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 .
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 2-3, 8 and 19-20 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 2 recites: “wherein the metal includes at least one of lithium, indium, tin, lead, and sodium.”
Claim 3 recites: “wherein the foil is configured as an active layer of a battery electrode.”
Wherein statements are used to further define previously set forth elements. In this case, a wherein statement is used to further define an element (metal and foil) that was not previously, positively set forth, which makes it unclear if the recited element is required by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of examination, the recitations of claims 2 and 3 are considered to be intended use recitations.
Claim 8 recites: “further comprising polymeric support members between adjacent ones of the cooling rollers.” It is unclear how the support members can be adjacent (of the cooling rollers). It is noted that claim 4 set forth a plurality of cooling rollers, with only 2 rollers it would not be possible to have adjacent ones.
Claim 19 recites: “wherein the metal includes at least one of lithium, indium, tin, lead, and sodium, and the foil is configured as an active layer of a battery electrode.” Wherein statements are used to further define previously set forth elements. In this case, a wherein statement is used to further define an element (metal and foil) that was not previously, positively set forth, which makes it unclear if the recited element is required by the claimed apparatus. For purposes of examination, the recitations are considered to be intended use recitations.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukase et al. (hereafter “Fukase”)(US 2002/038696).
With regards to claim 1, Fukase discloses a system configured to roll a metal into a foil, the system comprising:
work rollers (15, 15) spaced apart to accommodate the metal therebetween, the work rollers configured to press and roll material [it noted are that the rollers are configured to press/roll any material and therefore would be capable of pressing metal into the foil]; and
a cooling subsystem (14, 14) spaced apart from the work rollers on a work line configured to feed the metal to the work rollers, the cooling subsystem configured to cool the metal as the metal moves along the work line [ as described in at least paragraph 0034 and as seen in Figure 1].
With regards to claims 2-3, as interpreted under 112 section above, Fukase discloses a system capable of rolling and pressing the particularly claimed metal and foil.
With regards to claim 4, Fukase discloses wherein the cooling subsystem includes cooling rollers defining channels (23, 33) therein configured to receive coolant to cool the cooling rollers and cool the foil in contact with the cooling rollers.
With regards to claim 5, Fukase discloses wherein the channels (23, 33) extend entirely through the cooling rollers parallel to an axis of rotation of the cooling rollers, as seen in Figure 2.
Claims 1-3, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakata et al. (hereafter “Nakata”)(US 2011/0162427).
With regards to claim 1, Nakata discloses a system configured to roll a metal into a foil, the system comprising:
work rollers (10, 11) spaced apart to accommodate the metal therebetween, the work rollers configured to press and roll material [it noted are that the rollers are configured to press/roll any material and therefore would be capable of pressing metal into the foil]; and
a cooling subsystem (at least elements, 1, 2, 3 and 6) spaced apart from the work rollers on a work line configured to feed the metal to the work rollers, the cooling subsystem configured to cool the metal as the metal moves along the work line [as described in at least paragraph 0067 and as seen in Figure 1].
With regards to claims 2-3, as interpreted under 112 section above, Nakata discloses a system capable of rolling and pressing the particularly claimed metal and foil.
With regards to claim 16, Nakata discloses a system configured to roll a metal into a foil, the system comprising:
work rollers (10, 11) spaced apart to accommodate the metal therebetween, the work rollers configured to press and roll material [it noted are that the rollers are configured to press/roll any material and therefore would be capable of pressing metal into the foil]; and
a cooling subsystem (at least elements 1, 2, 3, 6) spaced apart from the work rollers on a work line configured to feed the metal to the work rollers, as seen in at least Figure 1, the cooling subsystem including an upper guide (1) and a lower guide (2) on opposite sides of the work line, at least one of the upper guide and the lower guide is configured to be cooled with a coolant to cool the metal as the metal moves through the cooling subsystem [as described in at least paragraph 0067].
With regards to claim 19, Nakata discloses a system configured to roll a metal into a foil, the system comprising:
work rollers (10, 11) spaced apart to accommodate the metal therebetween, the work rollers configured to press and roll material [it noted are that the rollers are configured to press/roll any material and therefore would be capable of pressing metal into the foil]; and
a cooling subsystem (1, 2, 3, 6) spaced apart from the work rollers on a work line configured to feed the metal to the work rollers, as seen in at least Figure 1, the cooling subsystem including an upper guide (1) and a lower guide (2) on opposite sides of the work line, at least one of the upper guide and the lower guide is configured to be cooled with a coolant to cool the metal as the metal moves through the cooling subsystem [as described in at least paragraph 0067];
wherein, as interpreted under 112 section above, Nakata discloses a system capable of rolling and pressing the particularly claimed metal and foil.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukase in view of Bergmans et al. (hereafter “Bergmans”)(US 2005/0150631).
Fukase discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the channels extend non-linearly relative to an axis of rotation of the rollers. Bergmans is relied upon to teach a cooling roller with cooling channels wherein the channels (3) extend non-linearly relative to an axis of rotation of the rollers, as seen in Figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Fukase’s cooling roller with a non-linearly extending channel as taught by Bergmans because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukase in view of Charpentier et al. (hereafter “Charpentier”) (US Patent 5,642,772).
Fukase discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the channels include an inlet and an outlet at a common side of the cooling rollers. Charpentier is relied upon to teach a cooling roller with cooling channels wherein the channels include an inlet (3) and an outlet (9) at a common side of the cooling rollers, as seen in Figure 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Fukase’s cooling roller with the inlet and outlet on a common side as taught by Charpentier because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-15 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and further show the state of the art: US 2010/0175452 and US Patents 5,651,410 and 4,242,781.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725