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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A power component in claim 1 wherein power is a functional language with the term component being a generic placeholder for means.
A flexible transmission component wherein transmission is a functional language with the term component being a generic placeholder for means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A power component is interpreted as an electric motor disclosed in the specification (para 0107 on page 20 of the specification), or its equivalents thereof.
A flexible transmission component is interpreted as a belt or a chain disclosed in the specification (para 0107 on page 20 of the specification), or its equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et al (US 2019/0081317) in view of Coffelt (US 3,130,667).
With respect to claim 1, Keil discloses the electrode plate heating device claimed including a box (shown by a dryer 34; see Figure 12/13), two roller groups (shown by two sets of a top and a bottom group of rollers as shown in Figure 12/13) wherein the two roller groups are spaced apart along a first direction (shown by X-axis), each roller group comprises at least one first roller (e.g., 70A and 70B; also, see para 0053) for the electrode pate/substrate (20) to be alternatively wound around all the first group of rollers in the two groups successively, and a heating assembly (90) installed in the box configured to heat the electrode plate after coated (see para 0044).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But, Keli does not show a driving assembly comprising a power component and a flexible transmission component to transmit driving forces to rotate the first guide rollers wherein each guide roller includes a first portion engaged with the flexible transmission component and a second potion configured to contact the electrode plate as claimed.
Coffelt discloses it is known to provide a plurality of rollers (15), which are shown to be staggered as illustrated in Figure 3, wherein the rollers are driven to rotate by a driving assembly including a power component such as a motor (43) and a flexible transmission component such as a chain (48) wound around a shaft (12) of the guide rollers (see Figures 2 and 3) to provide a driving force to rotate the rollers (also, see column 3 ,lines 8-22) wherein each roller include a first portion (i.e., the shaft of the roller) that is engaged with the flexible transmission component and a second portion that is configured to contact a conveying part (21).
In view of Coffelt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Keli with a driving assembly having a power component (electric motor) and a flexible transmission component (chain/belt) to provide a driving force to rotate the rollers predictably at a desired rate to control the speed of a conveying part such as the electrode plate that is transported by the rollers.
With respect to claim 2, Keil discloses each roller group (top and bottom group) comprising a plurality of first guide rollers (shown by the top and bottom rollers) spaced apart along a second direction (shown by Y-axis) that is perpendicular to the first direction. Also, see annotated drawing above.
With respect to claim 3, Keil discloses the first guide rollers in the two roller groups are arranged in an staggered arrangement in the second direction.
With respect to claim 4, Keil discloses the axis of the first guide roller arranged along a third direction (i.e., Z-axis) perpendicular to the first direction.
With respect to claim 5, Keil discloses the first guide rollers that are rotatably arranged around their own axis wherein a rotation direction of the first guide rollers in one of the roller groups is, inherently, opposite to the other first guide rollers in the other roller group.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, Keil discloses the box provided with an inlet (shown by an entry location where an element 74A is located) and an outlet (shown by an exit where an element 74B is located) wherein a second guide roller (95) and a third guide roller (96) are arranged at the inlet and the outlet, respectively. Keil discloses that the second guide roller is located between the two roller groups along the second direction and configured to guide the electrode plate (20) from the inlet to first one of the guide rollers and/or the third guide roller that is further arranged to guide the electrode from the last one of the first guide rollers to the outlet. Also, see annotated drawing above.
With respect to claim 8, Keil discloses the heating assembly comprising multiple sets of heating components (90) located between the two roller groups along the first direction and spaced apart along the second direction wherein at least one set of heating components is provided between every two adjacent first guide rollers (e.g., between 70A and 70C) in the same group. Also, see Figure 12.
With respect to claim 9, Keil discloses the heating component that is configured to heat the electrode plate/substrate (20) on both sides wherein each set of heating components comprises a plurality of heating components (90) arranged side by side along the first direction.
With respect to claim 11, Keil discloses each of the roller groups (shown by the top and bottom group of rollers) comprising a plurality of first guide rollers spaced apart along the second direction and arranged in a stagged arrangement wherein a set of heating components (90) is provided in correspondence with each of the first guide rollers as illustrated in Figure 12.
With respect to claim 14, Keil discloses the first direction that is the height direction of the box as illustrated in Figure 12.
With respect to claim 17, Keil discloses the box provided with a recovery port (see Figure 12 wherein recirculating air 2 is recovered) with a collection component (85) that collects gases (heated and conditioned air) generated in the box during the heating process through the recovery port. Also, see para 0052.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil in view of Coffelt as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 14 and 17 above and further in view of Fujita et al (WO 2014/163175).
Keil in view of Coffelt discloses the heating device including the heating components that can be infrared emitters (see para 0055 of Keli) but does show the heating component that comprises a heating element with a protective cover wherein the heating element is sleeved with the protective cover.
Fujita discloses it is known to provide an infrared heater having a heating element (40) that is sleeved with a protective cover (36a) which is made of quartz glass that is light transmissive (para 0047) wherein the protective cover further includes a light-blocking (or reflective) layer (38; para 0045) provided along a first direction so that light emitted by the infrared heating element is irradiated towards both sides along the second direction toward a substrate (80). Also, see Figure 4.
In view of Fujita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Keil, as modified by Coffelt, with the heating components that are made of infrared heaters which are sleeved with a protective cover having a light-blocking or reflective layer which allows an irradiated light from the infrared heaters to be predictably and effectively directed toward the electrode plate/substrate with more concentrated and focused irradiated heat.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil in view of Coffelt as applied to claims 1-9, 11, 14 and 17 above and further in view of Yago (US 2005/0025889).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Keil in view of Coffelt discloses the heating device claimed except for a cooling assembly as claimed.
Yago disclose it is known to provide a heating device for heating a coated web/substrate that is further provided with a cooling assembly having cooling rollers (18) arranged outside of the heating device to cool the heated web which is wound around the cooling roller as illustrated in Figure 1.
In view of Yago, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Keil, as modified by Coffelt, with a cooling assembly for cooling down the heated electrode plate/substrate which would predictably allow the heated electrode plate/substrate to be cooled and retain its desired shape and form for further processing or applications as desired.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keil et al (US 2019/0081317) in view of Fujita et al (WO 2014/163175).
Keil discloses the electrode plate heating device claimed including a box (shown by a dryer 34; see Figure 12/13), two roller groups (shown by two sets of a top and a bottom group of rollers as shown in Figure 12/13) in the box where the two roller groups are space apart with at least one roller group comprise at least one first guide roller for the electrode plate is wound around all the first guide rollers in the two roller groups successively (also, see annotated drawing above), and a heating assembly installed in the box wherein the heating assembly comprises multiple sets of heating components/elements (90), but Keil does not show each heating element component having a protective cover wherein the protective cover is provided with a first opening and a second opening configured to introduce cold air into an interior of the protective cover.
Fujita discloses it is known to provide an infrared heater having a heating element (40) that is sleeved with a protective cover (44) that is further provided with a first opening (58) and a second opening (58) that is configured to introduce a cold/cool air into an interior of the protective cover via a coolant supply source including air (also, see Figure 2; first paragraph on page 18 of the English translation).
In view of Fujita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Keil with the heating component that is provided with a heating element and a protective cover wherein the protective cover has a first opening and a second opening that is configured to introduce a cold air (via a supply source) to predictably cool down the heating element from overheating.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is allowed over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that Coffelt is applied to teach the driving assembly that is known to include a power component such as an electric motor and a flexible transmission component such as a belt or chain that is wound around the guide rollers to transmit driving force wherein the first guide rollers of Keil as modified by Coffelt would provide the first guide roller with a first portion engaged with the flexible transmission component and a second portion that is configured to contact the electrode plate to transport the electrode plate as stated in the ground of rejection.
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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights