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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on July 5th, 2024, and September 12th, 2025, has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on July 5th, 2024, have been considered and accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 states a “seconding roll” and “formd” instead of a “second roll” and “formed”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0024]- “second rolling gap is formd” instead of “formed”.
[0070] is a continuation of [0069] that refers to figure 3. [0070] states “a connecting member 320”- however, the connecting member 320 is not illustrated in figure 3.
Similarly, [0094] is a continuation of [0093] that refers to figure 7. [0094] states a “connecting member 320”- however, the connecting member 320 is not illustrated in figure 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “second pressing” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no earlier recitation of the limitation. MPEP 2173.05 (e). For compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined as if it read- the “second pressure roller”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
11. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated over Mimura et al., (US20220158153A1) provided in the applicant’s IDS.
12. Regarding Claim 1, Mimura teaches:
A pole piece manufacturing device ([0006]- “a method for manufacturing an electrode including forming a coating film of an electrode material by a roll and transferring the coating film to a current collector” (making up the constituents of a pole piece), comprising:
A membrane forming mechanism, configured to form an active substance into a membrane; ([0003]- “passing an electrode material including an active material through a gap between a pair of rotating rolls to form a coating film” (film in this embodiment would be the same as a membrane in the claimed invention).
A composite mechanism, arranged downstream of the membrane forming mechanism, wherein the composite mechanism is configured to composite the membrane and a substrate into a pole piece ([0003]- “adhering the coating film and transferring the adhered coating film onto an electrode current collector to form an electrode mixture layer composed of coating film”, [0039] and Fig. 1- the third roll is the “back up roll”, similar to the composite mechanism in the claimed invention- to convey the electrode current collector and make an electrode mixture layer).
A detection mechanism arranged upstream of the composite mechanism, wherein the detection mechanism is configured to detect a thickness or a weight per unit area of the membrane ([0047]- “the sensor 33 measures the thickness of the coating film 22A”. Fig, 1 shows that the transfer roll 12 and the sensors (31, 32, and 33) are all upstream of the backup roll 14 which is the composite roll).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Mimura, Fig. 1)]
An adjustment mechanism, connected to the membrane forming mechanism, wherein the adjustment mechanism is connected in communication with the detection mechanism, and the adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust the membrane forming mechanism according to the detection results of the detection mechanism, so as to control the thickness or the weight per unit area of the membrane within a preset range. ([0047], Fig 1. “The sensor 33 measures the thickness of the coating film 22A adhered to transfer roll 12”- which is the second roll and part of the membrane forming mechanism and, [0019]- “the control unit is configured to changing the peripheral speed of the second roll on the basis of the thickness of the coating film, and [0048]- “the control unit is connected to sensors 31, 32, and 33 to receive the measurement results of these sensors”). The membrane forming mechanism (or the transfer roll 12) and the control unit are used to adjust the gap with the supply roll.
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.
14. Claims 2-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (US20220158153A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kusano (JP2021159814) as provided in the applicant’s IDS.
15. Regarding Claim 2, Mimura teaches:
The pole piece manufacturing device according to claim 1, wherein the membrane forming mechanism comprises a first pressure roller and a second pressure roller, and the first pressure roller and the second pressure roller cooperate with each other to make the active substance formed into the membrane by rolling ([Abstract]- “a coating film composed of an electrode material by passing the electrode material through a gap between a rotating first roll and a rotating second roll”).
However, Mimura does not specifically teach:
The adjustment mechanism is connected to the first pressure roller and/or the second pressure roller, and the adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust a gap between the first pressure roller and the second pressure roller according to the detection results of the detection mechanism.
However, Kusano in a similar field of endeavor of wet powder coating device, teaches:
([0026] - “A drive device for rotating the first roll to the fourth roll and simultaneously adjusting the gap”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Mimura and Kusano to place a drive device that adjusts the gap between the rollers (in the case of the claimed invention- between the first pressure roller and/ or the second roller instead of all the rollers) to modulate the thickness of the film/ membrane based on the readings of the preset value given to it by the sensor since the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(A).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
16. Regarding Claim 3, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends upon. Kusano et al., further teaches:
a. Wherein, the composite mechanism comprises a composite roller, and the composite roller and the second pressure roller cooperate with each other to roll the membrane and the substrate so as to composite the membrane and the substrate into the pole piece ([0026]- “coating apparatus 10 includes: a first roll 12 (third roller for the claimed invention), second roll 14, third roll 16 (second roller for the claimed invention), and a fourth roll 18 (composite roller for the claimed invention) for transferring the molded body to the surface of a substrate 20”).
b. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of combination to teach the limitations of claim 2 and then use Kusano’s teaching to have the combination of the rollers along with the detection mechanism since the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 (A).
PNG
media_image2.png
550
539
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Kusano et al. Fig.1 )]
Regarding Claim 4, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends upon. The combination in view of Kusano further teaches:
Wherein the adjustment mechanism is connected to the first pressure roller, and the adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust a position at which the first pressure roller is located so as to adjust the gap between the first pressure roller and the second pressure roller ([0036]- “the drive system (the adjustment mechanism of the claimed invention) rotates the first to the nth rolls in opposite direction and simultaneously adjusts the gap”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mimura and Kusano to teach the limitations of claim 4 since the combination of familiar elements according to know methods is likely to obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 5 depends upon. Mimura further teaches:
Wherein the membrane is provided with a winding area wound on the second pressure roller, and the detection mechanism is provided with a detection end, wherein the detection end faces the winding area ([0043] Fig 1. – “coating film adhered to the transfer roll (second pressure roller)”. Fig 1. Shows the film (membrane) wound on the second pressure roller, and the sensor 33 facing the winding area of transfer roll 12).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 6 depends upon. The combination, in regards to claim 6, teaches the first and second pressure roller along with a detection mechanism. The combination is silent on the first pressure roller is closer to the detection system. However, Mimura et al., further teaches:
Wherein along a circumferential direction of the second pressure roller, the first pressure roller is closer to the detection mechanism than the composite roller. ([0045]- “the sensor 33 is for measuring the thickness of the coating film 22A”- In fig 1. The sensor 33 is closer to the transfer roll 12.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to rearrange the sensor to be closer to the first roll 11 to test for the optimum placement of the sensor, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 7 depends upon. Mimura et al., further teaches:
Wherein, the first pressure roller, the second pressure roller, and the composite roller are arranged along a first direction; ([Fig 1]. Shows the three rolls, supply roll (11), transfer roll (12) and the backup roll (13) along a first direction).
And, along the first direction, the second pressure roller is located between the first pressure roller and the composite roller, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to an axial direction of the second pressure roller ([Fig 1. Illustrates the first direction in which the first roll 11, supply roll 12, and backup roll 13 is oriented which is perpendicular to the axial direction of the second roll).
PNG
media_image3.png
334
438
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Annotated Mimura et al. Fig. 1)]
Regarding Claim 9, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 9 depends upon. The combination along with Kusano et al., further teaches:
Wherein the membrane forming mechanism comprises a third pressure roller, and the first pressure roller and the third pressure roller cooperate with each other to roll the active substance ([0026]- “first roll 12 of Kusano et al., is the third pressure roller of the claimed invention that co-operates with the second roll” (first roll of the claimed invention)).
PNG
media_image4.png
548
537
media_image4.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Kusano et al. (Fig.1))]
19. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of the combination and further in view of Kusano to have multiple rollers cooperating with one another since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modifications of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
20. Regarding Claim 10, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends upon. Kusano et al., further teaches:
Wherein a first rolling gap is formed between the first pressure roller and the “seconding” pressure roller, and a second rolling gap is “formd” between the first pressure roller and the third pressure roller ([0015, Fig. 1]- Kusano et al., figure 1 shows a gap G1 between the third pressure roller and the first pressure roller and the gap G2 between the first pressure roller and the second pressure roller
Wherein the active substance passes through the second rolling gap and the first rolling gap in sequence, and a width of the first rolling gap is smaller than that of the second rolling gap ([0071], [0072]- “primary molded body 30 is compressed between the first roll and the second roll”, and “the secondary molded body 22, having reached the gap G2 is further compressed between the second roll 14 and the third roll 16”- The rolls are further compressed between the gaps owing to the decrease in sizes of the gaps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of the combination and further in view of Kusano to have a pressure roller mechanism with multiple rollers and multiple gaps between them and make the gaps sequentially closer between the roller.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends upon. Mimura et al., in view of Kusano et al., further teaches:
Wherein the adjustment mechanism is connected to the first pressure roller and the third pressure roller, and the adjustment mechanism is configured to adjust positions at which the first pressure roller and the third pressure roller are located according to the detection results of the detection mechanism, so as to adjust the width of the first rolling gap while the second rolling gap remains unchanged. (Mimura et al., [0047], [0048], and Fig 1- “the sensor 33 measures the thickness of the coating film 22A” and “the control unit 40 is connected to the sensor 31, the sensor 32, and the sensor 33” to receive the measurement results of these sensors and adjust the peripheral speed of the roller to modify the thickness).
Similarly, Kusano et al., teaches the presence of a first roller (third roller in the claimed invention) connected to the second roller (first roller in the claimed invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Mimura et al., and Kusano et al., to have a detection mechanism that is connected to a thickness sensor which is then linked to the third and first roller to test for optimum performance in modulating the thickness of the membrane since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modifications of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975).
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura (US20220158153) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fenley (US3303044).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination as applied above teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 8 depends upon. The combination, however, is silent on the use of laser thickness gauge or other methods of measurement of thickness of the pole piece.
Fenley, in a similar field of endeavor where they Fenley uses such methods to control coating weight during coating operations, teaches:
Wherein the detection mechanism is a laser thickness gauge, a β- ray weight gauge, or an X-ray weight gauge ([3]- “the measurement of coating weight is accomplished by various methods. Other methods involve the measurement of radiation, such as X-ray or beta-ray that is absorbed by the coated material”).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine teachings of the combination and Fenley and use Fenley’s method of using a laser thickness gauge or other measurements techniques to measure and control the coating operation since it has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al., (US20220158153) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bogenstahl et al., (US20200227722).
Regarding Claim 12, Mimura teaches:
Wherein the membrane forming mechanism comprises a first pressure roller and a second pressure roller, and the first pressure roller and the second pressing cooperate with each other to make the active substance formed into the membrane by rolling; ([Abstract]- “a coating film composed of an electrode material by passing the electrode material through a gap between a rotating first roll and a rotating second roll”).
However, Mimura is silent on:
And, the adjustment mechanism is connected to the first pressure roller and/or the second pressure roller, and the adjustment mechanism is configured to increase or decrease a pressure applied to the first pressure roller and/or the second pressure roller according to the detection results of the detection mechanism.
However, Bogenstahl in a similar field of endeavor of manufacturing a dry electrode, teaches:
“A sensor (Fig 8A) can be configured to detect non-coated or nonlaminated areas. When detected non-coated or non-laminated area is detected, gap control cylinders are engaged, to counteract the lamination pressure of the main force cylinders (605 and 606)” ([0041 and Fig. 6]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Mimura., to have a first and second pressure roller to constitute a membrane forming mechanism and instead of modulating the peripheral speed of the rollers, use pressure mechanism, as taught by Bogenstahl, to adjust the gaps between the rollers based on the sensor measurement as the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAURAV K JHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, Alison L. Hindenlang can be reached at (571) 270-7001. 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.K.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights