DETAILED ACTION
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).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 14 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Remarks
Remarks submitted 14 April 2026 are addressed as follows:
Intervals: At Rem. 7-9, it is alleged that (a) Lee’s pressing force adjustment to successively reduce thickness does not pertain to sequentially smaller roller intervals (Rem. 8), and that (b) the applied prior art does not otherwise teach or render obvious the sequentially smaller intervals added to claim 1 by the 14 April 2026 amendment.
As to point (b), it is agreed that sequentially smaller intervals, specifically between each of distinct shear rollers as presently recited by claim 1, is not disclosed and would not be obvious over the applied prior art. However, the 14 April 2026 amendment to claim 1 in this regard is believed to contain new matter as set forth in greater detail under the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection below.
As to point (a), it is first emphasized that this point acknowledges that Lee adjusts pressing force in order to “successively reduce thickness”; it is unclear how such a successive thickness reduction could be accomplished without a successive interval reduction between rollers of Lee’s fig. 4 embodiment (whether between rollers 110 and 120, or between adjacent rollers 110 and 110). Clarification in this regard is requested in reply to this Office action.
Further with respect to point (a), it is noted that because pressing force in Lee’s fig. 4 embodiment is provided in each instance at a nip between two rollers (whether between rollers 110 and 120, or between adjacent rollers 110 and 110), a change in pressing force would necessarily entail a change in interval at such nips. Conversely, identical successive roller intervals would be expected to coincide with no change in pressing force. If it is believed that this interpretation of Lee is incorrect, then clarification in this regard is requested in reply to this Office action.
Diameters: At Rem. 9, it is alleged that (a) new claim 21 recites diameters that sequentially increase or sequentially “decrease” in the first direction, and that (b) due to the specified diameter(s), claim 21 is patentably distinguishable from the cited art “for the reasons discussed above”.
As to point (b), it is noted that the referenced “reasons discussed above” pertain strictly to intervals, not diameters. This argument in turn fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) due to the general allegation of patentability without specifically pointing out how the language of the claim patentably distinguishes over the prior art. Clarification in this regard is required in reply to this Office action.
As to point (a), it is noted that new claim 21, as filed, is strictly limited to sequentially increasing diameters; this is believed to correspond to what claim 4 recites, and on further consideration is considered allowable for reasons set forth in greater detail below. However, if sequentially decreasing diameters were also recited as indicated by point (a), then this feature would be considered obvious over Lee due at least in part to the sequentially decreasing diameters disclosed thereby, as set forth for example under the rejection of claim 5. If it is believed that this interpretation of Lee (and/or Lee in view of either Kim or Mitchell) with respect to claim 5 is incorrect or would otherwise not render obvious decreasing sequential diameters, then clarification in this regard is requested in reply to this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In particular:
The 14 April 2026 amendment to claim 1 specifies intervals between each of the main rollers (i.e. main roller to main roller intervals) and intervals between each of the shear rollers (i.e. shear roller to shear roller interval) being sequentially smaller in the claimed first direction. The latter of these recitations pertaining to sequentially smaller intervals between shear rollers is considered new matter.
Notably, the original claim 9 language, in addition to corresponding language from the specification, specifies such interval(s) as being “between each of the plurality of main rollers and each of the plurality of shear rollers” (i.e. without a second instance of the term “intervals” prior to the second instance of “between”). This original language is believed to correspond to main roller to shear roller intervals such as intervals G1, G3, and G5 in Fig. 5 as described at 21:12-16 of the specification. Each of intervals G2 and G4 is also disclosed, between main rollers in correspondence with the claimed main roller to main roller intervals, but no disclosure is made in this regard with respect to intervals between shear rollers as now referenced explicitly by the amended claim. The claim 1 recitation that “intervals between each of the shear rollers are sequentially smaller in the first direction” is in turn considered new matter.
Absent persuasive argument contesting this issue, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
The claim 1 recitation of “intervals” (plural) between each of the main rollers implies the existence of at least three main rollers. Although previous recitation is made at line 4 of a “plurality” of main rollers, such a plurality, by definition, is inclusive of as few as two main rollers. The above-cited implication of at least three such rollers in turn lacks antecedent basis in the previously recited “plurality” and is thus indefinite. See also MPEP § 2173.05(c) regarding indefiniteness of broader (i.e. the claimed plurality) and narrower (i.e. the claimed implication of such plurality being limited to at least three) language in the same claim being considered indefinite.
This same corresponding issue exists also for the claim 1 recitation of “intervals” between each of the shear rollers.
The claim 21 recitation of diameters of shear rollers that “sequentially increase or sequentially increase” is confusing. It is unclear whether this passage contains a typographical duplication error, and/or whether distinct claim scope is intended as suggested by the 14 April 2026 Remarks at p. 9. If this issue is addressed by deleting the terms “or sequentially increase”, then the claim would be considered allowable for reasons set forth in greater detail below.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While it is generally known or obvious for an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode to comprise components such as a feeder, main rollers sequentially disposed in a first direction and configured to calender a powder material, and shear rollers adjacent to the main rollers, the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed combination of components with their claimed configuration, in particular whereby in addition to the remaining claim 21 recitations, diameters of shear rollers sequentially increase in the claimed first direction along which the claimed main rollers are sequentially disposed.
It is noted, for example, that in US 2020/0067068, which is believed to be among the closest prior art of record, numerous embodiments (e.g. figs. 1, 4) are disclosed comprising what may be construed as main and shear rollers 110 and 120. In fig. 1, roller diameters decrease as opposed to increasing in a first direction, and calendering is only performed between rollers 110 and 120 as opposed to between adjacent main rollers 110 as claimed. While calendering is performed in the fig. 4 embodiment between adjacent main rollers 110, the general disclosure of differing diameters is only exemplified with decreasing diameters; this reference cannot be fairly alleged as providing motivation for sequentially increasing diameters for each of the fig. 4 rollers 120.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights