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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 6/04/2024 and 8/27/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagahama et al. US-20220077446-A1 (hereinafter “Nagahama”).
Regarding Claim 1, Nagahama discloses a rolling device for electrode sheet that is arranged on a conveyance path on which an electrode sheet of an electricity storage device is conveyed in Figs. 1-3 (see abstract and paragraphs [0016] and [0021]-[0022]), the rolling device comprising:
a pair of rolling rolls (first press roller and second press roller) 31 and 32 in Fig. 3 (see paragraph [0022]),
wherein each of the rolling rolls includes
a base material 300 in Figs. 3-4 (see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0023]-[0024]),
a ground layer (cured layer) 311 formed at least on a rolling area of an outer peripheral surface of the base material 300 that rolls the electrode sheet in Figs. 3-4 (see annotated Fig. 4 below) (see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0023]-[0024]),
and
a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating film (coating layer that may be formed of diamond-like carbon (DLC)) 312 formed on an outer peripheral surface of the ground layer 311 in Figs. 3-4 (see annotated Fig. 4 below) (see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0023]-[0025]), and
the ground layer 311 is harder than the base material 300 (the cured layer 311 has a hardness higher than that of the base material 300) (see paragraph [0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Fig. 4 of Nagahama
Regarding Claim 2, Nagahama discloses the rolling device for electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Nagahama further discloses wherein the ground layer 311 is formed of cemented carbide (see paragraphs [0006]-[0008] and [0023]-[0024]).
Regarding Claim 4, Nagahama discloses the rolling device for electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Nagahama further discloses wherein the average thickness of the ground layer 311 is 50 μm or more (a thickness of the cured layer 311 is, for example, approximately 0.1 mm or more and several mm or less) (see paragraph [0024]). A skilled artisan would recognize that 0.1 mm is equivalent to 100 μm, thereby making the range of Nagahama 100 μm or more, which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of the average thickness of the ground layer 311 being 50 μm or more.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama et al. US-20220077446-A1 (hereinafter “Nagahama”).
Regarding Claim 3, Nagahama discloses the rolling device for electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Nagahama further discloses wherein an average thickness of the ground layer 311 is larger than an average thickness of the DLC coating film 312 in Fig. 4 (a thickness of the cured layer 311 is, for example, approximately 0.1 mm or more and several mm or less and a thickness of the coating layer 312 is, for example, approximately 0.1 μm or more and several μm or less) (see paragraphs [0024]-[0025]). A skilled artisan would recognize that 0.1 mm is equivalent to 100 μm. A skilled artisan would also recognize the teaching of several μm or less (for the thickness of the DLC coating film) would be less than 100 μm, thereby making the thickness of the ground layer larger than the thickness of the DLC coating film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to make an average thickness of the ground layer larger than an average thickness of the DLC coating film as the maximum thickness of several μm or less of the DLC coating film would be less than the minimum thickness of the ground layer of 100 μm.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahama in view of Sato et al. US-20130040065-A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sato”).
Regarding Claim 5, Nagahama discloses the rolling device for electrode sheet according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above). Nagahama further discloses the ground layer (cured layer) covering the base material may be a cemented carbide or other appropriate material (see paragraph [0024]).
Nagahama is silent on wherein the ground layer is formed of a thermal-sprayed film.
However, in the same field of endeavor of coatings on machine parts (see abstract and paragraph [0002]), Sato discloses a thermal spray coating (thermal-sprayed film) is conventionally provided on the surface of parts of industrial machines or general-purpose machines to impart abrasion resistance, heat resistance, and corrosion resistance and may contain a cemented carbide, tungsten carbide, or chromium carbide (see paragraphs [0002], [0006], and [0046]-[0047] and Table 2). As such, a skilled artisan would recognize a thermal spray coating as an appropriate coating to use on the roller of Nagahama.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the rolling device of Nagahama wherein the ground layer is formed of a thermal-sprayed film, as disclosed by Sato, in order to impart abrasion resistance, heat resistance, and corrosion resistance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights