DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 5-10 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.
Claim 5 recites “the separator is transported by being brought into contact with the air guide roller in a state in which the separator is not floated off the air guide roller”, it is unclear what this limitation requires. Does the claim require the separator contact the roller and then the command is transmitted or is the command being transmitted to cause the separator to contact the roller?
Claim 6 recites “transmitting an air spray control command according to an electrostatic characteristic of the separator”, it is not understood what is transmitting the command, what is receiving the command, and how the electrostatic characteristic of the separator is determined to base the air spray control command on. It appears the claim is lacking the air guide roller controller and is a direct translation.
Claim 9 recites “transmitting the air spray control command according to an air spray pressure numerical value at which the separator is transported by being brought into contact with the air guide roller in a state in which the separator is not floated off the air guide roller”, it is unclear how the air spray pressure numerical value is determined or what it is from and the claim appears to be a direct translation that does not make sense. Does the claim require the separator contact the roller and then the command is transmitted or is the command being transmitted to cause the separator to contact the roller? The scope of claim 9 is not understood.
Claim 10 recites “transmitting the air spray control command by adjusting an air spray cycle according to the electrostatic characteristic of the separator”, it not understood what the air spray cycle is from or how the electrostatic characteristic of the separator is determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 113335979 A).
Regarding claim 1, Li et al. discloses a system for transporting a separator by using an air guide roller, the system comprising:
an air guide roller controller (Paragraph 0045 line 1); and
the air guide roller (110) configured to receive a control command from the air guide roller controller and to spray air onto one surface of the separator when the separator travels (Paragraph 0046 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 2, Li et al. discloses the air guide roller is in a region at where a force is concentrated while the separator having an electrostatic characteristic of a reference numerical value or more due to a ceramic coating and binder coating travels (Figure 3 and the material worked upon does not limit an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 3, Li et al. discloses the air guide roller is in the region at where a bending angle of a path along which the separator travels is a reference angle or more (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Li et al. discloses the air guide roller sprays air from an inside of the air guide roller to an outside thereof through air holes (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, Li et al. discloses the air guide roller controller is configured to transmit the control command according to an air spray pressure numerical value at which the separator is transported by being brought into contact with the air guide roller in a state in which the separator is not floated off the air guide roller (Paragraph 0046 lines 3-6 and MPEP 2114, if the strip material is insufficiently tensioned it would contact the roller and the controller would increase the air volume.
Regarding claim 6, Li et al. discloses a method of transporting a separator by using an air guide roller, the method comprising:
arranging an air guide roller (110) having air holes (111) in a region of a path along which the separator travels (Figure 3); and
transmitting an air spray control command according to an electrostatic characteristic of the separator (Paragraph 0046 lines 3-6, as best understood the electrostatic characteristic is based on the properties of the separator and the Li et al. adjusts the tension of the strip and therefore meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Li et al. discloses the arranging of the air guide roller comprises arranging the air guide roller by considering a path along which air is sprayed from an inside of the air guide roller to an outside thereof (Figure 3 and this is considered a product by process limitation, see MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 8, Li et al. discloses the arranging of the air guide roller comprises arranging the air guide roller in a region of the path along which the separator travels having a bending angle of a reference angle or more (Figure 3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because they are drawn to air guide rollers and control thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-7805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at 571-272-8004. 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.
MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights