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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 2/19/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it should be no undue burden on the examiner to consider all claims. This is found persuasive because the apparatus claims are encompassed by the method claims. Thus, claims 1-10 will be examined.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slivar, U.S. Patent No. 6035518.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the method described in these claims would inherently result from the use of invention of Slivar ‘518 as advanced above. Slivar ‘518 discloses a coil (i.e., when a first end 10 material is wound around 25, see figure 2) comprising a winding core 25, a foil 10 wound on the winding core 25, the foil comprising a support material of an electrode foil, an electrode foil, which has at least one active material, or a separator foil which are used as components of a battery cell (see columns 1-2), wherein the winding core 25 has a perforated circumferential surface (see figure 2) contacting the coiled foil 10 with at least one opening 26 which is connected to a vacuum source (not shown, see column 3, lines 20-25) which allows the foil 10 being sucked through at least one opening 26 without damaging the foil 10 and free of adhesive material (claims 4-6); and a plurality of openings 26 are arranged in a distributed manner at least along a circumferential direction or the winding core 25 has an axis of rotation 27 extending along an axial direction and the openings 26 are arranged in a distributed manner along the axial direction (see figure 2, claims 2 and 9); see figures 1-2.
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.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slivar, U.S. Patent No. 6035518, in view of Schultz et al., U.S. Patent No. 6695245 B1.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, as stated above, Slivar ‘518 shows the plurality of openings 26, but does not explicitly explain if openings can be different.
Schultz ‘245 recognizes the concept of arranging a plurality of apertures 64 which can be randomly spaced or patterned on the cylinder to change the openings, see column 6, lines 40-55.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Slivar ‘518 to include different openings as suggested by Schultz ‘245, in order to help remove the coil from the mandrel easier. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slivar, U.S. Patent No. 6035518, in view of Kury et al., U.S. Patent No. 6270034 B1.
Regarding claim 7, as stated above, Slivar ‘518 shows one winding core rather than two winding cores.
Kury ‘034 discloses the concept of a plurality of shafts (10-60) with perforations 300 for winding the material continuously, see figures 1-8B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the apparatus of Slivar ‘518 to include a plurality of shafts as suggested by Kury ‘034, in order to help wind the material continuously. Furthermore, since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG K KIM whose telephone number is 571-272-6947. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 9 P.M or Tuesday through Thursday from 10:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert Hodge, can be reached on (571) 272-2097. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SK
3/10/26
/SANG K KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654