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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 3/9/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 10 is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an unwinding part configured to unwind”
“a drying part… configured to receive… so as to dry…”
“a slitting part… configured to receive… so as to cut…”
“a rewinding part… configured to receive… so as to wind…”
The term “part” is considered to be a generic placeholder for a “means”, MPEP 2181.I.A. The language “unwinding part” is functional language equivalent to “a part for unwinding” in addition to express functional language “configured to…” is tied to each respective part. Each part described above contains the functional language in the same format. Therefore, the language invokes 112 sixth and is interpreted in view of the specification.
The “unwinding part” 100 based on the specification [0033]-[0034] may include an unwinding roller 120 shown I fig. 1.
The “drying part” 200 based on the specification [0042]-[0044] may include a heating body 210 with space S with a plurality of heating members 220.
The “slitting part” 300 based on the specification [0058] includes a main body and at least one cutter fixed thereto.
The “winding part’ 400 based on the specification [0065] includes a roller 420.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 9 use the term “approximately”. The scope of the claim is not clear, because it is not clear how close to a value is considered “approximately”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 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).
Regarding claim 1,
WOO teaches an apparatus which unwinds an electrode 10 (unwinding part) and moves it through a heating device 210 to remove moisture (drying part) [0078]. The reference further includes a collection device for rewinding the electrode [0080] (rewinding part). 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.
Regarding claim 3,
WOO teaches a heating body 210 which contains a drying space 211 and multiple heating members 220 [0053]-[0055].
Regarding claim 4,
WOO teaches the heating body 210 further includes transfers rollers 231, 232, 233, and 234 [0069].
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.
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) 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
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