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 II (claims 21-29), in the reply filed on 12/19/25 is acknowledged. Thus, claims 1-20, 30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (I, III), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/25. Further, the newly added claims 31-44 readable on the elected Group II.
An OA on the merits of claims 21-29 and 31-44 as follows:
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed (e.g., “a first calendering location“ (claim 21, line 4) and “a first compression location”(claim 211, lines 7) ; “ the compression location” (claim 21, line 8); “a second calendering location”(claim 21, line 11);” “a second compression location”(claim 1, line 14)), respectively must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Priority
Since the related applications under the title (see ¶ [0001] of the Applicant’s Specification) have been matured into patents, therefore the applications should be updated to U.S. patents numbers.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: --"Double sides Dry Electrode Manufacturing Method”--
The abstract should be updated to reflect method invention.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Since the scope of the claims clearly directed to a method which operatively associated with “a number locations of a lamination system” (see claim 21, lines 4-5, 7-8, 11-15). Therefore, the preamble of the claim should be rewritten to includes the above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-29, 31-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In this case the subject matters ((e.g., “a first calendering location “ (claim 21, line 4) and “a first compression location”(claim 211, lines 7) ; “ the compression location” (claim 21, line 8); “a second calendering location”(claim 21, line 11);” “a second compression location”(claim 1, line 14)) was not fully described in the specification in in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and /or use the invention.
Similar to claim 21 occurrence in claims 33-36 where the claimed subject matters was not fully described in the specification in in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and /or use the invention.
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 21-29, 31-44 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.
It is unclear as to how the process of claims above can be practiced since the specification and/or drawings do not support such associated locations (see also 112 1st above).
“the compressing location” (claim 21, line 8) lacks proper antecedent basis.
“is self-supporting” (claim 22, line 3) is vague and indefinite also not a positive method limitation, since, it is unclear as to which one of the film as listed in claim 2 is being referring as ”self-supporting”.
Similar to claim 22 occurrence in claim 23. Also, “is supported” is not positive method limitation. The use of terms or phrase “supporting the . . .”—is suggested.
“is adhered” (claim 31, line 2-3) is not a positive method limitation, also, it is not known as to which one of the film as listed in claim 31 is the at least one ? should be updated to method limitation, the use of:-- “adhering . . . “ is suggested.
Claims 33-34 is/are directed to the material properties do not appear to further limit the method as claimed.
It is unclear as to exactly what being referring to as “radius of curvature” as set forth in claim 35-36. Since no connection between this and the rest of the method.
The above is example of inconsistency and problematic issue noticed by the Examiner. Applicant is respectfully asked to review the rest of the pending claims for any deficiency that may still be present.
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) 21-29, 31, 37-44 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Michell et al (20060147712).
Michell et al discloses the claimed method of manufacturing a double-sided dry electrode for an energy storage device, comprising:
forming a first film from a first dry electrode material 19 and 20 (see Fig. 1a);
transferring the first film to a first calendering location 38 (see Fig. 2b );
calendering the first film 34 at the first calendering location to form a first compacted film a (see Fig. 2b);
transferring the first compacted film to a first compressing location 38 (see Fig. 2b or other related Fig. 2g);
PNG
media_image1.png
502
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
compressing the first compacted film at the compressing location to form a first dry electrode film 34 (see 38 bottom two rolls);
forming a second film from a second dry electrode material 20;
transferring the second film to a second calendering location 38 (top two rolls);
calendering the second film at the second calendering location to form a second compacted film;
transferring the second compacted film to a second compressing location (see Fig. 2b, as marked up above);
compressing the second compacted film at the second compressing location to form a second dry electrode film 34 (see Fig. 2b);
laminating the first dry electrode film 34 (as top 34 film) to a first side of a current collector (see Fig. 3); and
laminating the second dry electrode film (as bottom 34 film) to a second side of the current collector (see Fig. 3 as marked up above);
PNG
media_image2.png
595
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the current collector 50 laminated with the first dry electrode film and the second dry electrode film forms the double-sided dry electrode 54 (see Fig. 3).
Claims 22-23 do not further limit the base claim 1 since no method inventive feature existed thereto. For claim 22 refer to abstract for same teaching of self-supporting electrode film and Fig. 2a discloses the supporting film by calendering roller system, respectively.
As applied to claim 24 refer to Fig. 2b, which depicts the thickness configurations set forth in claim 24.
Limitations of claim 25 is also met by the Michell reference (see Fig. 1, 14).
As applied to claims 26-28 refer to Fig. 3 of the Michell et al and discussion under the abstract.
As applied to claim 29, refer to Fig. 2a which depict that the compacting first dry film occurrence at least two time at location 38 by first nip and second nip from bottom three rolls of section 38.
Claims 37-44 are also met by the Mitchell reference in light of Figs. 2b, 3 and the discussion in ¶[0071], and ¶¶ [0137-0138], respectively. Since, the subject-matter of claims 37-44 is therefore not inventive when departing from the Mitchell as applied above and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
PNG
media_image3.png
539
607
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 32-36 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michell et al.
As applied to claim 33-34. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the material configuration of above claims onto the Mitchell reference, since materials and/or properties are selected based on design considerations and tradeoffs between cost, mechanical properties, and dielectric properties.
Claims 35-36 are also rejected for same rational set forth in above claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-4569. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH ~5:00-3:30.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at 571-272-3460. 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.
/MINH N TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729
mt