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 claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-16 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. Dependent claims not rejected separately are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a nip" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same nip or a different nip from that of the preamble?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cross section" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which cross section does this refer to? Since based on how one measures a cross section a hopper can have multiple cross sections.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the powder level" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which powder level does this refer back to? There are different types of powder levels; e.g. average, the maximum of a slope of powder, a minimum of a slope of powder, etc.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fill level detection device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same or different from the level detection device of claim 1?
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the fill level detection device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same or different from the level detection device of claim 1?
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fill level sensor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which of the “at least one first fill level sensors” is claim 9 trying to refer back to?
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the first fill level sensor" in lines 1-2 and “the second fill level sensor” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Which of the “at least one first fill level sensors” is claim 11 trying to refer back to back in claim 6 (which is the source of the fill level sensor limitation)?
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.
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Polsonetti et al (US PGPub 2007/0143989; herein Polsonetti, already of record). Regarding claim 1, Polsonetti teaches:
A powder hopper for gravity-driven feeding of powdered electrode precursor material into a nip of a dry electrode calender (hopper 16/18 as seen in the Figures),
Having a powder feed opening for feeding powdered electrode precursor material into the powder hopper (open end 42/54 as seen in Figures 1 and 2)
A powder outlet opening for metering the powdered electrode precursor material from the powder hopper into a nip (outlet 46/58 as seen in Figures 1 and 2)
Wherein the cross section of the powder hopper tapers between the powder feed opening and the powder outlet opening (As seen in Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 the hoppers 16/18 taper as claimed)
Characterized in that the powder hopper has a level detection device for determining the powder level of the powder hopper (paragraph 0028)
Regarding claim 5, Polsonetti teaches:
Wherein the powder hopper has a width (B) extending transversely to the nip (As see by the width of the hopper 16/18 in Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5)
A length (L) extending along the nip (As seen by the length of the hopper 16/18 in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5)
Wherein the width (B) of the powder hopper decreases between the powder feed opening and the powder outlet opening (As seen in Figures 1, 2, 4, and 5 the width decreases as claimed)
The length (L) of the powder hopper between the powder feed opening and the powder outlet opening is constant (As seen in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5 the length is constant)
Regarding claim 6, Polsonetti teaches:
Wherein the fill level detection device has at least one first fill level sensor in the area above the powder outlet opening (paragraph 0028, one of the high fill sensor or low fill sensor)
Regarding claim 7, Polsonetti teaches:
Wherein the fill level detection device has at least one second fill level sensor in the area below the powder feed opening (paragraph 0028, one of the high fill sensor or low fill sensor)
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.
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.
Claims 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti, in view of Senda et al (JP H08113370; herein Senda, with machine translation). Regarding claim 2:
A weight detection device for determining the weight of powder in the powder hopper
Polsonetti desires weight control in the hopper (paragraph 0028), but is silent to using a weight detection device.
In the same field of endeavor Senda teaches using load cells to determine the weight of material in a hopper (Abstract, paragraph 0002, load cells 31)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the load cells of Senda, since they determine the amount of material in the hopper.
Regarding claims 3 and 4:
The load cells 31 of Senda support the hopper via flanges as seen in the Figures. This support via at least two load cells teaches the requirements of claims 3 and 4, for the previously stated motivation.
Claim 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti, in view of Spindler (US PGPub 2007/0056896). Regarding claim 8:
Wherein the level detection device comprises at least one capacitive fill level sensor
As previously discussed Polsonetti teaches high and low fill level sensors, but is silent to the type of sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Spindler teaches one can use high/low sensors or capacitive sensors for the same purpose (paragraph 0017).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the capacitive sensor of Spindler, since Spindler teaches that the sensors of Polsonetti and capacitive sensors are equivalents for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 II)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti, in view of Zakoryukin et al (SU 1216264; herein Zakoryukin, with machine translation). Regarding claim 9, Polsonetti is silent to:
Wherein the fill level sensor has a plurality of sensor units distributed over the length of a side wall of the powder hopper and arranged at essentially the same height
In the same field of hoppers Zakoryukin teaches sensors 8 and 9 in Figure 1 used to control the filling of the hopper (Description: paragraphs 4 and 7)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the sensor arrangement of Zakoryukin, since it takes into account on uniformity of the level of material (Zakoryukin: claim 1)
Regarding claim 10:
Wherein the side wall of the powder hopper having the plurality of sensor units is arranged substantially vertically
As seen in Polsonetti, the hopper 16/18 has vertical walls, thus the combination with Zakoryukin makes claim 10 obvious.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti, in view of Mamrak et al (US PGPub 2020/0262147: herein Mamrak). Regarding claim 12:
Wherein the level detection device comprises at least one optical fill level sensor
As previously discussed Polsonetti teaches high and low fill level sensors, but is silent to the type of sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Mamrak teaches using a multiple optical sensors to determine fill level (paragraph 0061, Figure 8, powder level sensors 1042 and 1044 can be optical sensors and paragraph 0065, camera system 1056 can map the powder level)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the optical sensors of Mamrak, since they perform the same function as the sensors of Polsonetti, Mamrak teaches optical sensors as one of many different types of sensors for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06 II), and with respect the camera system of Mamrak, such a sensor can map the powder in addition to knowing the fill level.
Regarding claim 13:
Wherein the optical fill level sensor is directed at the interior of the powder hopper spaced apart from the powder hopper through the powder feed opening
The previously discussed camera system 1056 in Figure 8 of Mamrak teaches such a limitation.
Regarding claim 14:
Wherein the detection range of the optical fill level sensor comprises at least the entire length (L) and the entire width (B) of the powder hopper
The previously discussed camera system 1056 in Figure 8 of Mamrak teaches mapping the surface of the powder (paragraph 0065), thus the entire length and width are in the detection window of Mamrak’s camera system.
Regarding claim 15:
Wherein the optical fill level sensor is configured to detect the filling volume of the powder hopper with powdered electrode precursor material (This is seen as a natural result of using fill level sensors, such as those taught by Mamrak, otherwise there would be no purpose in having fill level sensors in an hopper)
Regarding claim 16:
Wherein the optical fill level sensor is furthermore configured to detect powder fill levels that are unevenly distributed over the length (L) of the powder hopper
The previously discussed camera system 1056 in paragraph 0065 of Mamrak teaches detecting the topology of the powder surface and detecting localized density, thus Mamrak teaches detecting unevenly distributed powder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
With regards to the 112 rejection of claim 11: as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743