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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Civardi et al. (US 4,248,652).
Regarding Claims 1, Civardi et al. (US 4,248,652) teaches a press bonding apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
a base transfer unit [14],[16],[17] configured to transfer a base web [W] to a press bonding space (See Fig. 5, wherein rollers [14], [16], and [17] are configured to direct and transfer a continuous web [W] to a space between press bonding rollers [13],[12], i.e. a press bonding space);
a first transfer unit [18],[19],[21],[17] configured to transfer a first outer web [M] to the press bonding space (See Fig. 5, wherein rollers [18], [19], [21], and [17] are configured to direct and transfer a continuous web [M] to the press bonding space between bonding rollers [12],[13]);
a second transfer unit [22],[23] configured to transfer a second outer web [FF] to the press bonding space (See Fig. 5, wherein rollers [18], [19], [21], and [17] are configured to direct and transfer a continuous web [M] to the press bonding space between bonding rollers [12],[13]);
a hard roller [11] provided on one side of the press bonding space; and
an elastic roller [12] provided on the other side of the press bonding space, wherein the hard roller and the elastic roller press-bonds the first outer web [M], inner web [W], and second outer web [FF] (See Civardi et al., col. 4, lines 6-32, teaching steel idler roller [11], i.e. a hard roller, and driven rubber backup roller [12], i.e. an elastic roller, press bond layers [FF], [W], and [M]).
Civardi et al. fails to teach the device is for an electrode foil of a lithium metal secondary battery. However, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
Civardi et al. further fails to teach base metal base metal foil and lithium metal foil. However, these materials are not claimed as part of the device, but are only material worked on thereby. Note that “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)). An apparatus need merely be capable of performing the claimed functions on the claimed material worked on. Examiner submits any three web materials could have been installed on respective supply rollers [27], [22], and [18], transferred to the press bonding space, bonded at nip [11],[12], and then wound at windup roll [27]. There is no apparent reason why such webs couldn’t have been a base metal foil on supply roll [14], and lithium metal foils on supply rolls [22] and [18], since Applicant envisions these foils as being conveyable to a nip for bonding, and the device presumably could have done so if such material webs were installed in the device, thus forming an electrode foil of a lithium metal secondary battery. Thus, the device in Civardi et al. appears to have all structural elements as claimed, and thus anticipating the claimed apparatus.
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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Civardi et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Fujita et al. (US 2008/0011411).
Regarding Claim 2, Civardi et al. teaches the device of claim 1, as described above. Civardi et al. further teaches the elastic roller with a “rubber surface” having specific properties (See col. 4, lines 9-10). It is not clear if only the surface is rubber and Civardi et al. is silent as to the internal makeup of the rubber back up roller. However, it is standard for rubber rollers having similar hardness in metal/rubber lamination nips to utilize the rubber as a surface layer, i.e. coating unit, on a metallic core for construction and process advantages (See, for example, Fujita et al., page 3, paragraphs [0035]-[0036], teaching a rubber [a1] with a surface hardness of 80 in a lamination nip opposed to a metal roller [b1], wherein the rubber roller [a1] has a metallic core). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a metal core to support the rubber surface of the rubber back up roller in Civardi et al. Doing so would have predictably been suitable to provide the desired surface characteristics while providing construction and process advantages such as greater system durability and ability to replace worn rubber surface coatings, as opposed to the entire roller.
Regarding Claim 3, Civardi et al. teaches hard roll [11] is on an adjustable support to raise and lower it relative to elastic roller [12] (See col. 4, lines 10-14). Although Civardi et al. doesn’t teach moving the elastic roller, Examiner submits it would have been apparent the relative movement to open or close the nip would have been understood as the advantage of the adjustable support, and thus moving either roller away from the other would have predictably served an equivalent function of opening the nip as desired. According to In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449 (CCPA 1955), the mere reversal of a system is generally not adequate for patentability (See e.g. id. holding that a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel is a mere reversal of such movement and a obvious expedient). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to reverse the roller with adjustability to open the nip and make it the backup roller [12] instead of hot roller [11]. Doing so would appear have predictably been a routine reversal of the adjustable support that achieve the equivlanet advantage of opening the nip by separating rollers [12] and [11] via movement of backup roller [12] instead of hot roller [11]. Although no drive is taught explicitly to implement the adjustment that opens the nip, it would have been obvious to utilize a drive to operate the adjustable support in order to broadly automate nip opening. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, (CCPA 1958) (indicating it is not inventive to broadly automate a process that was previously manual).
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Civardi et al. and Fujita et al. as applied to Claim 3, and further in view of Bernitt (EP 0358311) and Kitada et al. (US 2009/0199950).
Regarding Claim 4, Civardi et al. and Fujita et al. teach the method of Claim 4, as described above. Civardi et al. and Fujita et al. are silent as to an encoder as claimed. However, encoders that measure rotary motion are standard in web conveyance in order to monitor real-time characteristics of the process being carried out in the conveyance system, such as web speed or web length laminated, and such encoders are well-known to be included in laminating rollers to measure rotation in order track such operational system data (See, for example, Bernitt, col. 1, lines 1-17, teaching a measuring roll to record length of passing material, i.e. a rotary encoder, is “common practice” to record the length of a passing material; and Kitada et al., page 7, paragraph [0079] and Fig. 4, teaching the rotary encoder may measure the rotation of either or both rollers in a lamination nip to relay length information to a controller). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an encoder to detect the rotation of the hot roller [11] in Civardi et al. Doing so is commonplace in similar web lamination systems to provide operational data and would have predictably enabled system operators to obtain and monitor important process data during operation of the device in Civardi et al., such as the length of laminate product produced, the instant speed, the average speed, etc.
Regarding Claims 5-6, Civardi et al. teaches the elastic roller [12] is a “driven” roller, i.e. implemented with a rotation drive unit to drive rotation, and the hard roller [11] is an idler roller mounted for free rotation (See col. 4, lines 6-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Lin et al. (US 2025/00991299) teaches a system for lamination active battery layers in a lamination nip with a deformable roller [22] and a non-deformable roller [21] (See page 2, paragraphs [0029]-[0032]), but fails to teach three transfer units as claimed.
Pellenc (US 2023/0343921) teaches transfer units [110a],[110b] for transferring lithium metal foils (See page 1, paragraph [0006], page 10, paragraph [0195], page 12, paragraph [0242], and Fig. 1), and a base foil transfer unit [112c] leading to the bonding space of a retractable lamination nip [142] (See page 12, paragraph [0241]). Pellenc fails to teach elastic and hard lamination rollers.
Nakashima et al. (US 2019/0001628) teaches claim 1 with three transfer units [5], [4], [5] (See Fig. 4) to a lamination nip with an elastic roller [8] and a hard roller [9] to form a metal laminate (See page 7, paragraph [0084]-[0086]).
Elastic and hard roller lamination nips are well-known generally, but they are not common in electrode bonding and especially not when transferring three layers to the nip. Although the apparatus as claimed is not limited to electrode systems, there is no motivation to utilize the elastic and hard roller to join layers from three transfer units wherein the elastic roller has a coating on a core, is driven, and is retractable; the hard roller is an idler roller and implemented with a rotary encoder, and the base metal transfer unit measures web speed and is configured to utilize the data in a controller to control the rotation of the elastic roller. Although individual elements are known, the specific combination is not considered obvious in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746