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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least four (4) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on KR10-2023-0174814. However, as indicated by the notice issued 05 May 2025, PDX retrieval of the priority document was unsuccessful.
It is noted that a request has been made to re-attempt PDX retrieval. Prior to a response being filed to this Office action, it is encouraged that Applicant confirm whether this subsequent PDX retrieval is successful, and if not then to contact EBC Customer Support as indicated by the 05 May 2025 notice, and/or to otherwise address this issue by filing the certified copy as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0067068) in view of either Kim et al. (US 2023/0378422) or Mitchell et al. (US 2022/0072612).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a fig. 4 apparatus comprising components corresponding to the claimed main rollers 110 and shear rollers 120. It is noted that claimed acts of calendering fine powder, shearing, and interposing a free-standing film all pertain to how claimed components are utilized or intended for use as opposed to features distinguishing structurally over the prior art (see MPEP § 2111.02(II) regarding claim recitation of intended use, § 2114(II) regarding the manner of operating a claimed device not differentiating over prior art, and § 2115 regarding a material or article worked upon not limiting an apparatus claim, and see also Lee’s explicit [0020], etc. disclosure of adjusting pressing force in a manner believed to be capable of impacting shear in particular).
Lee references the provision of solid electrolyte material, such as that utilized for forming electrolyte 800 of fig. 4, in the [0006] powder form, but Lee does not specify use of a powder feeder configured in the manner claimed, and/or does not otherwise specify the fig. 4 electrolyte as being initially provided in such powder form. However, for a similar apparatus pertaining also to rolling treatment of electrode material, each of Kim and Mitchell explicitly disclose or otherwise imply use of a feeder corresponding to that claimed, including for example at one or more locations of a rolling apparatus (see the feeding referenced explicitly by Kim at [0018] and implied for each of the fig. 2-3 embodiments, and see Mitchell in at least fig. 3A and its corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from either Kim or Mitchell into Lee as providing an art-recognized suitable or interchangeable means for providing the initial powder form referenced explicitly by Lee, and/or as otherwise providing a suitable or interchangeable initial form and supply of the material being shaped by Lee, including one that may be utilized in duplicate along the length of Lee’s apparatus so as to form one or more layers of such material or of an additional material laminated thereto.
In the alternative that it is ultimately determined that the claimed recitation of “shear” rollers in fact provides some structural or configuration difference as compared with Lee’s rollers 120 and/or how these rollers are capable of use, then it is noted that each of Kim and Mitchell outline explicit benefits of shearing as provided by an adjustment or control of parameters selected for individual rollers (see Kim’s [0082] and [0088]-[0090] disclosure of controlling roller gap and of applying shear pressure by varying roll speed for impacting structural or other properties of the sheet being manufactured, and see Mitchell’s [0030] disclosure of roll speeds and gaps being controllable to provide shear and/or other forces, in addition to the [0039] provision of motors for individually controlling speed, acceleration, timing, gap, etc.). Notable, these teachings by each of Kim and Mitchell additionally establish such roller parameters as a result-effective variables optimizable by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in the manner set forth under MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from either Kim or Mitchell into Lee are providing the additional structural components (as necessary) and motivation to control roller parameters such as relative speed, spacing, etc. based on the intended and predictable impact on structure and/or physical properties of the resulting article being manufactured.
The claim 2 and claim 7-8 configuration is believed to be met by Lee alone on account of the claimed stretching relative velocities pertaining to how the claimed apparatus is utilized as opposed to features distinguishing structurally over the prior art (see again MPEP §§ 2111.02(II), 2114(II), 2115 as relevant), and/or are otherwise met under the alternative rationale set forth under the rejection of claim 1 addressing shear via roller speed, spacing, etc. See at least the above citations of Lee, Kim, and Mitchell in addition to MPEP 2144.05(II) as relevant, in addition to the above rationale for modifying Lee with either of these references in this regard.
Lee further discloses the relative claim 3 diameters (fig. 4) and the claim 5 change in diameter (see at least [0014]), and is believed to provide the claim 6 ratio of diameters (see at least fig. 4). Lee is not believed to explicitly disclose the claim 4 sequential increase of diameter in the first direction, but this is believed to have been an obvious difference in view of Lee’s explicit disclosure that different diameters may be utilized (see at least [0013], [0036], [0038]), with this relative difference in diameter further being achievable by one of ordinary skill in the art seeking an optimal compression and/or condition of the treated material during the rolling compression being implemented (see again MPEP § 2144.05(II) as relevant in this regard).
The relative intervals of claim 9 are believed to be met by Lee, either by Lee’s above-cited fig. 4 embodiment, or by a capability thereof to be provided with the intervals claimed. Note, for example, the [0020] adjustment of pressing force in the manner described further at [0039] as provided to successively reduce thickness. It is noted that these claimed intervals are further disclosed or would have been obvious over teachings also of Kim and Mitchell referenced under the alternative rationale set forth under the rejection of claim 1 addressing shear via roller speed, spacing, etc.; see at least the above citations of these references in addition to MPEP 2144.05(II) as relevant, and see also the above rationale for modifying Lee with either of these references in this regard.
The configuration of main and shear rollers as set forth by claims 10-20 are believed to be met by the combination of Kim and Mitchell with Lee as set forth under the rejection(s) above. Note, for example, Lee’s fig. 4 provision of at least four main rollers 110 each with at least one respective roller 120 corresponding to the claimed shear rollers as set forth above. The various stretching, diameter, and velocity recitations of these dependent claims are also believed to be met by Lee, either by Lee’s above-cited fig. 4 embodiment or by a capability thereof to be configured in the manner claimed. It is noted that these various features pertaining to stretching, diameter, and velocity are further disclosed or would have been obvious over teachings also of Kim and Mitchell referenced under the alternative rationale set forth under the rejection of claim 1 addressing shear via roller speed, spacing, etc.; see at least the above citations of these references in addition to MPEP 2144.05(II) as relevant, and see also the above rationale for modifying Lee with either of these references in this regard.
Conclusion
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742