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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the groove 26 as described in the specification.
Specifically, Figure 18 includes an identifier “26” which points to a groove. However, Paragraph [0068] teaches, “a groove 26 can be formed on the outer surface of the sleeve main body 21, and the first protruding parts 22 can be engaged with the groove 26 to achieve sliding the first protruding parts 22 in the groove 26.” This arrangement is not shown in Fig 18, or any other Figure in the Drawings.
Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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.
The term “expansion structure” in claim 13 will be interpreted under 112(f).
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.
Claim limitation “expansion structure” in claim 13 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. Applicant’s Specification described an “expansion structure” in paragraphs 0093-0096. No particular structure is discussed. The specification describes a “gas-expansion structure” and a “liquid-expansion structure.” The gas-expansion structure may be filled with air. The structure can be arranged on an outer wall face of the main roller. The expansion structure has an “inflatable tightening part” which itself would invoke 112(f) and has no particular structure. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ma (CN 212558741 U).
As to claim 1, Ma teaches a flattening device (wrinkle roller 100) for flattening an electrode plate (pole piece 300), comprising: a main roller (rotating shaft 110); and a plurality of sleeves (there are a plurality of first roller columns 120 and second roller column 130 as shown in Fig 1), sleeved on the main roller and arranged at intervals in an axial direction of the main roller (as illustrated in Fig 1); wherein: the sleeves are detachably connected to the main roller (the columns 120, 130 are connected to the shaft 110 by the expansion of the shaft), so that positions of the sleeves in the axial direction of the main roller are adjustable (“Adopting said structure, it is convenient for the first roller column 120 and the second roller column 130 in the using process, according to the different structure of the to-be-processed pole piece to different combined assembly adjustment.” (Paragraph 4 of “Specific Implementation Examples,” Page 4)); the sleeves are in contact with the electrode plate to flatten the electrode plate when the electrode plate passes through the sleeves (Page 5-6 teaches: “Specifically, the working process of the pole piece wrinkle removing roller assembly provided by the utility model is as follows: starting the servo motor 200, pole piece 300 by rotating the wrinkle roller 100, the wrinkle roller 100 in the second roller column 130, namely: the second cylinder through the special radian of the wrinkle area of the pole piece 300 for flattening and removing wrinkle; according to the size of different folds, can select different levels of the second roller column 130 and the first roller column 120 combination for flattening and wrinkle removing, so as to achieve the wrinkle-removing effect. after finishing the wrinkle removing process, closing the servo motor 200.”); and at least two of the sleeves have different dimensions in the axial direction and/or at least two of the sleeves have different surface patterns (the broadest reasonable interpretation between this and/or option is the “or” option. In this case, the first roller columns 120 and second roller columns 130 are illustrated in Fig 1 as having different dimensions in the axial direction. I.e., the first roller columns 120 are wider than the second roller columns 130. This is repeatedly illustrated in Fig 1, and by the workpiece 300 which illustrated areas 310 as wider than areas 320.).
As to claim 2, Ma teaches the flattening device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the sleeves (second roller column 130) comprises a sleeve main body and a first protruding part (the roller column 130 has a roughness Ra>0.2, see Page 5: “the second roller column 130 and the first roller column 120 of the cylinder end surface roughness Ra > 0.2”), the sleeve main body is sleeved on the main roller and detachably connected to the main roller (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the roller column 130 has be detached from the shaft 110 when the shaft is deflated), and the first protruding part protrudes from an outer surface of the sleeve main body (Ra (average roughness) measures the deviation of a surface from a mean height. Thus, any portion of the surface of the roller column 130 that protrudes above the mean height is considered a “first protruding part.”).
As to claim 3, Ma teaches the flattening device according to claim 2, wherein the first protruding part is one of a plurality of first protruding parts provided at the at least one of the sleeves (the average roughness Ra measures the deviation of a surface from a mean height. There are a plurality of deviations, any of which that protrude above the mean surface are considered here to be the “plurality of first protruding parts.”), and the plurality of first protruding parts are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the sleeve main body (As the roughness Ra measured the average deviation, there must be indentations as well as protrusions. Thus the protrusions are formed in intervals with the indentations. The roughness is measured on the outer circumferential surface of the second roller column 130 which is in a circumferential direction.).
As to claim 13, Ma teaches the flattening device according to claim 1, further comprising: an expansion structure (the term “expansion structure” invokes 112(F). The specification is silent with regards to the structure of an “expansion structure.”) arranged between the main roller and the sleeves, wherein the main roller is detachably connected with the sleeves through the expansion structure (as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Ma teaches “Preferably, the rotating shaft is a rotating gas expansion shaft” at Page 2).
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (CN 212558741 U) in view of Liu (CN 213150811 U).
As to claim 1, Ma teaches a flattening device (wrinkle roller 100) for flattening an electrode plate (pole piece 300), comprising: a main roller (rotating shaft 110); and a plurality of sleeves (there are a plurality of first roller columns 120 and second roller column 130 as shown in Fig 1), sleeved on the main roller and arranged at intervals in an axial direction of the main roller (as illustrated in Fig 1); wherein: the sleeves are detachably connected to the main roller (the columns 120, 130 are connected to the shaft 110 by the expansion of the shaft), so that positions of the sleeves in the axial direction of the main roller are adjustable (“Adopting said structure, it is convenient for the first roller column 120 and the second roller column 130 in the using process, according to the different structure of the to-be-processed pole piece to different combined assembly adjustment.” (Paragraph 4 of “Specific Implementation Examples,” Page 4)); the sleeves are in contact with the electrode plate to flatten the electrode plate when the electrode plate passes through the sleeves (Page 5-6 teaches: “Specifically, the working process of the pole piece wrinkle removing roller assembly provided by the utility model is as follows: starting the servo motor 200, pole piece 300 by rotating the wrinkle roller 100, the wrinkle roller 100 in the second roller column 130, namely: the second cylinder through the special radian of the wrinkle area of the pole piece 300 for flattening and removing wrinkle; according to the size of different folds, can select different levels of the second roller column 130 and the first roller column 120 combination for flattening and wrinkle removing, so as to achieve the wrinkle-removing effect. after finishing the wrinkle removing process, closing the servo motor 200.”); and at least two of the sleeves have different dimensions in the axial direction and/or at least two of the sleeves have different surface patterns (In this interpretation, the choice of “different surface patterns” is chosen for examination. Ma does not teach any of the first or second roller columns have different surface patterns. However, providing different surface patterns for different portions of a flattening roller was known at the time the invention was effectively filed. See Liu which teaches flattening rollers 310 having patterns on their outer surface. Liu’s rollers with patterns perform the same function as Ma’s rollers, which is to flatten and de-wrinkle a “pole piece” in a lithium battery production line. Near the bottom of Page 6, Liu describes an embodiment of a roller being an “arc roller.” The “arc roller” has different surface configurations along the axial direction. See also Liu Figure 4 which shows different patterns along the axial direction of the roller. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have applied the different patterns of Liu to the different second roller columns of Ma. Specifically, as Ma’s second roller columns 130 are located at different axial locations along the shaft, and Liu teaches a pattern should be different at different axial locations along the shaft, each of Ma’s second roller columns 130 would correspondingly have a different pattern. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the superior surface friction as described by Liu at Page 5 paragraph 3: “The bending roller 110 may have a pattern, for example, the bending roller 110 may have a transverse striation, a vertical grain, a flat bean grain, an eight-character pattern, and the like. different patterns can provide different friction, splayed pattern not only can provide longitudinal friction, but also can provide transverse friction, can make the pole piece 600 transverse flattening and longitudinal extending, reducing pole piece 600 crinkling phenomenon; cross grain, vertical grain, flat bean grain pattern can increase the longitudinal friction force, can strengthen the strain of the pole piece 600, at the same time, increasing the crack expansion difficulty, reaching the purpose of reducing the broken belt condition.”).
As to claim 2, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the sleeves (second roller column 130) comprises a sleeve main body and a first protruding part (Liu’s pattern is considered to protrude above the surface of the sleeve), the sleeve main body is sleeved on the main roller and detachably connected to the main roller (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Ma’s roller column 130 has be detached from the shaft 110 when the shaft is deflated), and the first protruding part protrudes from an outer surface of the sleeve main body (Liu’s pattern is considered to protrude above the surface of the sleeve).
As to claim 3, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 2, wherein the first protruding part is one of a plurality of first protruding parts provided at the at least one of the sleeves (there are many portions of the pattern as shown in Liu’s Fig 4 and Fig 5, for example), and the plurality of first protruding parts are arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the sleeve main body (as shown in Liu’s Fig 5).
As to claim 4, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 2, wherein the first protruding part extends in the axial direction (as shown in Liu Fig 5).
As to claim 5, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 2, wherein an extending direction of the first protruding part is inclined relative to the axial direction (as shown in Liu Fig 4).
As to claim 6, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 5, but does not teach an inclined angle of the extending direction of the first protruding part relative to the axial direction is in a range of 1°-80°.
However, if the angle shown in Fig 5 is 0°, and a perfectly vertical pattern would be 90°, the angle illustrated in Fig 4 is clearly between 0° and 90°, and also obviously within the claimed range of 1° and 80°. Applicant has not disclosed that having the protruding part extend at this particular angle range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the pattern of Liu, or applicant’s invention, would perform equally well with the protruding part extending at any reasonable angle.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Liu such that the protruding part extended at an angle of 1 to 80 degrees because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Liu.
As to claim 7, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 2, wherein the first protruding part extends in a spiral shape (see Liu Fig 4. Any inclined pattern on the surface of a cylinder is a spiral shape).
As to claim 8, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one of the sleeves comprises two sleeves each comprising a sleeve main body and a first protruding part, wherein extending directions of the first protruding parts of the two sleeves are arranged at an angle between each other, and the two sleeves are symmetrically sleeved on the main roller (ass Liu Fig 4 which shows a pattern having inclined parts which are mirrored about a center line. As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, the pattern of Liu (found on a single roller) is suggested to be applied to the various second roller columns 130 of Ma. Thus it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have applied the symmetrical pattern of Liu to the several roller columns 130 of Ma.
As to claim 9, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the sleeves comprises at least two arc segments sequentially distributed in the axial direction (Liu Page 5 Paragraph 3 teaches: “The bending roller 110 may have a pattern, for example, the bending roller 110 may have a transverse striation, a vertical grain, a flat bean grain, an eight-character pattern, and the like.” The “vertical grain” is distinguished from the pattern shown in Fig 5 which is a transverse grain. The vertical grain represents the arc segments sequentially distributed in the axial direction), the at least two arc segments are protruded, and an outer surface of each of the arc segments is an arc surface with the same curvature (each of the patterns are “protruded” as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Liu’s vertical grain necessarily has the same arc surface as one another as the roller is a cylinder).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 114348739 A).
As to claim 10, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 1, but does not teach at least one of the sleeves comprises a first segment and a second segment sequentially distributed in the axial direction, the first segment and the second segment are arranged to gradually expand in directions close to each other respectively, and the sleeves are sleeved on a middle region of the main roller.
Rather, Liu described an “arc roller” where the outer edges (in the axial direction) protrude above the surface. This is the opposite configuration as claimed. However, different configurations of anti-wrinkle devices were known in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed. Specifically, Chen teaches an anti-wrinkle device having an anti-crease body protruding in the middle portion, which is the configuration claimed. Both Liu and Chen teach the configurations of a protruding portion helps to decrease wrinkles in the pole piece. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have applied the configuration of Chen to the sleeves of Ma. Such a person would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve the anti-wrinkle performance described by Chen. See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In this case, the predictable result of applying Chen’s protruding middle configuration to the sleeves of Ma is the reduction in wrinkles.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 107068968 A).
As to claim 11, Ma in view of Liu teaches the flattening device according to claim 1, but does not teach the sleeves are elastic sleeves.
Rather, Ma teaches the sleeves are metal (aluminum). However, in the field of anti-wrinkle devices for lithium battery pole pieces, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for roller sleeves to be either metal or rubber. See Wang which teaches the roller surface of the drive roller can be rubber, metal, or ceramic (Paragraph 2 of “Preferred Embodiment, Page 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have swapped the material of the sleeves of Ma for the rubber material of Wang. Such a person would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Wang teaches the rubber, metal, and ceramic surfaces are interchangeable. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu (CN 215266365 U).
12. The flattening device according to a claim 1, but does not teach: the main roller comprises a roller body and a plurality of second protruding parts, each of the second protruding parts protrudes from an outer surface of the roller body; and an inner surface of at least one of the sleeves is provided with grooves engaged with the second protruding parts.
Rather, Ma is silent regarding the inner surface of the sleeves. However, in the field of anti-wrinkle devices for pole pieces of lithium batteries, it was known at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide for parts protruding from the roller body and grooves on the inner surface of the sleeves. See Hu which teaches grooves 2032 on the inner surface of the sleeve 203. Hu also teaches protruding parts 2023 on the roller body 202. Hu teaches the stripes 2032 and 2023 are “skid proof” which are useful for preventing the sleeves 203 from slipping.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have provided for the skid-proof patterns 2023, and 2032 on the corresponding surfaces as claimed. Such a person would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to achieve the benefit of preventing skidding of Ma’s sleeves.
See also MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB JAMES CIGNA whose telephone number is (571)270-5262. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JACOB J CIGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 4 March 2026