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, 3, 5, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305).
Regarding claim 1, 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), 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)).Regarding claim 3, Ishii teaches wherein a compression ratio ε of the screw satisfies 2≤ε≤2.1 (1.8-3, [0084], overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 5, Ishii teaches wherein the screw further comprises a conveying section (supply zone of L1, [0082], Fig. 1) and a homogenization section (metering zone 21C of L3, [0082], Fig. 1), the conveying section, the compression section and the homogenization section are arranged in sequence in a conveying direction of the screw ([0082], Fig. 1), a thread groove depth of the conveying section is greater than a thread groove depth of the homogenization section ([0082], Fig. 1), and a thread groove depth of the compression section gradually decreases from the conveying section to the homogenization section ([0082], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Ishii teaches wherein an axial length L2 of the conveying section satisfies 0.12≤L2/L≤0.4 (0.25-0.4, [0083], Fig. 1).
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, [0083], Fig. 1, overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Claim(s) 2, 4, 6, 8-10, and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kazmer (US 2018/0354181).
Each of the 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 Kramer 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, 4, 6, 8-10, and 12-16 are obvious over Ishii in view of Kazmer.
For the sake of reference, the claims are listed below:
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).
4. The film preparation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein 450mm≤L1≤500mm (difference in size, which is subject to the experimentation taught by Kazmer).
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).
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).
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).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 214521854 U).
Regarding claim 17, Ishii teaches a feeding machine (hopper 22, [0080], Fig. 1), which communicates with a feeding end of the single-screw machine and is configured to feed the single-screw machine ([0080], Fig. 1). Ishii does not disclose a conical double-forced feeding machine, wherein a taper C of a conical screw of the conical double-forced feeding machine satisfies 10°≤C≤30°.
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), wherein a taper C of a conical screw of the conical double-forced feeding machine satisfies 10°≤C≤30° (conical shape entails an overlapping range, see MPEP 2144.05(I), p. 1, Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305) in view of Li (CN 214521854 U) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Kazmer (US 2018/0354181).
Regarding claim 18, Ishii as modified teaches wherein the screw further comprises a conveying section (supply zone of L1, Ishii [0082], Fig. 1), the conveying section is located upstream of the compression section (Ishii [0082], Fig. 1), [and] a tail end of the conical screw is docked with the conveying section (as modified, tail end of the conical screw of Li (p. 1, Fig. 1) docks with entry to supply zone of Ishii (Ishii Fig. 1).
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 H4>H1.
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.
Regarding claim 19, Ishii as modified teaches wherein 0.75H1≤H4≤0.9H1 (all within the scope of the experimentation taught by [0061] of Kramer).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishii (US 2016/0214305) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 214521854 U) and Kim (US 2024/0379933; examiner note, Fig. 3 of Kim is also present in priority document KR 10-2021-0154014).
Regarding claim 20, Ishii teaches the film preparation apparatus according to claim 1, provided downstream of the feeding apparatus (see rejection of claim 1 above, fed by hopper 22, [0080], Fig. 1).
Ishii does not disclose a kneading apparatus, configured for stirring and kneading an active material mixture; wherein the film preparation apparatus is configured for extruding the active material mixture to form an active material film; and 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 feeding hoppers for plastic processing (abstract), Li teaches a kneading apparatus, configured for stirring and kneading an active material mixture (conical double-screw feeding device, p. 1, Fig. 1).
Additionally, 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 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.
Additionally, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ishii (US 10,300,648) teaches subject matter similar to Ishii (US 2016/0214305), cited above.
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