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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under this heading are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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 1, 5-7, 9, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti et al (US PGPub 2007/0143989; herein Polsonetti, already of record), in view of Zakoryukin et al (SU 1216264; herein Zakoryukin, with machine translation, 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),
A powder feed opening for feeding the powdered electrode precursor material into the powder hopper (open end 42/54 as seen in Figures 1 and 2)
A level detection device for determining a powder level of the powder hopper (paragraph 0028)
First and second vertical walls (As seen in Figures 1 and 2 the hoppers 16/18 have a plurality of vertical walls)
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 a lateral cross section of the powder hopper tapers between the first vertical wall and the second vertical wall 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)
Polsonetti is silent to:
A first fill level sensor positioned on a first vertical wall of the powder hopper
A second fill level sensor positioned on a second vertical wall of the powder hopper
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), the sensors 8 and 9 are arranged vertically.
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). Since the hoppers 16/18 have a plurality of vertical walls and compartments, it would be obvious to have the arrangement of Zakoryukin in each hopper of Polsonetti
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 first fill level sensor is positioned above the powder outlet opening (paragraph 0028, one of the high fill sensor or low fill sensor)
Regarding claim 7, Polsonetti teaches:
Wherein the second fill level sensor is positioned below the powder feed opening (paragraph 0028, one of the high fill sensor or low fill sensor)
Regarding claim 9:
See remarks regarding claim 1 and Zakoryukin
Regarding claim 28:
See remarks regarding claim 1.
Claims 2-4 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti and Zakoryukin, and in further view of Senda et al (JP H08113370; herein Senda, with machine translation, already of record). Regarding claim 2:
A weight detection device for determining a weight of the powdered electrode precursor material 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.
Regarding claim 29:
See remarks regarding claims 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Claim 8 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti and Zakoryukin, and in further view of Spindler (US PGPub 2007/0056896; already of record). 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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Polsonetti and Zakoryukin, and in further view of Mamrak et al (US PGPub 2020/0262147: herein Mamrak, already of record). 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 an 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 at least one optical fill level sensor comprises an entire length (L) and an 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 at least one optical fill level sensor is configured to detect a 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 at least one optical fill level sensor is configured to detect powder fill levels that are unevenly distributed over a 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
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 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
Prosecution Insights