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 Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a shield comprising first and second blocking parts configured to block first and second opposite sides of the infrared heater in the longitudinal direction” which should be “a shield comprising a first blocking part and a second blocking part configured to block a first side and a second opposite side of the infrared heater in the longitudinal direction” for clarity purposes.
Claims 2-15 are objected to for being dependent from an objected to claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 206153096 (Ji hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Ji teaches an electrode drying device that discloses an infrared heater configured to apply radiant heat to the electrode sheet (Heater shown in Figure 1 with IR lamp 2); and a shield unit configured to block a portion of the radiant heat emitted from the infrared heater (Shield unit 3), wherein the shield unit comprises: a shield comprising first and second blocking parts configured to block first and second opposite sides of the infrared heater in the longitudinal direction (Figure 1 shows the plurality of shield blocks 3 extending along the IR lamp); first and second connecting parts connecting the first and second blocking parts and spaced apart from each other (First and second connecting parts being the rails “G”); and a base plate disposed on a lower surface of the shield and supporting the shield (Base plate being the connecting portions with the right angel body above the holding ails “G”), wherein the shield comprises a bending part having a curved shape that is curved toward an upper part of the shield where the infrared heater is located (Bending portion forming the curve of shield body 3).
Regarding claim 2, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses that the bending part is a first bending part located at the first connecting part (Curved body of the shield is located at the first connecting part being the rail G), the shield further comprising a second bending part located at the second connecting part (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the second bending part belongs to the second shield along the longitudinal direction and connected to the rail G).
Regarding claim 5, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses a cross-section of a space between the bending part and the base plate has a semicircular shape (Evident from the cross-section of 3 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 6, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses a cross-section of a space between the bending part and the base plate has a triangular shape (When viewing the heater of Ji from a side view direction of Figure 1, the space between the base plate connected to G and a single side of a bending part 3 would be in a right triangular shape).
Regarding claim 7, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses a cross-section of a space between the bending part and the base plate has a quadrilateral shape (When viewing the heater of Ji from a top down direction of Figure 1, the space between the base plate connected to G and the bending parts of 3 would be in a quadrilateral shape).
Regarding claim 12, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses that the shield is slidably coupled to slide on the base plate (Evident from Figure 1 of Ji).
Regarding claim 13, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses a transfer part configured to transfer an electrode sheet to be dried in a first direction while supported, wherein the shield unit is disposed between the infrared heater and the transfer part (Transfer part being the transmission mechanism 5 in Figure 6 with the shield 3 clearly between the IR lamps 2 and the transmission mechanism 5)
Regarding claim 15, Ji teaches an electrode drying method that discloses using the electrode drying device of claim 1 (Please refer to the rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206153096 (Ji).
Regarding claim 3, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses that the bending part is spaced apart from a plane containing a major surface of the base plate (Figure 1 shows that the bending parts are spaced from a major surface of the described base plate in claim 1 above).
Ji is silent with respect to a maximum spacing distance of 0.1 mm to 5 mm.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the maximum spacing to be between 0.1mm and 5 mm, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Ji further discloses that the shield is made of a sheet of stainless steel (Ji, “In order to avoid infrared absorbing baffle 3, baffle 3 is made of mirror face stainless steel.”)
Ji is silent with respect to the stainless steel having a thickness of 0.5 mm to 10 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the stainless steel thickness between 0.5 mm to 10 mm., since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 206153096 (Ji) in view of KR 2021-0153830 (Lee hereinafter).
Regarding claim 14, Ji’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect to a hot air drying means configured to blow hot air onto the electrode sheet.
However, Lee teaches an electrode drying system that discloses a hot air drying means configured to blow hot air onto the electrode sheet (Figure 1 with hot air blowers 139).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrode dryer of Ji with the hot air blowers of Lee to increase the drying rate of the electrode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 9, and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 recites “the bending part has a width of 5 mm to 30 mm at a position spaced 1 mm to 20 mm inwardly from an end of the shield.” This limitation creates multiple size ranges that would require at least two additional references to teach which would not be obvious in the Examiner’s point of view due to the reliance on hindsight rationale.
Claim 9 recites “the shield has a shape of a square frame with a rectangular through-hole in a center thereof.” The further modification of adding a through hole to the shield 3 of Ji would teach away from Ji since Ji states that the shield can move to create the desired shape while a through hole would require additional shields to cover said through hole. For at least this reason, dependent claim 9 is objected to for being allowable.
Claim 8 recites “the base plate has a shape of a square frame with a rectangular through hole in the center thereof and ends of two corner parts of the base plate are each bent upwardly.” This limitation requires specific additional structure that would require hindsight rationale to recreate off of the Ji reference. For at least this reason, claim 8 is objected to for being allowable as is dependent claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights