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 .
Response to Amendment
That the amendment to the claim languages filed on 7/10/26 has been fully considered and made of record. Claims 21-29, 31-46 are now pending of record. Note that claim 45-46 are newly added.
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. This objection is retained for same reason provided by the previous Action dated 1/12/26.
Subject matter of claim 45-46 should be shown in method claim formats including in flowchart diagram where the method directed to.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-29, 32-46 are objected to because of the following informalities: This objection is valid for reason provided from previous Action under “claim objection”.
Noted that the identifier of claim 21 is incorrect should be (currently amended).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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. This rejection is retained for same reason provided from the previous Action dated 1/12/26.
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 21-29, 31-46 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.
The amendment to the claims still raises new issues of 112 because the scope of the claims clearly drawn to method invention as clearly defined in the preamble of each independent claim 21, 46 and no flowchart of method manufacturing (Figure provided for such method) only associated apparatus entity shown in Fig. 4 which does not further limit the method since arranging of apparatus features do not further limit the claimed method.
As applied to newly added claim 45, again, no positive active method limitation is recited in claim 45 because the dry process does not seem to be connected to the previous intermediate claim.
As per claim 46 like claim 21 the method is directed to a system entity which is not limiting the claimed method which also made scope of the claim unclear.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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). This rejection is set forth from the previous Action under section 102, dated 1/12/26.
As applied to claims 45-46 appears to meet by the Michell et al, since the subject matter of above claims is overlap in scope of previous rejected claim 21, is/are met by Mitchell in light of Figs. 2b, 3 and the discussion in ||[0071], and 11 [0137-0138], respectively. Since, the subject-matter of claims 37-44 is therefore not inventive when departing from Mitchell and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Because the applied prior art discloses the claimed method of the present claim for reasons provided from the record.
The Drawings:
First, Applicant contents that “Applicant respectfully submits that an express showing of claim 21's "a first calendering location," "a first compression location," "the compression location," "a second compression location," and "a second compression location" is not "necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented" because a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading claim 21 in light of the specification, would understand the calendering and compression locations. As explained in more detail below with respect to the enablement rejection, the specification describes these calendering and compression locations in connection with system portions 100, 200, and 300 (see, e.g., Figure 2, para. 37) and expressly discloses duplication of these locations for double-sided electrode manufacturing (see. e.g., Figure 6, para. 42). Figures 2 and 6 illustrate the roller arrangements from which a person of ordinary skill could understand the claimed locations” (see “Remarks “ page 1 under heading “Drawings Objection”. This has been carefully noted and not found to be convincing since the method is being claimed and no method diagram or drawing provided with the method claims. Thus, the drawing objection has remained for reason of record. Further, Fig. 2 of the present invention directed to “an apparatus” entity which does not further limit the method invention as claimed. Therefore, the features as 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 in the method formats) instead of structure formats. No new matter should be entered. It is suggesting the following drawing formats for method claims (see below):
PNG
media_image1.png
50
267
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
513
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claim objection:
This objection is retained for reason of record, since the claim directed to method and the claim also directed to the apparatus entity (see Fig. 2) which does not further limit the method and makes the scope of the claim unclear.
In formulated the previous rejections the Examiner solely bases on the method not the outside structure elements entity and claims have been rejected accordingly.
The 112 rejections
This rejection is set forth from previous Action under section of 112 1st and 112 2nd
, for reasons provided of record.
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the specification enables the recited calendering and compressing locations. For example, Figure 4 illustrates a multi-roll calender system 400 having six rolls 430 (see under the “Remarks” pages 3-4 entirely. This has been carefully evaluated and not found to be persuasive because the claims directed to method invention and the arguments directed to the apparatus and system entities which is/are not limiting the method as claimed. Thus, the previous 112 rejection is valid for reason of record.
The prior art:
Applicant's arguments regarding the pending rejected claims have been acknowledged but not found to be convincing because of the reason provided from the record (see 112 sections above).
The prior art rejection is retained for reason of record. Since claims associated with the 112 issues therefore as best understood pending claims 21-29, 31-46 is/are rejected by the by Michell et al for same reason provided from previous Action, dated 1/12/26.
Note: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., "a first calendering location" and "a first compressing location," where the film is calendered at the first calendering location and transferred to the first compressing location for compressing. However, the Office Action maps the same Mitchell part 38 as both locations. Similarly, claim 21 also recites "a first compacted film," which is formed at the first calendering location, and is transferred to the first compressing location to be compressed into a "first dry electrode film." The Office Action again maps the same Mitchell film 34 as both films. Mitchell thus does not disclose a distinct "compacted film" produced at a claendering location that is thereafter transferred to a separate compressing location and compressed into the "dry electrode film) as best understood is not method claim limitations (see rejection under 112 set forth above). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, Thomas J Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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
Prosecution Insights