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 § 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 4-5, 7-8, and 10-16 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 4 recites the limitation "the coating width of the first coating portion" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the coating width of the first coating portion" will be considered to mean "a coating width of the first coating portion".
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coating width of the second coating portion" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the coating width of the second coating portion" will be considered to mean "a coating width of the second coating portion".
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coating width of the third coating portion" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the coating width of the third coating portion" will be considered to mean "a coating width of the third coating portion".
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coating width of the first coating portion" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the coating width of the first coating portion" will be considered to mean "a coating width of the first coating portion".
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coating width of the second coating portion" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the coating width of the second coating portion" will be considered to mean "a coating width of the second coating portion".
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coating width of the third coating portion" in line 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the coating width of the third coating portion" will be considered to mean "a coating width of the third coating portion".
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and, therefore, also contains this limitation.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the width" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, "the width" will be considered to mean "a width".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the conductivity" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the conductivity” will be considered to mean “a conductivity”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the conductivity" in lines 1, 2, and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the conductivity” will be considered to mean “a conductivity”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the conductive carbon content" in lines 1, 2, and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the conductive carbon content” will be considered to mean “a conductive carbon content”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the slurry" in lines 2, 3, and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the slurry” will be considered to mean “a slurry”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the coating depth" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the coating depth” will be considered to mean “a coating depth”.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the coating depth" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the coating depth” will be considered to mean “a coating depth”.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the coating depth" in lines 1, 2, and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the coating depth” will be considered to mean “a coating depth”.
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) 1-3, 6, 9-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (CN 200974057 Y, hereafter Zhu ‘057, with machine translation).
Note: citations to Zhu ‘057 will refer to the location in the machine translation.
Claim 1: Zhu ‘057 teaches a coating roller assembly configured to coat an electrode plate of a battery (abstract, Figs. 6-7, [0037]) comprising:
coating rollers (1,3) (Figs. 6-7, [0037]); and
coating portions (12, outer surface of 3) disposed around the coating rollers (Figs. 6-7, [0037]),
wherein the coating portions comprise a first coating portion (rightmost 12), a second coating portion (leftmost 12), and a third portion (central 12 and center portion of outer surface of 3) (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), and
wherein the first coating portion can form a first coating layer portion, the second coating portion can form a second coating layer portion, and the third coating portion can form a third coating layer portion between the first and second coating layer portions (Figs. 7-8, [0037]).
Claim 2: Zhu ‘057 teaches that the coating rollers can comprise at least a first roller (1) and second roller (3) (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), where the coating portions can be around the first and second rollers (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), and wherein the first and second coating portions can be on the first roller and the third coating portion on the second roller (Figs. 6-7, [0037]).
Claim 3: Zhu ‘057 teaches that the first and second coating portions can be on the first roller (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), there can be a space between the first and second coating portions (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), and the third coating portion can be present on the second roller at a position corresponding to the space (Figs. 6-7, [0037]).
Claim 6: Zhu ‘057 teaches that the first, second, and third coating portions can be side by side on the coating rollers with the third coating portion between the first coating portion and the second coating portion (Figs. 6-7, [0037]).
Claim 9: Zhu ‘057 teaches that the roller assembly can include a first gap (right 11) between the first coating portion and the third coating portion (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), and a second gap (left 11) between the second coating portion and the third coating portion (Figs. 6-7, [0037]).
Claim 10: Zhu ‘057 teaches that the width of the first gap can be the same as the width of the second gap ([0037]).
Claim 11: With respect to the limitation “the conductivity of a slurry coated by the first coating portion is the same as the conductivity of a slurry coated by the second portion”, it is noted that these limitations are recitations of an intended use of the coating roller assembly, and there is no indication that said intended use requires a different structure than the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 or that the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 would be incapable of said intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
Claim 12: With respect to the limitation “the conductivity of a slurry coated by the third coating portion is the less than the conductivity of a slurry coated by the first portion and the conductivity of a slurry coated by the second portion”, it is noted that these limitations are recitations of an intended use of the coating roller assembly, and there is no indication that said intended use requires a different structure than the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 or that the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 would be incapable of said intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
Claim 13: With respect to the limitation “the conductive carbon content of the slurry coated by the first coating portion is 40% to 50%, the conductive carbon content of the slurry coated by the second coating portion is 40% to 50%, and the conductive carbon content of the slurry coated by the third coating portion is 5% to 20%”, it is noted that these limitations are recitations of an intended use of the coating roller assembly, and there is no indication that said intended use requires a different structure than the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 or that the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 would be incapable of said intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
Claim 14: With respect to the limitation “the coating depth of the first coating portion is the same as the coating depth of the second coating portion”, it is noted that these limitations are recitations of an intended use of the coating roller assembly, and there is no indication that said intended use requires a different structure than the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 or that the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 would be incapable of said intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
Claim 15: With respect to the limitation “the coating depth of the third coating portion is the greater than the coating depth of the first coating portion and the coating depth of the second coating portion”, it is noted that these limitations are recitations of an intended use of the coating roller assembly, and there is no indication that said intended use requires a different structure than the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 or that the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 would be incapable of said intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
Claim 16: With respect to the limitation “the coating depth of the third coating portion is the 1.1 times to 6.2 times the coating depth of the first coating portion and/or the coating depth of the second coating portion”, it is noted that these limitations are recitations of an intended use of the coating roller assembly, and there is no indication that said intended use requires a different structure than the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 or that the coating roller assembly of Zhu ‘057 would be incapable of said intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2111.02.II.
Claim 18: Zhu ‘057 teaches a method for coating an electrode plate of a battery with a coating roller assembly (abstract, Figs. 6-7, [0037]), the coating roller comprising:
coating rollers (1,3) (Figs. 6-7, [0037]); and
coating portions (12, outer surface of 3) disposed around the coating rollers (Figs. 6-7, [0037]),
wherein the coating portions comprise a first coating portion (rightmost 12), a second coating portion (leftmost 12), and a third portion (central 12) (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), and
wherein the first coating portion can form a first coating layer portion, the second coating portion can form a second coating layer portion, and the third coating portion can form a third coating layer portion between the first and second coating layer portions (Figs. 7-8, [0037]),
the method comprising:
immersing the coating roller assembly into troughs (4) so that the first, second, and third coating portions are each attached with a slurry from a respective trough (Figs. 6-7, [0037]); and
coating an electrode plate (5) with the coating roller assembly to form a first coating layer portion (rightmost 6) on the electrode plate by the first coating portion, a second coating layer portion (leftmost 6) on the electrode plate by the second coating portion, and a third coating layer portion (central 6) on the electrode plate by the third coating portion (Figs. 7-8, [0037], [0038]), where the third coating layer portion is located between the first coating layer portion and the second coating layer portion (Figs. 7-8).
Claim 19: Zhu ‘057 teaches an electrode plate (5) comprising a coating layer (6) (abstract, Figs. 7-8, [0037], [0038]), the coating layer comprising a first coating layer portion (rightmost 6), a second coating layer portion (leftmost 6), and a third coating layer portion (central 6) (Figs. 7-8, [0037], [0038]), where the third coating layer portion is between the first and second coating layer portions (Figs. 7-8).
Claim 20: Zhu ‘057 teaches that the electrode plate can be a part of a battery (abstract, [0037], [0038]).
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.
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) 4-5 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu ‘057 as applied to claims 2 and 6 above.
Claims 4-5: Zhu ‘057 teaches the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Zhu ‘057 further teaches that the first, second, and third coating portions define a total coating width (Figs. 6-7, [0037]).
With respect to claim 4, Zhu ‘057 does not explicitly teach that the coating width of the first coating portion is one third of the total coating width, that the coating width of the second coating portion is one third of the total coating width, or that the coating width of the third coating portion is greater than one third of the total coating width. With respect to claim 5, Zhu ‘057 does not explicitly teach that the coating width of the third coating portion is 0.5% to 2% greater than one third of the total coating width.
However, the claimed coating roller assembly differs from the coating roller assembly taught by Zhu ‘057 only in the width of the first, second, and third coating portions, and it has been held that changes in size are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claims 7-8: Zhu ‘057 teaches the limitations of claim 6, as discussed above. Zhu ‘057 further teaches that the first, second, and third coating portions define a total coating width (Figs. 6-7, [0037]), where the width of the first coating portion can be less than one third of the total coating width (Figs. 6-7) and the width of the second coating portion can be less than one third of the total coating width (Figs. 6-7).
With respect to claim 7, Zhu ‘057 does not explicitly teach that the coating width of the third coating portion is greater than one third of the total coating width. With respect to claim 8, Zhu ‘057 does not explicitly teach that the coating width of the first coating portion is 0.5% to 2% less than one third of the total coating width, that the coating width of the second coating portion is 0.5% to 2% less than one third of the total coating width, or that the coating width of the third coating portion is 0.5% to 2% greater than one third of the total coating width.
However, the claimed coating roller assembly differs from the coating roller assembly taught by Zhu ‘057 only in the width of the first, second, and third coating portions, and it has been held that changes in size are obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu ‘057 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bashyam et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0187690, hereafter Bashyam ‘690).
Claim 17: Zhu ‘057 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Zhu ‘057 further teaches that the coating roller assembly can include a doctor blade ([0037]).
With respect to claim 17, Zhu ‘057 does not explicitly teach that the coating rollers are gravure rollers.
Bashyam ‘690 teaches a coating assembly to coat an electrode plate of a battery (abstract, [0002]). Bashyam ‘690 teaches that using a doctor blade or gravure coating rollers are functional equivalents ([0037]). Both Bashyam ‘690 and Zhu ‘057 teach coating assemblies to coat an electrode plate of a battery (‘057, abstract, Figs. 6-7, [0037]; ‘690, abstract, [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gravure coating rollers taught by Bashyam ‘690 instead of the doctor blade in the coating roller assembly taught by Zhu ‘057 because using a doctor blade or gravure coating rollers are functional equivalents, as taught by Bashyam ‘690.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD M GATES whose telephone number is (571)270-3558. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/BG/
/SHAMIM AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights