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 December 10, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-8 and 10 are currently amended. Claim 5 has been canceled. Claim 11 is new. Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are pending and under examination.
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 1-4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 2022/0158153) in view of any one of Toyoda et al. (JP 2021064486), Sato et al. (JP 2021081347), or Yu et al. (US 2024/0363829).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Mimura et al. teach a method for operating a rolling device (Figure 1 (100); paragraph [0038]) for manufacturing an electrode sheet (Abstract; paragraph [0001]) and a rolling device, the method comprising: providing the rolling device with a rolling mill to form a material film for the electrode sheet, including a roller pair and including an application roller, which is designed to be separate from the roller pair or is a part of the roller pair (Figure 1 (11) (12) – application roller; paragraphs [0039] and [0040]); supplying the application roller (12) with a substrate for the electrode sheet (Figure 1 (21); paragraphs [0061]-[0066]); forming a film forming gap, which is formed by the roller pair, which outputs a quantity of material, and which produces the material film therefrom (Figure 1 (23) produced by rolls (11) and (12); paragraph [0041], [0049]); applying the material film to the application roller (Figure 1; paragraphs [0041], [0049]); transferring the material film from the application roller to the substrate (Figure 1); providing the material film with a grammage and a film thickness, the grammage and/or the film thickness being regulated to a setpoint value; controlling the rolling device based on the grammage and/or the film thickness (paragraphs [0006]-[0020], [0045]-[0048], [0058], [0064], [0067], [0068], [0080]). Further, Mimura et al. teach a control unit ( Figure 1 (100)) comprising a control unit (40)) and the control unit is designed to carry out the method such that a variation in basis weight is minimized/generally controlling grammage to produce a desired electrode with appropriate setpoints. Mimura et al. do not explicitly teach the control is provided or the setpoints are achieved by measuring the grammage before the film is applied to the substrate and then subsequently controlling the process as claimed.
However, each of Toyoda et al. (Figures 3, 4 and 11; paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0024]-[0035] and [0045]-[0055]), Sato et al. (Figure 4; Abstract; paragraphs [0016]-[0039]), and Yu et al. (Figures 1-7; paragraphs [0006], [0009], [0021], [0029], [0052], [0055], [0056], [0061], [0062], [0071], [0072], [0075], [0085] and [0103]) teach analogous methods and rolling devices wherein the grammage is measured at a location as claimed and wherein the process is thereby controlled based on the measured grammage as claimed to achieve a desired final grammage and thickness in the product.
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 Mimura et al. and any one of the secondary references and to have measured the grammage before the film material is applied to the substrate and to then control the grammage to a setpoint value with a control unit and controller as claimed in the method and device of Mimura et al., as suggested by any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of producing an electrode sheet having a desired weight per unit area and thickness suited for its intended application. In combination, each and every limitation of the claimed method and the claimed rolling device are taught and suggested by the applied references.
As to claim 2, the gap width in Mimura et al. is part of the control scheme (e.g. the gap is measured and the result of this measurement is utilized to change the speed of the rollers; paragraphs [0045], [0046], [0058], [0088]). In combination with the teaching of the secondary references as set forth above, the gap is controlled as claimed to regulate the grammage to the setpoint value. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 3, Mimura et al. teach operating the rollers at different speeds as claimed (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]). In combination with the teaching of the secondary references as set forth above, the speeds are controlled as claimed to regulate the grammage to the setpoint value. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 4, Mimura et al. teach measuring as claimed while the film is being applied to the corresponding application roller (Figure 1 (33); paragraphs [0047]). Further, in combination with the secondary references as set forth above, the measurement takes place at the required location. The reason to combine the references is the same as that set forth above.
As to claim 9, Mimura et al. disclose the material may be a dry powder or granulated material, as opposed to a wet material ([0050]-[0057]).
As to claim 10, Mimura et al. teach a rolling device (Figure 1 (100)) comprising a control unit (40) and the control unit is designed to carry out the method (claim 3; also see the section 112b rejection set forth above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 2022/0158153) in view of any one of Toyoda et al. (JP 2021064486), Sato et al. (JP 2021081347), or Yu et al. (US 2024/0363829), as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Tanaka (US 2020/0168889). Note: this is an alternative rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 4, the combination teaches and suggests the method set forth above. Alternatively, or additionally, Tanaka teaches an analogous method that further fleshes out that the speeds are controlled as claimed to achieve a desired base weight/grammage (Figure 1; paragraphs [0009]-[0015] and [0050]-[0054]; Examples).
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 Mimura et al. with Tanaka and any one of the other secondary references and to have controlled the grammage as claimed by operating the rollers at different speeds as claimed, in the method of Mimura et al., as suggested by Tanaka and any one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of achieving an electrode with desired final properties from dry starting materials.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 2022/0158153) in view of any one of Toyoda et al. (JP 2021064486), Sato et al. (JP 2021081347), or Yu et al. (US 2024/0363829), as applied to claims 1-4 and 9-11 above, and further in view of either one of Shinoya et al. (US 2022/0293918) or Arcelor (EP 1 551 567).
As to claim 6 and 7, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Mimura et al. do not teach the addition of a transfer roll utilized as claimed. However, each of Shinoya et al. (Figure 5; paragraphs [0066]-[0078] and [0100]) and Arcelor (Figure 5; Abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0002], [0011]-[0018], [0025]-[0031], [0037]-[0045]) teach analogous methods wherein a transfer roller is utilized as claimed.
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 Mimura et al. and either one of the secondary references and to have utilized a transfer roller as claimed in the method of Mimura et al., as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references of facilitating the effective application and formation of layers with rollers in an art recognized suitable manner. In the combination, each and every limitation is taught and suggested by the combination of references.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US 2022/0158153) in view of any one of Toyoda et al. (JP 2021064486), Sato et al. (JP 2021081347), or Yu et al. (US 2024/0363829), as applied to claims 1-4, and 9-11 above, and further in view of Hamabe et al. (US 2016/0052010).
As to claim 8, the combination teaches the method set forth above. Mimura et al. do not teach utilizing a further rolling mill as claimed to produce a further material on an opposite side of the substrate to produce films with thickness differences that are minimized/same thickness. However, Hamabe et al. teach an analogous method wherein a further rolling mill as claimed is utilized to produce a further material on an opposite side of the substrate to produce films on both sides as claimed (Abstract; Figure 4; paragraph [0055]).
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 Mimura et al. and Hamabe et al. and to have utilized a further rolling mill as claimed to produce a further material on an opposite side of the substrate to produce films on both sides as claimed in the method of Mimura et al., as suggested by Hamabe et al., for the purpose, as suggested by Hamabe et al., of providing the material on both sides of the substrate (e.g. for added effect and/or different applications).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed December 10, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of the new ground 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