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 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eneos (WO2015/064685 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eneos discloses an electrode plate manufacturing apparatus for a secondary battery (4th paragraph under description), the apparatus comprising:
a supply reel (72) configured to supply a substrate,
the substrate (80) having a first surface that is uncoated and a second surface that is at least partially coated (applicants claim is directed to the product so the coating of the substrate is not considered pertinent to the structural features of the apparatus);
and a patterner (90) the patterner including a polygon roller (90 see figures 19-20 and figure 22) and a support roller (74) facing each other, the patterner being configured to pattern the substrate passing between the polygon roller and the support roller (pg 22 paragraph 11, further, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities);
and the polygon roller including convex curved portions that extend in an axial direction of the polygon roller and that are arranged in a circumferential direction of the polygon roller (see figure 22 and pg. 22 paragraph 11).
Eneos does not explicitly disclose the patterner is adjacent to the supply reel. However, MPEP 2144.04 states In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975) The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the patterner is adjacent to the supply reel since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Eneos discloses wherein each of the convex curved portions has a continuous gradient (pg.22 paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 3, Eneos discloses wherein: a cross-section in a direction perpendicular to the axial direction of the polygon roller includes convex portions respectively corresponding to the convex curved portions (see figure 22).
Eneos does not explicitly disclose each of the convex portions has a distance, greater than or equal to 0.4 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm, between an intersection of a tangent line at a start point of each of the convex portions and a circular arc and an intersection of a tangent line at an end point of each of the convex portions and a circular arc, and each of the circular arcs is a virtual arc that passes through a midpoint of one convex portion among the convex portions and midpoints of two convex portions adjacent to the one convex portion. However, Eneos discloses the diameter can be 50 to 1000 mm and the axial length can be 50 to 3000 mm (pg. 22 paragraph 2 under transfer section). MPEP 2144.05 discloses In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each of the convex portions has a distance, greater than or equal to 0.4 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm, between an intersection of a tangent line at a start point of each of the convex portions and a circular arc and an intersection of a tangent line at an end point of each of the convex portions and a circular arc, and each of the circular arcs is a virtual arc that passes through a midpoint of one convex portion among the convex portions and midpoints of two convex portions adjacent to the one convex portion since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Eneos depicts each of the convex curved portions has a first radius of curvature, the polygon roller further includes concave curved portions alternating with the convex curved portions, each of the concave curved portions having a second radius of curvature, and the first radius of curvature is less than the second radius of curvature (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Eneos discloses the support roller (94) is positioned on the first surface of the substrate to support the first surface of the substrate, and the polygon roller (90) is positioned on the second surface of the substrate to pressurize the second surface of the substrate (see figures 15-17 and 19-20).
Regarding claim 6, Eneos discloses wherein the supply reel (72) is configured to supply the substrate such that the first surface of the substrate faces upward and the second surface of the substrate faces downward (see figures 15-17 and 19-20) and the polygon roller (90) is positioned on a lower side of the substrate (see figures 15-17 and 19-20, 90 is on the lower side of the substrate). Further, if Applicant does not agree that the polygon roller is on the lower side, MPEP 2144.04 discloses It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polygon roller positioned on a lower side since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without the modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, Eneos discloses a first driver (pg.22 paragraph 6) configured to lift and lower the polygon roller (the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities); and a controller (180) configured to control the first driver such that the polygon roller pressurizes the substrate at a pressure less than a predetermined pressure (pg27. Paragraph 1 under 20th embodiment).
Regarding claim 8, Eneos does not explicitly disclose further comprising a heater in front of the patterner. However, Enos does disclose installing a heater (pg. 9 paragraph 3). MPEP 2144.04 discloses It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a heater in front of the patterner since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without the modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Eneos teaches the heater includes a heating roller configured to heat the substrate (pg. 9 paragraph 3) and at least one guide roller (34) configured to guide the substrate such that the substrate passes through the heating roller by being in close contact with the heating roller. As for the configured language, the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Regarding claim 10, Eneos does not explicitly disclose the heating roller is positioned on the second surface of the substrate to heat the second surface of the substrate, and the at least one guide roller is positioned on the first surface of the substrate to support the first surface of the substrate. However, MPEP 2144.04 discloses It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the heating roller positioned on the second surface of the substrate to heat the second surface of the substrate, and the at least one guide roller is positioned on the first surface of the substrate to support the first surface of the substrate since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without the modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Eneos does not explicitly disclose wherein the polygon roller has a higher hardness than the support roller. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a polygon roller with a higher hardness than the support roller in order to ensure the concave/convex pattern is imprinted on the substrate. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Eneos discloses a feeding roller (72) configured to move the substrate in a process direction; a second driver (90d) configured to rotate the feeding roller (MPEP 2144.04 VI discloses In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced); and a controller (180) configured to control the second driver (23 under pg. 28).
Regarding claim 16, Eneos does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the polygon roller in the axial direction is greater than a length of the substrate in a width direction. However, MPEP 2144.04 In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. Further, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eneos (WO2015/064685 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of KR 20180111711.
Regarding claim 12, Eneos does not explicitly disclose the support roller is a sponge roller. However, analogous art, ‘711, discloses sponge in the roller (pg.4 paragraph 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a sponge, as taught by KR 20180111211, into the apparatus taught by Eneos for the benefit of softening the rollers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eneos (WO2015/064685 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Choi (US2016/0036085 A) in view of KR20060027257 A and Cheon et al (US 6,421,892 B2).
Regarding claim 13, Eneos discloses a controller (180) but does not explicitly disclose a notching device configured to pass through the patterner and punch a tab of the substrate; a cutter configured to cut the substrate passing through the notching device to make the electrode plate; a controller configured to control the notching device and the cutter; and a magazine configured to stack electrode plates made by the cutter. However,
However, analogous electrode art, Choi, discloses using a notching device [0045] in order to prevent drooping or sagging of the tab as a result of gravity or fluctuation [0008]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a notching device to punch a tab of the substrate as taught by Choi into the device taught be Eneos in order to prevent drooping or sagging of the tab.
As for the cutter, although Eneos does not explicitly disclose a cutter, it is conventionally well known to have cutting device. Analogous electrode art, KR20060027257, discloses using a cutting device in electrodes [abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a cutter since “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As for the magazine, analogous electrode art, Cheon et al, discloses using a magazine to load and stack electrode plates (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a magazine, as taught by Cheon, into the electrode taught by Eneos since "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eneos (WO2015/064685 A1), further in view of Choi (US2016/0036085 A) in view of KR20060027257 A and Cheon et al (US 6,421,892 B2) as applied to claim 13, and further in view of Ju et al (US 2016/0365598 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Eneos does not explicitly discloses further comprising a transfer device configured to vacuum-adsorb the electrode plates and transfer the electrode plates to the magazine. However, analogous electrode art, Ju et al, discloses a transfer device (gripper) configured to vacuum-adsorb the electrode plates and transfer the electrode plates to the magazine ([0015]; claim 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a transfer device configured to vacuum-adsorb the electrode plates and transfer the electrode plates to the magazine, as taught by Ju into the combination taught by Eneos for the benefit of automatically stacking fuel cells [0002].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754