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
This Final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated July 9, 2026 filed in response to the Non-final Rejection dated April 10, 2026.
Cancelation of claim 2 is acknowledged.
The claim objection in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 7 addressing the objection.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of the amendment made to claim 1 distinguishing the claim from the prior art cited in the rejection. However, the claims continue to be rejected as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, starting at the bottom of page 5, claim 1 has been amended to distinguish the claim from Tadashi (JP 2021-163688 A1). Examiner agrees. Accordingly, the rejections in the previous Office action have been withdrawn as stated above. However, new grounds of rejection necessitated by the claim amendment are explained below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, it is unclear how the first-first outer diameter and the second-first outer diameter may be the same as claimed in claims 4 and 5 when claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation the first-first outer diameter is smaller than the first-second outer diameter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Document Publication No. JPS60-227905 A by Arima, hereinafter “Arima”.
Regarding claim 1, Arima discloses an electrode rolling apparatus for applying pressure to a non-coated portion of an electrode comprising a coated portion coated with an electrode active material and a non-coated portion not coated with an electrode active material, the non-coated portion comprising an insulating coating portion and a non-insulating coating portion (rolling apparatus A shown in Fig. 1 is capable of being used as an electrode rolling apparatus as claimed; bottom half of page 2 and page 3), the electrode rolling apparatus comprising:
a first rolling roller (the left half of roller A shown in Fig. 1); and
a second rolling roller (the right half of roller A shown in Fig. 1),
wherein the first rolling roller includes a first center portion (first center portion made up of the portions annotated “First-First” and “First-Second” on Fig. 1 of Arima reproduced below) and a first end portion located at one end of the first center portion in a longitudinal direction (see “First End” annotation below),
wherein the second rolling roller includes a second center portion (second center portion made up of the portions annotated “Second-First” and “Second-Second” below) and a second end portion located at one end of the second center portion in a longitudinal direction (see “Second End” annotation below),
wherein other end surface of the first center portion and other end surface of the second center portion are in contact with each other (the First-Second portion and the Second-Second portion contact each other at the center of roller A in Fig. 1),
wherein a first-first outer diameter of the first center portion connected to the first end portion is different from a first-second outer diameter of the first center portion abutting the other end surface of the second center portion (the outer diameter of the First-First portion annotated below is different from the outer diameter of the First-Second portion annotated below),
wherein a second-first outer diameter of the second center portion connected to the second end portion is different from a second-second outer diameter of the second center portion abutting the other end surface of the first center portion (the outer diameter of the Second-First portion annotated below is different from the outer diameter of the Second-Second portion annotated below),
wherein the first-second outer diameter and second-second outer diameter are the same (the outer diameter of the First-Second portion and the Second-Second portions are the same at the center portion of the roller), and wherein the first end portion or second end portion is adjacent to a boundary of the insulating coating portion and the non-insulating coating portion (This limitation is intended use of the apparatus claimed such that it does not limit the claim. See M.P.E.P. 2114,II.), and
wherein the first-first outer diameter is smaller than the first-second outer diameter (the First-First outer diameter is smaller than the First-Second outer diameter as annotated below) and the second-first outer diameter is smaller than the second-second outer diameter (the Second-First outer diameter is smaller than the Second-Second outer diameter as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Arima further discloses a length of the first center portion and a length of the second center portion are the same. The combined length of the First-First portion and the First-Second portion annotated above is the same as the combined length of the Second-First portion and the Second-Second portion annotated above.
Regarding claim 6, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 3 as explained above. Arima further discloses a length ratio of the first center portion and the second center portion is between 3:5 and 5:3. The length ratio of the combined length of the First-First portion and the First-Section portion, as annotated above, to that of the combined length of the Second-First portion and Second-Second portion, as annotated above, is 4:4.
Regarding claim 7, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Arima further discloses the size of the First-Second outer diameter as annotated above with respect to the First-First outer diameter as annotated above is 1.01 to 1.2 times, and the size of the Second-Section outer diameter as annotated above with respect to the Second-First outer diameter is 1.01 to 1.2 times.
Regarding claim 8, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Arima further discloses wherein the first end portion is tapered in shape with a decreasing outer diameter from the first center portion toward an end thereof (the First End portion as annotated above is tapered in shape with a decreasing diameter toward its end), and the second end portion is tapered in shape with a decreasing outer diameter from the second center portion toward an end thereof (the Second End portion as annotated above is tapered in shape with a decreasing diameter toward its end).
Regarding claim 9, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 8 as explained above. Arima further discloses each of tapered surfaces of the first end portion and the second end portion includes a curved tapered surface (the tapered First End and Second End as annotated above are curved in the direction of the outer diameter of the roller) and a linear tapered surface extending from the curved tapered surface (the tapers of the First End and Second End are linearly tapered in the longitudinal direction of the roller).
Regarding claim 10, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 8 as explained above. Arima further discloses the First End and Second End portions as annotated above have different taper angles.
Regarding claim 11, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 10 as explained above. Arima further discloses the taper angles of the First End portion, as annotated above, and the Second End portion, as annotated above, are from 20 to 30 degrees.
Regarding claim 13, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 8 as explained above. The limitations of claim 13 are directed to the material worked upon in a manner which does not limit the apparatus claimed in claim 1. See M.P.E.P. 2115.
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.
Claims 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2022/0293911 A1 by Haga et al., hereinafter “Haga”.
Regarding claim 12, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Arima is silent regarding the type of material used to make the roller shown in Fig. 1.
In the same field of electrode rolling apparatus, Haga teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal or polymers to make rollers of the apparatus. See Paragraph [0059] and paragraph [0069].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Arima’s disclosed roller out of polymer elastic rubber or metal in the same way Haga teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Haga to the disclosure of Arima would yield the predictable result of making Arima’s roller out of polymer or metal.
Regarding claim 14, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Arima is silent regarding the type of material used to make the roller shown in Fig. 1. The limitation of claim 14 regarding the coating portion relates to the material worked upon such that it does not limit the apparatus claimed. See M.P.E.P. 2115.
In the same field of electrode rolling apparatus, Haga teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal or polymers to make rollers of the apparatus. See Paragraph [0059] and paragraph [0069].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Arima’s disclosed roller out of polymer elastic rubber or metal in the same way Haga teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Haga to the disclosure of Arima would yield the predictable result of making Arima’s roller out of polymer or metal.
Regarding claim 15, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Arima is silent regarding the type of material used to make the roller shown in Fig. 1. The limitation of claim 15 regarding the coating portion relates to the material worked upon such that it does not limit the apparatus claimed. See M.P.E.P. 2115.
In the same field of electrode rolling apparatus, Haga teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use metal or polymers to make rollers of the apparatus. See Paragraph [0059] and paragraph [0069].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make Arima’s disclosed roller out of polymer elastic rubber or metal in the same way Haga teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Haga to the disclosure of Arima would yield the predictable result of making Arima’s roller out of polymer or metal.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arima in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2020/0185698 A1 by Kim et al., hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 16, Arima anticipates the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 1 as explained above. Arima is silent regarding an outer peripheral surface of at least one of the first center portion, the first end portion, the second center portion, and the second end portion is formed with alternating grooves and protrusions for forming a plurality of corrugations in the non-coated portion thereof, parallel to each other from the coated portion toward an end of the non-coated portion.
In the same field of rolling apparatus for electrode manufacture, Kim teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange alternating grooves and projections on the center portion of a roller used to roll electrode material. See Figs. 1-2D and at least paragraphs [0047] and [0048].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange alternating grooves and protrusions on Arima’s roller in the same way Kim teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Kim to the disclosure of Arima would achieve the predictable result of Arima’s roller with alternating grooves and protrusions as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art reference combination of Arima in view of Kim renders the electrode rolling apparatus of claim 16 unpatentable as explained above. Kim further teaches each of the grooves and protrusions has a tringle-like shape in cross-section. See Figs. 2A and 2C.
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 PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 30 September 2026
