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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed January 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 12 are currently amended. Claims 15-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-14 are under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: at line 2, “wherein further” should be - - further - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2023/085796; published May 19, 2023) in view of either one of Kim et al. (US 2020/0185698) or Okabe et al. (US 2012/0045689) alone or further in view of Hackfort et al. (WO 2023/078487).
Note: US 2025/0038165 is utilized as the English language equivalent to WO 2023/085796 and US 2024/0413296 is utilized as the English language equivalent to WO 2023/078487 for all citations in this Office Action.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kim et al. teach an electrode calendering system for reducing post-calendering electrode wrinkling (paragraphs [0006], [0010]) the electrode calendering system comprising: at least one roller configured to compress an electrode, the roller defined by an outer surface configured to contact the electrode, the outer surface having a first edge portion at a first side of the roller, a second edge portion at a second side of the roller opposing the first side, and a middle portion disposed between the first edge portion and the second edge portion (Abstract; paragraphs [0002], [0009], [0020], [0024], [0025], [0027], [0032], [0033], [0035], [0044]-[0046], [0086], [0096], [0097], [0129], [0132], [0133]; Figures 3-11 (40) (41) (413) (A) ); and a sleeve/step ring/step surface disposed about the outer surface of the roller, the sleeve having an outer surface configured to contact the electrode, the sleeve having a controllable thickness extending from the outer surface of the roller to adjust a pressure between an edge of the electrode and the sleeve when the outer surface of the sleeve contacts an edge of the electrode and the middle portion of the outer surface of the roller contacts the interior region of the electrode, wherein the outer surface of the sleeve has a larger diameter than the middle portion of the outer surface of the roller (Abstract; paragraphs [0002], [0027], [0032], [0033], [0035], [0044]-[0046], [0055]-[0069], [0096], [0097], [0129], [-132], [0133], [0138], [0152], [0158], [0160]; Figures 3-11 (42) (422); “controllable thickness” = able to control the thickness by thermal expansion of the sleeve relative to the rest of the roller; sleeve(s) are positioned at desired/required location(s) based upon electrode structure being produced – either a single electrode or multiple electrodes with multi-lanes).
Kim et al. suggest placing the sleeve/step ring at uncoated locations and further suggest embodiments that don’t include multiple lanes of uncoated regions are within the scope of the disclosure (paragraphs [0009], [0011], [0020]-[0027], [0032]-[0035], [0086], [0096], [0097], and [0152]). However, Kim et al. do not explicitly teach the region is “only along the first edge portion” (i.e. there is a portion where a sleeve is only found only the first edge) or a second sleeve along the second edge portion such that the first edge portion and the second edge portion of the roller align with first and second outer edges of the electrode when the electrode contacts the roller, the middle portion configured to contact an interior region of the electrode between the first and second outer edges such that the sleeve contacts the electrode at the edges as claimed and disclosed (e.g. to duplicate a configuration such as that shown in Figure 2 of the instant application).
However, each of Kim et al. ‘698 (Figures 2B, 4B, 5, 6) and Okabe et al. (Figures 2B as one option and Figure 6 as another option) disclose analogous systems wherein it is clear that the corresponding uncoated locations may be located along the edge portions in a configuration as claimed and disclosed
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kim et al. with either one of Kim et al. ‘698 or Okabe et al. and to have produced an electrode coated with active material in the middle section with the edges uncoated with the system of Kim et al., as suggested by either one of Kim et al. ‘698 or Okabe et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of producing an electrode having a desired size/configuration for a given application. In the combination, the sleeve(s) of Kim et al. are positioned at the required edge location(s) on the roller and are configured to contact the electrode in the claimed manner (e.g. sleeves/rings (42) and (422) are positioned only at the outer edges of roller (413) in Kim et al. to contact only uncoated portions at the outer edges of the electrode structure in a manner that looks the same as Figure 2 of the instant application). In combination, each and every limitation of the claims is taught and suggested by the combined prior art.
As set forth above, Kim et al. is understood to disclose a system with a sleeve having a “controllable thickness” as claimed (e.g. for example, through thermal expansion the sleeve is capable of being controlled in the claimed manner as the material of the sleeve/step ring in Kim et al. is different than the material of the rest of the roll). Alternatively, Hackfort et al. disclose an analogous system wherein a sleeve/shell has a controllable thickness as claimed (Figures 1-3; shell/sleeve (4); paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0008], [0011], [0012] – segmented temperature zones; [0024]-[0032], [0039]-[0041], [0058] – shell expands).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kim et al. and Hackfort et al. and to have utilized a sleeve/step ring having a controllable thickness, as the sleeve/step ring in the system of Kim et al., as suggested by Hackfort et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Hackfort et al. of further controlling the pressure applied to the surface at the required locations to achieve a desired uniformity.
As to claim 3, the thickness suggested by Kim et al. or Kim et al. taken with Hackfort et al. is capable of having the thickness adjusted passively (e.g. through thermal expansion when contacted with material or in response to other factors). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 12, Hackfort et al. teach the utilization of sensors and a control system to control the temperature within the system to thereby control pressure (paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0033], [0037], and [0038]). As to the location of the sensors and the particular type of sensor (e.g. optical) one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a routine expedient to have located the sensors and to have selected a particular type of sensor for identifying properties associated with the process (e.g. thickness uniformity of the electrode, temperature, gap size, pressure) for controlling the temperature/pressure/force/thickness in order to produce an electrode having desired properties with desired uniformity as suggested by Hackfort et al. As such, each and every additional limitation of the claim is taught or reasonably suggested by Hackfort et al. The reason to provide the claimed limitations from the teaching of Hackfort et al. to the system of Kim et al. is to further control the process of Kim et al. to achieve desired final product properties.
As to claim 13, the thickness suggested by Kim et al. or Kim et al. taken with Hackfort et al. is capable of having the thickness adjusted actively through the intentional application of heat (e.g. Hackfort et al. teach actively controlling the tempering zones to control the gap/adjust the thickness/adjust the pressure [0004], [0007], [0008], [0011], [0012] – segmented temperature zones; [0024]-[0032], [0039]-[0041], [0058] – shell expands). The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
Claims 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2023/085796; published May 19, 2023) in view of either one of Kim et al. (US 2020/0185698) or Okabe et al. (US 2012/0045689) alone or further in view of Hackfort et al. (WO 2023/078487), as applied to claims 1-3, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Madden et al. (US 2023/0139916). Note: US 2024/0413296 is utilized as the English language equivalent for all citations in this Office Action.
As to claims 8, 10 and 11, the combination teaches the system set forth above. Kim et al. do not teach the sleeve includes a smart material as claimed or that the smart material is integrated into a support layer(s) as claimed.
However, Madden et al. teach an analogous roller wherein the roller includes a smart material element integrated into support layer(s) as claimed (Abstract; Figures 2-4; paragraphs [0002]-[0019], [0039], [0040], [0097]-[0104]).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kim et al. and Madden et al. and to have further utilized smart material elements in the sleeve of Kim et al., as suggested by Madden et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Madden et al., of procuring additional process measurements during rolling to thereby further control the rolling process and improving the results (e.g. controlled thickness; thickness uniformity).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2023/085796; published May 19, 2023) in view of either one of Kim et al. (US 2020/0185698) or Okabe et al. (US 2012/0045689) alone or further in view of Hackfort et al. (WO 2023/078487), as applied to claims 1-3, 12 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0165422).
As to claims 8-11, the combination teaches the system set forth above. Kim et al. do not teach or suggest a smart material as claimed or that the smart material is integrated into a support layer(s) as claimed. However, Kim et al. ‘422 teach an analogous roller wherein the roller includes a smart material element/shape memory alloy integrated into support layer(s) as claimed (Abstract; Figures 1-6; paragraphs [0002], [0008], [0016], [0025], [0051]; claim 8).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘422 and to have further utilized smart material elements, including a shape memory alloy, in the sleeve of Kim et al., as suggested by Kim et al. ‘422, for the purpose, as suggested by Kim et al. ‘422, of improving and simplifying the ability to provide a pattern on the surface electrode (paragraphs [0002]-[0026]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2023/085796; published May 19, 2023) in view of either one of Kim et al. (US 2020/0185698) or Okabe et al. (US 2012/0045689) alone or further in view of Hackfort et al. (WO 2023/078487), as applied to claims 1-3, 12 and 13 above alone or further in view of Madden et al. (US 2023/0139916). Note: US 2024/0413296 is utilized as the English language equivalent for all citations in this Office Action.
As to claim 14, the combination teaches the system set forth above. Further, Hackfort et al. teach the utilization of sensors and a control system to control the temperature within the system to thereby control pressure (paragraphs [0029], [0030], [0033], [0037], and [0038]; see section 112b rejection also). As to the location of the sensors and the particular type of sensor (e.g. force or pressure) one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious at the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a routine expedient to have located the sensors and to have selected a particular type of sensor for identifying properties associated with the process (e.g. thickness uniformity of the electrode, temperature, gap size, pressure) for controlling the temperature/pressure/force/thickness in order to produce an electrode having desired properties with desired uniformity as suggested by Hackfort et al. As such, each and every additional limitation of the claim is taught or reasonably suggested by Hackfort et al. The reason to provide the claimed limitations from the teaching of Hackfort et al. to the system of Kim et al. is to further control the process of Kim et al. to achieve desired final product properties.
Alternatively, Madden et al. provide additional teaching wherein the sensor is a force sensor utilized for controlling the utilization of the roller (Abstract; paragraphs [0007], [0012], [0030], [0031], [0040], [0073]).
Therefore, in the alternative, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Kim et al. and Madden et al. and to have further included a force or pressure sensor as claimed in the system of Kim et al., as suggested by Madden et al., for the purpose, as suggested by the references of, further controlling the calendering system to achieve a desired final product with desired properties (e.g. thickness, thickness uniformity, extent of compaction).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 6, 2026 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742