072]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN-110752349-A) (see translation), Mao (CN-111420853-A) (see translation), Newman (US-20170138661-A1), and in further view of Ikejiri (US-20150236359-A1).
Regarding claim 10, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 5. Xie does not explicitly disclose a suction mechanism, wherein the suction mechanism is disposed at the medium outlet, and the suction mechanism is configured to extract the freezing medium from within the freezing box, facilitating discharge of the freezing medium from the medium outlet.
However, Ikejiri discloses a suction mechanism (see e.g., Ikejiri; fig. 1, [0038], [0043]-[0044], [0072], regarding suction fan 24), wherein the suction mechanism is disposed at a medium outlet (see e.g., Ikejiri; fig. 1, [0072], wherein the fan is disposed at an outlet), and the suction mechanism is configured to extract medium from within, facilitating discharge of the medium from the medium outlet (see e.g., Ikejiri; fig. 1, [0043]-[0044], [0072], wherein the suction fan 24 sucks gas from the chamber). Ikejiri is further analogous art because Ikejiri discloses that nitrogen is supplied to the chamber (see e.g., Ikejiri; [0038], [0042], [0059]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of modified Xie to comprise a suction mechanism, wherein the suction mechanism is disposed at the medium outlet, and the suction mechanism is configured to extract the freezing medium from within the freezing box, facilitating discharge of the freezing medium from the medium outlet as provided by Ikejiri. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce cost, save resources, and facilitate manufacturing (see e.g., Ikejiri; [0007]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN-110752349-A) (see translation), Mao (CN-111420853-A) (see translation), and in further view of Xu (CN-210816709-U) (see translation).
Regarding claim 11, modified Xie teaches the electrode plate manufacturing apparatus according to claim 1. Xie does not explicitly disclose a cooling mechanism, the cooling mechanism being configured to cool the roller press mechanism.
However, Xu discloses a cooling mechanism, the cooling mechanism being configured to cool the roller press mechanism (see e.g., Xu; figs. 3, 5, 9, [0059], [0065], regarding transporting coolant inside the roll press mechanism which cools the roller press mechanism). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Xie with the cooling mechanism disclosed by Xu in order to compensate for correct slight deformation of the pressing roller, reduce the possibility and degree of deviation in electrode thickness, and thus improve and stabilize product quality (see e.g., Xu; [0010]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights