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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/13/2025, with respect to claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-0 and 12-19 has been withdrawn.
New claim 20 depends from independent claim 1 which is now in condition for allowance and is therefore also allowable.
New claims 21 and 22 appear to be an attempt to rewrite original claim 5 in independent form. However, no argument for the patentability of the subject matter of claim 5 was present in the applicant’s response, this subject matter was made obvious Wang in view of Matthews, as discussed 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 6-10 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.
Claims 6-10 depend from cancelled claim 5. For the purpose of examination, claims 6, 7, and 8 were interpreted as though they depend from claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 214165349 (Wang) (provided by applicant) in view of US PGPub 2020/0227722 (Mathews).
In Re claim 21 Wang discloses a system (abstract) comprising a first powder hopper (4) configured to provide a first powder (Figure 2, 4); one or more first sensors (7), wherein each first sensor is configured to determine a characteristic of the first powder in the first powder hopper (Claim 1- a weight sensor); a first feeder hopper (3) configured to provide a first powder to the first powder hopper (4); and a processor (12) in operable communication with the one or more first sensors (7) and the first feeder hopper (3), wherein the processor is configured to cause the first feeder hopper to provide the first powder to the first powder hopper in response to the characteristic of the first powder in the first powder hopper being less than a first threshold (connection between weight sensor and processor is described on Pages 9 and 10 of the translation of Wang).
Wang fails to disclose two powder hoppers which provide powder to two roller nips
Mathews discloses a first powder hopper (602) configured to provide a first powder to a pair of rollers (604, 605, Paragraph 38). Mathews further discloses a second hopper which provides powder to a second pair of rollers (603, 606, 607, Paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at effective filing date of the invention that the Wang apparatus could be advantageously used to provide precisely weighed powder to a pair of rollers, for the purpose of electrode manufacturing, as described in Paragraphs 3-4 or Mathews.
Furthermore it would have been obvious, when modifying the Wang apparatus according to the teaching of Mathews, to provide a second powder hopper, a second weight sensor, a second feeder hopper, and to set the processor in communication with the second weight sensor and the second feed hopper, to provide the second powder to the second powder hopper when the characteristic of the second powder in the second powder hopper is less than a threshold, in order to provide precisely weighed powder to a second series of rollers.
In Re claim 22 Wang discloses a system (abstract) comprising a first powder hopper (4) configured to provide a first powder (Figure 2, 4); one or more first sensors (7), wherein each first sensor is configured to determine a characteristic of the first powder in the first powder hopper (Claim 1- a weight sensor); a first feeder hopper (3) configured to provide a first powder to the first powder hopper (4); and a processor (12) in operable communication with the one or more first sensors (7) and the first feeder hopper (3), wherein the processor is configured to cause the first feeder hopper to provide the first powder to the first powder hopper in response to the characteristic of the first powder in the first powder hopper being less than a first threshold (connection between weight sensor and processor is described on Pages 9 and 10 of the translation of Wang).
Wang fails to disclose multiple powder hoppers each providing powder to a pair of rollers.
Mathews discloses a first powder hopper (602) configured to provide a first powder to a pair of rollers (604, 605, Paragraph 38). Mathews further discloses a second hopper which provides powder to a second pair of rollers (603, 606, 607, Paragraph 38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at effective filing date of the invention that the Wang apparatus could be advantageously used to provide precisely weighed powder to a pair of rollers, for the purpose of electrode manufacturing, as described in Paragraphs 3-4 or Mathews. Furthermore it would have been obvious, when modifying the Wang apparatus according to the teaching of Mathews, to provide a second powder hopper, a second weight sensor, a second feeder hopper, and to set the processor in communication with the second weight sensor and the second feed hopper, to provide the second powder to the second powder hopper when the characteristic of the second powder in the second powder hopper is less than a threshold, in order to provide precisely weighed powder to a second series of rollers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 12-20 are allowed.
Claim 6-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753