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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention III, claims 1, 4-6, 14, 16-18 in the reply filed on 04/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3, 7-13, 15, and 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions I-II and IV-VI, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/06/2026.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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: sensor modulate in claims 1 and 4-6.
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.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 5, line 2, it is believed “a measurement error the first” should read –a measurement error for the first.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miura et al. (JP 2016255119 A1, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20120095159 A1, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations) further in view of Hellmann (DE 102020133404 A1, where the examiner has provided a machine translation hereinwith for citations).
As to claims 1 and 14, Miura discloses and shows in figures 1 and 9, an apparatus for measuring an electrode plate thickness, the apparatus comprising:
a sensor module (100, which includes 110, 120, 130 and 140, where the examiner is interpreting the prior art as a structural in performing the same function) configured to detect a thickness of an electrode plate (10) ([0015]); and
a processor (computing unit 260) connected to the sensor module, and configured to ([0083]):
detect the thickness of the electrode plate in a width (TE1) direction through the sensor module ([0042]; [0045]);
calculate an active-material-coating thickness based on the thickness of the electrode plate ([0022]; [0028]); and
Miura does not explicitly disclose where sensor module that detects thickness of the electrode plate is upstream of a drying furnace.
However, Kim does disclose and show in figure 1 and in (Abstract) where the thickness measuring sensor (40) is upstream of the drying furnace (50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to position the thickness measurement system upstream of the drying furnace, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miura where sensor module that detects thickness of the electrode plate is upstream of a drying furnace in order to provide the advantage of increased efficiency as obviously measuring the thickness before a final drying reduces inefficiency in confirming (i.e. measuring thickness) the final part after drying will be within the predefined tolerance for acceptable use.
Miura does disclose the consideration that temperature variation can influence the thickness measurement values and even that thermal deformation of the rollers needs to be accounted for to perform precise thickness measurements ([0019]; [0109]-[0111]).
Miura in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose compensate the active-material-coating thickness based on a measurement error due to thermal deformation of the sensor module.
However, Hellmann does disclose and show in figure 1 and (page 3, ll. 33-34, page 4, ll. 5-7; page 8, ll. 9-20 and ll. 34-40) the use of a similar thickness measurement machine that is likewise aware of thermal deformation of the measurement sensors have an effect on the thickness measurement. As such Hellmann discloses directly measuring the thermal deformation effects on the sensor module to compensate for changes over time and output a more accurate thickness measurement.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miura in view of Kim with compensating for the active-material-coating thickness based on a measurement error due to thermal deformation of the sensor module in order to provide the advantage of increased accuracy as noted in both references thermal deformation causes thickness measurement errors, as such obviously measuring a source of error and compensating for it as is done in Hellmann produces a more accurate thickness measurement final output value.
The subject matter of claims 1 and 14 relate in that the technical features of apparatus claim 1 are in each case suitable for implementing the method of claim 14, therefore the method is obvious in view of the above apparatus rejection.
As to claims 4 and 16, Miura disclose an apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to detect electrode plate thicknesses at first locations not coated (i.e. areas through hole 271) with an active material, and to calculate the measurement error based on the electrode plate thicknesses at the first locations. (inherently the purpose as the measurement in figure 10 is a calibration based measurement) ([0087]-[0090]).
As to claims 5 and 17, Miura discloses an apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to calculate a measurement error the first locations by subtracting an electrode plate thickness measured at the first locations before coating with the active material from the electrode plate thickness at the first locations ([0095; [0098], the examiner notes that Miura discloses addition to calculate error, however as also explicitly noted point G can be positive or negative value thus resulting in X3 being positive or negative and as such depending on the roller form the electrode plate error correction can be addition or subtraction when necessary).
As to claim 6 and 18, Miura in view of Kim further in view of Hellmann does not explicitly disclose an apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to perform interpolation based on the measurement error at the first locations to calculate the measurement error at second locations coated with the active material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to process the data using a common interpolation technique to provide further error calculations across the active material under test. Yielding the predictable result of a more accurate sample thickness measurement map.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miura in view of Kim further in view of Hellmann with an apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to perform interpolation based on the measurement error at the first locations to calculate the measurement error at second locations coated with the active material in order to provide the advantage of expected results, obviously using an extremely common interpolation technique allows for one to characterize any sample such as an electrode in a more details and accurate manner. Further evidence to this being known in applicant’s own specification ([0091]) applicant merely discloses using one of many known interpolation techniques (e.g. linear, polynomial, spline, etc.) without going any specifics in any manner that would distinguish using them in some critical or unexpected manner.
Prior art made of record
Tojyo et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,4441,905 B1) in (col. 9, ll. 25-35) the basic concept of taking into account thermal deformation of the sensor module to perform accurate measurements on sheet like materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P LAPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3833. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5:30.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/Michael P LaPage/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights