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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 4/27/2026 is entered and fully considered.
The amendment removes 112(f) language and the claim is no longer interpreted to invoke 112(f). The amendment also resolves the 112(b) issues.
Claim 10 was previously withdrawn by restriction election and now canceled by amendment.
Response to Arguments
In view of the new limitations added by amendment the previous rejections are removed and new rejections using additional prior art are made below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOO et al. (US 2019/0229324) in view of BONHOMME et al. (US 2020/0381699) and ITO et al. (US 2011/0131799) and GLAVAS et al. (US 2022/0090858).
Regarding claim 1 and 11,
WOO teaches an apparatus which unwinds an electrode 10 (unwinder) and moves it through a heating device 210 to remove moisture (dryer) [0078]. The reference further includes a collection device for rewinding the electrode [0080] (rewinder). The reference does not teach processing multiple electrodes on the same sheet and slicing before rewinding. However, when processing an electrode material through a heating device, BONHOMME teaches a single collector web can process multiple electrodes at the same time Fig. 7. Processing multiple strips allows for increased throughput [0063]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to process multiple lanes of electrode material on a single sheet in WOO to increase throughput.
BONHOMME does not particularly teach slitting the substrate with multiple electrode lanes. However, ITO teaches a similar system where multiple lanes are cut using slitters 104a and 104b see Fig. 3. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separate the co-processed electrode lanes from each other by the method of ITO to produce the equivalent product in WOO of a single electrode on the substrate with the increased throughput of BONHOMME.
The references teach a dryer and a slitter but do not expressly teach the relative position of the splitter or using rollers between the units. However, when using an oven to process a continuous web, GLAVAS teaches using tension rollers as the web exits the oven and cools down [0074]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to use tension rollers after heating a continuous web to control tension while cooling (compensating for thermal expansion/contraction).
The references still do not teach the relative height of the splitter relative to the dryer. However, changing the relative height of the slitter is considered to be prima facie obvious as a rearrangement of parts without changing the mode of operation, MPEP 2144.VI.C. The examiner could find no particular reason or benefit in applicant’s specification for changing the relative height of the slitter with respect to the oven exit. The support for the amendment can be implied from fig. 1. But without the specification discussing the relative size, shape and position of the parts, the figures alone are of limited value.
Regarding claim 3,
WOO teaches a heating body 210 which contains a drying space 211 and multiple heating members 220 [0053]-[0055].
Regarding claims 4 and 12,
WOO teaches the heating body 210 further includes transfers rollers 231, 232, 233, and 234 [0069]. The rollers are located “overlapping” each other as shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 5,
WOO teaches the heating members 220 are positioned on both sides of the substrate as shown in Fig. 4.
Regarding claim 6,
WOO teaches the heating member 220 has a heating lamp 222 which can be infrared [0065].
Regarding claim 7,
The final moisture content in the substrate is function of how the drying apparatus is used and does not limit the structure of the apparatus. The examiner notes that the structural limitations of the claim are met and it is reasonable to expect the same apparatus to be capable of reaching the same moisture content.
Regarding claim 8,
ITO teaches the cutting device can have blades (cutters) 1042 with one ste of cutters fixed in place [0168].
Regarding claim 9,
ITO teaches cutting the substrate and winding into a body before placing in a battery case [0175]. The reference does not expressly teach the width of the electrode sheets. However, the final width of the electrode sheets is determined by the size of the battery. Changing the shape/dimensions of a battery is considered prima facie obvious MPEP 2144.04.IV. A.
Regarding claims 13-15,
ITO teaches including guiding rollers between the rewinders and the slitter as shown in fig. 2. The reference does not teach the second, third and fourth plurality of rollers at the described locations between the slitter and the rewinder. However, the claimed rollers do not appear to perform any function other than guiding the web to the winders. Accordingly, using multiple guide rollers to performing the guiding operation is considered to be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts without changing the mode of operation MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. Alternatively, the tension control rollers of GLAVAS could be used before winding to ensure proper tension at the rewinder to prevent slack and wrinkles in the winded web.
Similar to the rollers amended into claim 1, the support for the new claims can be implied from fig. 1. However, without the specification discussing the relative size, shape and position of the parts, the figures alone are of limited value.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WOO et al. (US 2019/0229324) in view of BONHOMME et al. (US 2020/0381699) and ITO et al. (US 2011/0131799) and GLAVAS et al. (US 2022/0090858) further in view of TAMAI et al. (US 2007/0078051).
Regarding claim 2,
WOO teaches winding and unwinding with a roller using unwinding part 110 and collecting roller 320, see Figs. 1 and 3. The reference does not expressly teach synchronizing the winding and unwinding. However, as the winding and unwinding occurs, the radius of the roll changes which naturally requires a respective change in relative rotational speed (rpm). TAMAI teaches it is known to synchronize winding and unwinding actions of rollers [0057]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to synchronize winding and unwinding rollers to ensure the amount of substrate unwound is the same as amount of substrate wound helping to ensure no excess slack or tension is applied due to the changing length of substrate per rotation.
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 AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights