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 amendments, filed 8/11/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claim 1 and 9 and the addition of new claim 11. Claims 1-11 are pending in the instant application. In view of the amendment to claim 9, the examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112 rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that JP 172 teaches away from claim 1, as Applicant argues wrinkles would occur and therefore there is no reason to include a different wrinkle prevention device. The examiner disagrees and notes that the reference discloses a wrinkle prevention, see 0017, a pressing roll for pressing only the uncoated portions and a sensor for measuring the pressing force applied. See also 0064 related to pressing force adjustment to make the elongation lengths of the coated and uncoated part to coincide with each other to prevent and/or reduce wrinkles. See also 0072 related to suppressing the generation of wrinkles and waviness due to the different in elongation between a coated and uncoated part by using upper and lower rolls 201 and 203 by controlling the pressing force. Totality of the reference discloses the claimed features and direction to Figures 10-14 was illustrates as exemplary for the Applicant’s review, but the rejection is not limited to those figures.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2019102172, hereinafter JP 172 taken collectively with JP 2014220113, hereinafter JP 113 and KR 101830287, hereinafter KR 287.
JP 172 discloses an electrode manufacturing apparatus (0080) comprising: a support roll (see e.g. Figure 10-14) configured to support an electrode sheet and transport the electrode sheet in a first direction, the electrode sheet including a coated portion and an uncoated portion (see e.g. Figure 14 and accompanying text); at least one pressure roll configured to contact the support roll with the electrode sheet disposed therebetween, the at least one pressure roll being configured to pressurize the uncoated portion of the electrode sheet (see e.g. Figure 10-14 and accompanying text); a level sensor configured to detect a level of the uncoated portion (0074, visual inspection, 0076, means for measuring with the measuring instrument 155 instead of visually judging the occurrence of wrinkles in the coated part 302 and the uncoated part 301);
and a control unit configured to control the pressure roll in response to the level detected by the level sensor (0074, “The setting of the pressing force is determined by visual inspection on the width and position of the uncoated portion 301 and the exit side of the press roll 101”).
The examiner notes that while the italicized limitations above are met by the prior art, the examiner notes they are also deemed intended use of the claimed apparatus and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
JP 172 discloses a pressure roller; however, fails to disclose the at least one pressure roll is configured to be movable in a second direction transverse to the first direction. However, JP 113, also in the art of electrode manufacturing apparatus (abstract) and discloses including a pressure roller to control wrinkles and discloses moving the pressure roller in a direction transverse to the first direction (Figure 5 and accompanying text, “moving the push roll in the width direction of the electrode material in response to the meandering of the electrode material”, “by moving the pressing roll while following the meandering of the electrode material in this way, the uncoated part can be reliably stretched.”) Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 172 to include a press roll that is configured to movable in the width direction to reliably stretch the uncoated part to prevent or reduce wrinkles during meandering.
As for the spatial arrangement of the pressure roll relative to the support roll, i.e. above the support roll with the electrode sheet therebetween, the examiner cites here KR 113, also in the art of electrode manufacturing apparatus and discloses including a pressure roller and a support roller, where the pressure roller is disposed above the support roll and configured to contact the support roller with the electrode sheet therebetween and to pressurize the uncoated portion (see Figure 3 and 5 and accompanying text). KR 113 discloses the pressure to the uncoated portions using a pressure roller above a support roll to prevent wrinkles forming in the electrode sheet (when “no pressure is applied to the non-coated portion where the electrode mixture is not applied, compared with the coated portion of the electrode mixture, Wrinkles or wrinkles occur on the current collector” and using the pressure roller arrangement “to prevent occurrence of defects such as wrinkles or folding of the non-woven fabric.”) Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified JP 172 with JP 113 to provide the pressure device above and in contact with support roll with electrode sheet therebetween as the spatial arrangement is set forth by KR 113 to provide a pressure to prevent wrinkles as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the spatial arrangement would offer predictable results to prevent wrinkles.
Claim 2: JP 113 discloses the pressure roll is configured to pressurizes the uncoated portion by moving to a position where the level of the uncoated portion changes (“by moving the pressing roll while following the meandering of the electrode material in this way, the uncoated part can be reliably stretched.”)
Claim 3-4: JP 113 discloses the pressure roll is configured to moves along a support portion extending in the second direction (See “the pressing roll 84 has a width corresponding to the width of the uncoated portion 33. Further, it is provided so as to protrude from the shaft 84s”, “moving the push roll”). Here, the pressure roll 84 and shaft can reasonably be configured to move or is capable of being moved as claimed. At the very least, such is intended use of the claimed apparatus and it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 5: JP 172 discloses controlling the wrinkles by controlling the height of the pressure roll based on the level of the uncoated portion (see 0074 ”The setting of the pressing force is determined by visual inspection on the width and position of the uncoated portion 301 and the exit side of the press roll 101.”, here pressing force would reasonably result in a change in height). JP 113 discloses adjusting the height of the pressure roller (“The shaft 84s is held by a bearing. The push-in amount is adjusted by moving the position of the bearing.“) and therefore it would have been obvious to configure the pressure roller to provide for controlling the height of the roller.
Claim 6: JP 113 discloses a width of the pressure roll is equal to or greater than a width of the uncoated portion. (“the pressing roll 84 has a width corresponding to the width of the uncoated portion 33”). At the very least, such is intended use of the claimed apparatus. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 172 with JP 113 and KR 113 and further with US Patent Application Publication 20220410205 by Ishiguro et al.
JP 172 with JP 113 and KR 113 discloses all that is taught above; however, fails to disclose the suction roll as claimed. However, Ishiguro, also in the art of electrode manufacturing apparatus including a coated sheet manufacturing (see abstract, see 0002 related to battery) and discloses a suction roll to prevent wrinkles (0058 “the occurrence of wrinkles can be suppressed by using the suction roll”). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have included the suction roll as taught by Ishiguro to reap the benefits of controlling the wrinkles. The location of the suction roller would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a selection from a finite number of predictable solutions (i.e. either before or after support roll).
Claim 8: Ishiguro discloses a plurality of suction holes (see Figures).
Claim 10: JP 172 with JP 113 discloses controlling the process based on the determination of the wrinkles and Ishiguro discloses the wrinkles can be adjusted or eliminated by using the suction roller and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have configured the control unit to adjust the pressure of the plurality of suction holes by a suction based on the level of the uncoated portion as such is directly related to elimination of wrinkles.
Claim(s) 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 172 with JP 113, KR 113 with Ishiguro et al. and further with KR 102007413, hereinafter KR 413
JP 172 with JP 113, KR 113 with Ishiguro et al. discloses all that is required above and fails to disclose the suction holes as instantly claimed. However, KR 413, in the art of transporting substrates, e.g. webs, electrodes (Figure 2, “Here, the transfer object 30 may be a positive electrode plate or a negative electrode plate coated with a positive electrode active material or a negative electrode active material by the coater facility”) and discloses the use of a vacuum roller to release stress in the substrate while moving (abstract). KR 413 discloses a roller with a plurality of suction holes arranged and consisting of symmetrical spiral shaped with respect to the center of the roller in a longitudinal direction, where the surface f the roll has a cylindrical shape alone longitudinal direction (see e.g. Figure 3-5). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have utilized the vacuum roller as taught by KR 413 to reap the benefits as outlined by the reference and with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights