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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/11/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 4/11/2024, claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 3, “…a hinge member hinge-connecting…” should be “…a hinge member hinge connecting…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 5 recites: “a movement distance measuring part configured to measure a movement distance of the second end of the rotation shaft.”
Claim 6 recites: “a position fixing part configured to fix the position of the second end of the rotation shaft.”
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “movement distance measuring part”, no corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “position fixing part”, no corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 5-6 contain subject matters “a movement distance measuring part configured to measure a movement distance of the second end of the rotation shaft”
“a position fixing part configured to fix the position of the second end of the rotation shaft”
which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not disclose the corresponding structures of the claimed “movement distance measuring part” and “position fixing part”. For examination purposes, the claimed “movement distance measuring part” and “position fixing part” can have any structure(s).
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim limitations “a movement distance measuring part configured to measure a movement distance of the second end of the rotation shaft” and
“a position fixing part configured to fix the position of the second end of the rotation shaft” recited in claims 5-6
” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the functions. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claims. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
For examination purposes, the claimed “movement distance measuring part” and “position fixing part” can have any structure(s).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kano JP H07285717 A
Regarding claim 1, Kano discloses
An electrode fabric transfer device (strip material winding device, see para.001) comprising:
a plurality of running rollers (5c-d, see fig.1-3) configured to transfer an electrode fabric (1, see fig.1-3) along a transfer path (11, see fig.1-3); and
an adjusting roller (10, see fig.1-3) disposed between the plurality of running rollers (5c-d, see fig.1-3), wherein the adjusting roller (10, see fig.1-3) includes a rotation shaft (10a) having a first end (see first end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 below ) disposed in a fixed position (see fig.1-3) and a second end (see second end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 below ) positioned opposite to the first end (see first end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 below), and wherein a position of the second end is moveable (See fig.1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
1110
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Kano
Regarding claim 2, Kano further discloses a support frame (12, see fig.1-3) supporting the first end of the rotation shaft (see first end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 above); and a hinge member hinge (see annotated fig.1 above) -connecting the first end of the rotation shaft (see first end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 above) and the support frame (12, see fig.1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Kano further discloses an area (10b, see fig.1-3) of the adjusting roller (10) configured to contact the electrode fabric (1) is adjusted based on the position of the second end of the rotation shaft (See second end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Kano further discloses the position of the second end of the rotation shaft (See second end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 above) is configured to move based on a tensile force applied to a region of an uncoated portion (110) of the electrode fabric (See fig.1-4 and para.0014: “the base end of the lever 10a is attached to the servomotor 12 of the torque control type. Then, in a state where the lever 10a by the drive of the servo motor 12 is driven like a pendulum to adjust the vertical position of the roller 10b in the vertical direction, it can be increased or decreased adjust the size of the loop 11 by the position adjustment”).
Regarding claim 8, Kano further discloses the second end of the rotation shaft (See second end of the rotation shaft in annotated fig.1 above) is configured to move upward when the tensile force applied to a region of the uncoated portion (110) of the electrode fabric increases (See fig.1-4 and para.0014).
Regarding claim 9, Kano further discloses the transfer path (11) comprises at least one curved region (See fig.1-3), and the adjusting roller (10) is located in the at least one curved region (11, see fig.1-3).
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of IIDA (US 20180086582 A1)
Regarding claim 3, Kano discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a control lever, connected to the second end of the rotation shaft, and configured to manually adjust the position of the second end of the rotation shaft; and a seating frame located between the second end of the rotation shaft and the control lever and seated by the second end of the rotation shaft.
IIDA discloses a film supplying device in a horizontal package making and filling machine, comprising:
a control lever (68, see fig.3), connected to the second end of the rotation shaft (32, see fig.3), and configured to manually adjust the position of the second end of the rotation shaft (32, See fig.3); and
a seating frame (58, see fig.3) located between the second end of the rotation shaft (32) and the control lever (56, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Kano to incorporate the “control lever, connected to the second end of the rotation shaft, and configured to manually adjust the position of the second end of the rotation shaft; and a seating frame located between the second end of the rotation shaft and the control lever and seated by the second end of the rotation shaft” as taught by IIDA in order to provide operation lever provided on the eccentric holder is turned to eccentrically move the shaft to thereby separate the driven roll from the drive roll” to “increase the efficiency of an operation” (see para.005-007 of IIDA).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Honda (JP2019062710A)
Regarding claim 5, Kano discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a movement distance measuring part configured to measure a movement distance of the second end of the rotation shaft.
Honda discloses measurement method and adjustment method, comprising:
a movement distance measuring part configured to measure a movement distance of the second end of the rotation shaft (See claim 2: “The movement distance is measured by a displacement gauge, The displacement gauge is Fixed part,A contact portion axially displaceable with respect to the fixed portion and in contact with one end of the shaft”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Kano to incorporate the “movement distance measuring part configured to measure a movement distance of the second end of the rotation shaft” as taught by Honda. Doing so enables precise control and feedback of the electrode’s position during operation.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of IIDA US 20180086582 A1
Regarding claim 6, Kano discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except a position fixing part for configured to fixing the position of the second end of the rotation shaft.
IIDA discloses a film supplying device, comprising:
a position fixing part (70, see fig.3) for configured to fixing the position of the second end of the rotation shaft (34, see fig.3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Kano to incorporate the “position fixing part for configured to fixing the position of the second end of the rotation shaft” as taught by IIDA. Doing so allows to “improve the production efficiency” (See para.0025 of IIDA).
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano in view of Kwak US 20200206965 A1
Regarding claim 10, Kano further discloses the electrode fabric transfer device according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above); except an electrode notching device comprising: a cutting part configured to cutting the electrode fabric transferred from the transfer device along a set reference line using a laser.
Kwak discloses an apparatus for notching an electrode sheet for an electrode tab, comprising:
a cutting part (300, see fig.7) configured to cutting the electrode fabric (10, see fig.7) transferred from the transfer device along a set reference line using a laser (See para.0078).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Kano to incorporate “a cutting part configured to cutting the electrode fabric transferred from the transfer device along a set reference line using a laser” as taught by Kwak in order for “notching the non-coating portion to process the electrode tab” (See para.0020 of Kwak).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 9815652 B2 discloses a film treating apparatus which includes one or more rollers and a film treating method using the film treating apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
