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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D1 (GB 1 544 418 A).
Regarding claim 1, D1 discloses a dry electrode manufacturing device, comprising: an inserting part that supplies an electrode powder for dry electrode manufacturing; a guide chute (6) that passes through the electrode powder supplied from the inserting part (14; Fig. 1 below); a dispersing rod (20) provided in the guide chute (6) to disperse the electrode powder; and a rolling roll (2,4) that compresses the electrode powder distributed to have a uniform particle size into an electrode member in the form a sheet that has a set thickness.
As for claim 2, D1 further teaches wherein: the guide chute has a gap set to allow the electrode powder to pass through and a width corresponding to the length of a rolling part of the rolling roll (Figure 1, item 6).
As for claim 3-4, D1 further shows wherein: the guide chute maintains the height of a stacking level set at the top of the rolling roll of the electrode powder (Figure 1); wherein the stacking level is set between the dispersing rod and the rolling roll (Figure 1).
As for claim 5, D1 further shows wherein: the dispersing rod is formed as a round rod (Figure 1, item 20).
GB 1 544 418
PNG
media_image1.png
669
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (GB 1 544 418 A, as provided by the Applicant’s IDS) in further view of D3 (EP 2241434 A2, as also provided by the applicant’s IDS).
As for claim 6-8, D1 teaches wherein: the dispersing rod is formed as a triangular rod (see Fig. 1 item 20) however, fail to teach wherein the dispersing rod comprises a plurality of dispersing rods provided along the width direction of the guide chute.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to a manufacturing device and material handling powder or fibrous mass, D3 discloses wherein the dispersing rod (14,15) comprises a plurality of dispensing rods provided along the width and height direction of the guide chute (5). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to have modified the dispersing rod as taught by D1 with further including plurality of dispersing rods arranged in desired direction, as taught by D3, for the benefit of efficiently supplying material with uniformity for further processing.
Regarding claims 9-16, D1 teach all the limitation to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein: the dispersing rod comprises a plurality of dispersing rods provided at least in an upper first row and a lower second row that are spaced apart in the height direction of the guide chute, a number of the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row is one more than a number of the plurality of dispersing rods of the upper first row, based on the width direction, and each of the plurality of dispersing rods of the upper first row is provided one by one correspondingly between each of the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row;
wherein the plurality of dispersing rods of the upper first row and the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row each have the same diameter;
the plurality of dispersing rods further comprise a third row below the lower second row, and the plurality of dispersing rods of the third row and the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row each have the same diameter; wherein: the plurality of dispersing rods of the upper first row each have a first diameter, and the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row each have a second diameter smaller than the first diameter; wherein: the plurality of dispersing rods further comprise a third row below the lower second row, and the plurality of dispersing rods of the third row each have a third diameter smaller than the second diameter.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to material handling and chute, D3 teaches the dispersing rod comprises a plurality of dispersing rods provided at least in an upper first row and a lower second row that are spaced apart in the height direction of the guide chute (Fig 2 item 14, 15), the plurality of dispersing rods of the upper first row each have a first diameter (Fig 2 item 14), the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row each have a second diameter smaller than the first diameter (Fig 2 item 15).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was made to have modified the dispersing rod as taught by D1 with further including plurality of dispersing rods arranged in desired direction and sizes, as taught by D3, for the benefit of efficiently supplying material with uniformity for further processing.
However, both D1 and D3 failed to explicitly teach a number of the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row is at least two more than a number of the plurality of dispersing rods of the upper first row, based on the width direction, and each of the plurality of dispersing rods of the upper first row is provided alternately with each of the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row; wherein: the plurality of dispersing rods further comprise a third row below the lower second row, and the plurality of dispersing rods of the third row each have a third diameter smaller than the second diameter; wherein: the plurality of dispersing rods further comprise a third row below the lower second row, wherein the plurality of dispersing rods of the third row each have a third diameter smaller than the second diameter of each of the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row, and wherein a number of the plurality of dispersing rods of the third row is at least three more than the number of the plurality of dispersing rods of the lower second row. The Examiner notes that the arrangement and sizes of the dispersing rod, would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art based on the teaching provided by D1 and D3, for the purpose of avoiding the particle size segregation leading to inconsistent formability, tensile strength, and mechanical properties of the self-supporting film.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of co-pending Application No. 19/058831 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both of the instant claim and reference claim pertains to dry electrode powder for dry electrode manufacturing including a guide chute to pass through the electrode powder, including dispersing rod, and a rolling roll to compress the electrode powder of the adjusted particle size
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1 - 16, the claim of co-pending Application No. 19/058831 (reference application) discloses a dry electrode manufacturing device, comprising: an inserting part that supplies an electrode powder for dry electrode manufacturing; a guide chute that passes through the electrode powder supplied from the inserting part ; a dispersing rod provided in the guide chute to disperse the electrode powder; and a rolling roll that compresses the electrode powder distributed to have a uniform particle size into an electrode member in the form a sheet that has a set thickness (see claim 1). Regarding the dependent claims 2-16 pertaining to shape and having plurality of rods arranged in specific manners, see additionally reference claims 2-15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2026/0112600 A1; US 2025/0316676 A1; US 2016/0109124 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights