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 .
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) 1, 9, 10, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIONG et al. (CN CN112542563B; citations to translation provided.
Regarding claim 1, XIONG teaches three sequential pairs of rollers 3, a gap between rollers of each pair, each subsequent pair having a larger diameter (fig. 1; p. 2, para. 7). XIONG does not explicitly teach the gaps are equivalent or sequentially smaller, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention that the gap between rollers would decrease with each subsequent pair because XIONG teaches increasing diameters of rollers and sequential thinning of the film (XIONG; fig. 1; p. 2, para. 7).
Regarding claim 9, XIONG teaches heating the rollers to 100-150 degrees Celsius (p. 3; para. 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to heat between 80 and 120 degrees because the claimed range overlaps that disclosed by the art (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, the apparatus of XIONG is capable of working upon the material claimed.
Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). (MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 21, XIONG teaches rolling to a thickness of 100 microns (p.5, para. 9), but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to reduce to a thickness of 80 microns because there would have been a reasonable expectation of producing film in the same manner (MPEP 2141; KSR).
Regarding claim 22, XIONG does not explicitly teach that the N-pair first and second rollers rotate at a speed of 1.0-2.0, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rotate the rollers at the same speed in order to avoid damaging a sheet being processed.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIONG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of STEINERT et al. (US 2025/0153452).
Regarding claim 8, XIONG does not teach the first-pair first and second rollers can rotate at different speeds. STEINERT teaches another system for manufacturing electrode sheets, wherein adjacent rollers rotate at different speeds (para. 21), where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rotate the first pair first and second rollers of XIONG in order to ensure shearing within the film and improving adhesion to the faster running roller (STEINERT; para. 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights