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
Claims 1-3, 5-17, and 20-23 are pending. Claims 4 and 18-19 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 5, and 17 have been amended. Claims 21-23 are new.
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.
Claim 23 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.
Claim 23 recites, “wherein the lip has a cross-sectional shape corresponding to a cross-sectional shape of a belt-shaped active material film.” Similar phrasing is used in [0069] in Applicant’s disclosure. However, this disclosure does not provide sufficient clarity as to the shape that is being recited. With reference to Fig. 3 and [0069] of Applicant’s disclosure, the claim term is examined on the basis that it at least includes a flat rectangular shape that can be used to make electrode plates.
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) 1-3 and 5-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305) in view of Li (CN 214521854 U) and Kazmer (US 2018/0354181).
Regarding claim 1, Ishii teaches a film preparation apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a single-screw machine (single-screw extruder 11, [0079], Fig. 1), a feeding machine (hopper 22, [0080], Fig. 1), and an extrusion die (die head 12, [0079], Fgi. 1), wherein the single-screw machine is configured for conveying and extruding an active material mixture (discharges, [0086], Fig. 1), and the extrusion die is connected with a discharge end of the single-screw machine (guide path 35 to discharge port 32A, [0086], Fig. 1) and configured for extruding out an active material film (from discharge port 32A, [0086], Fig. 1), the feeding machine communicates with a feeding end of the single-screw machine and is configured to feed the single-screw machine ([0080], Fig. 1), wherein a screw of the single-screw machine comprises a compression section (compression zone 21B, [0082], Fig. 1), and a conveying section (supply zone of L1, Ishii [0082], Fig. 1), an axial length L1 of the compression section and an axial length L of the screw satisfy 0.45≤L1/L≤0.65 (0.2-0.5, [0083], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)), [and] the conveying section is located upstream of the compression section (Ishii [0082], Fig. 1).
Ishii teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Ishii does not disclose a conical double-forced feeding machine, the conical double-forced feeding machine communicates with a feeding end of the single-screw machine and is configured to feed the single-screw machine, and the conical double-forced feeding machine comprises a conical screw, and a thread groove depth H4 at the tail end of the conical screw and a thread groove depth H1 of the conveying section satisfy 0.75H4≤H1≤0.9H4.
However, in the same field of endeavor of feeding hoppers for plastic processing (abstract), Li teaches a conical double-forced feeding machine (conical double-screw feeding device, p. 1, Fig. 1), the conical double-forced feeding machine communicates with a feeding end of the single-screw machine and is configured to feed the single-screw machine (feeding docks to and feeds supply, p. 1, Fig. 1), and the conical double-forced feeding machine comprises a conical screw (conical double-screw feeding device, p. 1, Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ishii to be fed by the hopper of Li because the abstract of Li teaches that its hopper improves the conveying effect.
Ishii as modified teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Ishii and Li do not specify a thread groove depth H4 at the tail end of the conical screw and a thread groove depth H1 of the conveying section satisfy 0.75H4≤H1≤0.9H4.
However, in the same field of endeavor of details of extrusion screws, [26-29, [0049], and [0061] of Kramer teaches experimentation for different applications and design objectives for different screw lengths and extrusion screw proportions, including diameter and thread groove depth.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Ishii to specify the thread groove depth as claimed because [0061] of Kramer teaches experimentation for different applications and design objectives for different screw lengths and extrusion screw proportions, including diameter and thread groove depth.
Numerous claims below recite some detail of the size of the extrusion screw. In the same field of endeavor of details of extrusion screws, [26-29, [0049], and [0061] of Kazmer teaches experimentation for different applications and design objectives for different screw lengths and extrusion screw proportions, including diameter and thread groove depth. Accordingly, any differences between Ishii and each of the recited claims are the subject of ordinary experimentation for the art of extrusion screws. Ranges that are at least overlapping are therefore taught. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Accordingly, each of claims 2, 6, 8-10, and 12-16 are obvious over Ishii in view of Li and Kazmer.
For the sake of reference, the claims are listed below, with other rejections explained in order:
2. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein 0.54≤L1/L≤0.58 (difference in proportion of the parts of an extrusion screw).
Regarding claim 3, Ishii as modified teaches wherein a compression ratio ε of the screw satisfies 2≤ε≤2.1 (1.8-3, Ishii [0084], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Ishii as modified teaches wherein the screw further comprises a conveying section (supply zone of L1, Ishii [0082], Fig. 1) and a homogenization section (metering zone 21C of L3, Ishii [0082], Fig. 1), the conveying section, the compression section and the homogenization section are arranged in sequence in a conveying direction of the screw (Ishii [0082], Fig. 1), a thread groove depth of the conveying section is greater than a thread groove depth of the homogenization section (Ishii [0082], Fig. 1), and a thread groove depth of the compression section gradually decreases from the conveying section to the homogenization section (Ishii [0082], Fig. 1).
6. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the thread groove depth H2 of the compression section satisfies 3mm≤H2≤10mm (detail of groove depth).
Regarding claim 7, Ishii as modified teaches wherein an axial length L2 of the conveying section satisfies 0.12≤L2/L≤0.4 (0.25-0.4, [0083], Fig. 1).
8. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein an axial length L2 of the conveying section satisfies 200mm≤L2≤240mm (difference in size, which is subject to the experimentation taught by Kazmer).
9. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the thread groove depth H1 of the conveying section and an outer diameter D of the screw satisfy H1＞0.1D (detail of groove depth).
10. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the thread groove depth H1 of the conveying section satisfies 9mm≤H1≤10mm (detail of groove depth).
Regarding claim 11, Ishii teaches wherein an axial length L3 of the homogenization section satisfies 0.10≤L3/L≤0.30 (0.2-0.5, Ishii [0083], Fig. 1, overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
12. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein an axial length L3 of the homogenization section satisfies 150mm≤L3≤200mm (difference in size, which is subject to the experimentation taught by Kazmer).
13. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the thread groove depth H3 of the homogenization section and an outer diameter D of the screw satisfy 0.02D≤H3≤0.15D (detail of groove depth).
14. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the thread groove depth H3 of the homogenization section satisfies 3mm≤H3≤5mm (detail of groove depth).
15. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an outer diameter D of the screw satisfies 15≤L/D≤40 (difference in size, which is subject to the experimentation taught by Kazmer).
16. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein an outer diameter D of the screw satisfies 40mm≤D≤48mm (difference in size, which is subject to the experimentation taught by Kazmer).
Regarding claim 17, Ishii as modified teaches wherein a taper C of the conical screw satisfies 10°≤C≤30° (conical shape entails an overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I), Li p. 1, Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305) in view of Li (CN 214521854 U) and Kazmer (US 2018/0354181) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2024/0379933; examiner note, Fig. 3 of Kim is also present in priority document KR 10-2021-0154014).
Regarding claim 20, Ishii as modified teaches a kneading apparatus, configured for stirring and kneading an active material mixture (conical double-screw feeding device, Li p. 1, Fig. 1); the film preparation apparatus according to claim 1, provided downstream of the kneading apparatus (see rejection of claim 1 above, as modified, fed by hopper of Li with conical doubld-screw feeding device).
Ishii as modified does not teach a combination apparatus, provided downstream of the film preparation apparatus, wherein the combination apparatus is configured for combining a substrate and the active material film to form an electrode plate.
However, in the same field of endeavor of extruding products ([0031], Kim teaches an electrode plate manufacturing device (Fig. 3), wherein the film preparation apparatus is configured for extruding the active material mixture to form an active material film (electrode film, Fig. 3); and a combination apparatus (heated laminating rollers, Fig. 3), provided downstream of the film preparation apparatus (Fig. 3), wherein the combination apparatus is configured for combining a substrate and the active material film to form an electrode plate (finished electrode, Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the apparatus of Ishii to produce an electrode plate with the sequence of Fig. 3 of Kim because Fig. 3 of Kim teaches a known application of an extruder to produce this product and Ishii teaches an extruder.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305) in view of Deng (CN 112072063).
Regarding claim 21, Ishii teaches a film preparation apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a single-screw machine (single-screw extruder 11, [0079], Fig. 1), and an extrusion die (die head 12, [0079], Fgi. 1), wherein the single-screw machine is configured for conveying and extruding an active material mixture (discharges, [0086], Fig. 1), and the extrusion die is connected with a discharge end of the single-screw machine (guide path 35 to discharge port 32A, [0086], Fig. 1) and configured for extruding out an active material film (from discharge port 32A, [0086], Fig. 1), the feeding machine communicates with a feeding end of the single-screw machine and is configured to feed the single-screw machine ([0080], Fig. 1), wherein: a screw of the single-screw machine comprises a compression section (compression zone 21B, [0082], Fig. 1), an axial length L1 of the compression section and an axial length L of the screw satisfy 0.45≤L1/L≤0.65 (0.2-0.5, [0083], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)), and the extrusion die comprises a die body (die body 31, [0085], Figs. 1, 2A) provided with a feeding port (entry to guide path 35, [0086], Figs. 1, 2A) and a lip communicating with the feeding port (discharge port 32A, [0086], Figs. 1, 2A), the feeding port communicates with the discharge end of the single-screw machine ([0086], Figs. 1, 2A), the active material mixture enters die body through the feeding port and is extruded out through the lip ([0086], Figs. 1, 2A).
Ishii teaches an apparatus substantially as claimed. Ishii does not disclose a thickness of the lip is in a range of 3 mm to 8 mm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of extruding a film (p. 2 of the included translation), Deng teaches a thickness of the lip is in a range of 3 mm to 8 mm (extrusion head has transition cavity 61 and exit cavity 62 forming extruding channel 6; transition cavity 61 constitutes a feeding port and exit cavity 62 constitutes a lip, p. 9, Fig. 1; forming cavity 62 is flat rectangular, p. 11; embodiments of various thicknesses are disclosed, including 4 mm, p. 2, 8, 13, 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Ishii to have an extrusion die with the shape of the extrusion head of Deng because Deng teaches its head to produce various items such as that of Embodiment 3 (see p. 13) and is similarly fed by an extrusion screw.
Regarding claim 22, Ishii in view of Deng teaches wherein a thickness of the feeding port is greater than the thickness of the lip (gradually reducing diameter improves thickness uniformity, Deng p. 9, see also, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Ishii in view of Deng teaches wherein the lip has a cross-sectional shape corresponding to a cross-sectional shape of a belt-shaped active material film (rectangular flat shape that produces an electrode plate, Deng p. 11-13; while it is not clear what “belt-shaped active material film” is meant to convey about the cross-sectional shape, it is noted that, like [0069] of Applicant’s disclosure, p. 11-13 of Deng is similarly directed to extruding film used to make electrode plates).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's assertion that performance is better for a particular groove depth proportion is insufficient for a finding of unexpected results. Kazmer makes it clear that optimization of groove depth is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Applicant has not demonstrated the sort of discontinuity that would constitute unexpected results. Of note, Applicant’s assertions are about a particular subset of materials. To the extent Applicant argues that the recited threaded groove depth prevents excessive shearing or blocking of material, that only reflects the sort of ordinary experimentation that Kazmer teaches is known to a person of ordinary skill in this art. Applicant’s claims are therefore also not commensurate in scope with the asserted unexpected result.
As is made clear by Kazmer, optimization of groove depth for a particular use is well within the skill for a person of ordinary skill in the art and the subject of reasonable experimentation.
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 NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights