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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-16 are currently pending. Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12 are withdrawn. Claims 4, 14, 15 are currently amended. Claim 16 is new. Claims 5,6,11 are canceled. Claim 17 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are not found persuasive.
In pg 3, Applicant appears to argue that Oorui does not disclose that the ultrasonic horn and the anvil are spun independent from each other, and further argues that the instant application uses rollers rather than anvils and horns that use ultrasonic waves to avoid damage to the separator and physical distortion of the radical unit, and the rollers are spun independently to control and offer flexibility in responding to minute speed differences or tension changes.
Examiner notes that the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim as the instant claim does not limit the rollers to exclude the ultrasonic horn and anvil or the use of ultrasonic waves for sealing.
Since the disk-shaped horns and anvils (i.e., the claimed roller) are independently attached to different holding members 144R and 246R respectively (see fig 10A) and are spun, the claimed limitation of “a pair of rollers that are spun independent from each other” is considered met.
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.
Claim(s) 4, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oorui (US-20170305129-A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Oorui discloses a lamination device (“ultrasonic bonding device” in abstract) for manufacturing an electrode assembly (“bagged electrode” [0117-0119]; Fig 10A-B).
Oorui discloses wherein the lamination device comprises (in Fig 10A,B) :
a transfer unit (conveyor belt 161) configured to transfer an electrode stack [0064], in which a plurality of electrodes (electrode 13) and a separator (separators 40) having a length longer than a width thereof are alternately stacked [0029]; and
a sealing unit (ultrasonic bonding device 200) configured to press and seal both ends of the electrode stack transferred by the transfer unit,
wherein a portion of the sealing unit (ultrasonic horn 241 and anvil 245) that overlaps each of both ends of the electrode stack is less than a full width of the sealing unit (i.e., the thickness of the disk of the ultrasonic horn 241 is less than a full width of the sealing unit 200)
wherein the portion of the sealing unit is configured to press and seal a portion of the electrode stack (see Fig 10B) that is coated with a coating material that includes a mixture of a ceramic material (i.e., positive electrode active material of the positive electrode including oxides such as LiMn2O4, manganese dioxide [0026])
Even though the limitations were mapped to the prior art, such limitations are not considered to further limit the structure of the claim in accordance to MPEP 2114 (II), where the manner of operating the device (e.g., “the sealing unit is configured to press and seal…”) is not considered to further limit the structure of the claimed lamination device. Oorui discloses all the structural limitations (i.e., a transfer unit, a sealing unit) of the claim that are required to carry out such an operation of the device and thus meets the claim limitation.
Oorui does not disclose wherein the coating material further includes a binder, as claimed. Examiner notes that the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (MPEP 2115).
Regarding the limitation ”so that the portion of the sealing unit presses the mixture including the ceramic material and the binder”, Examiner notes that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate this apparatus claim from the prior art (MPEP 2114-II).
Since Oorui discloses all the claimed structural limitations (i.e., transfer unit, a sealing unit) that are required to carry out such an operation of lamination, the claimed limitation is considered met.
Oorui further discloses wherein the sealing unit is constituted by a pair of rollers (i.e., ultrasonic horn 241 and an anvil 245 which are rotating metal disks [0110-0111]; e.g., see Fig 10A) that are each held by holding members 144R and 246R [0111].
Since the horn 241 and anvil 245 are each individually held by holding members 144 and 246 and are physically separated (thus independent) and spun, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the “pair of rollers are spun independent from each other”, as claimed. Examiner notes that “independent” is interpreted as “not requiring or relying on something else” per Merriam-Webster definition.
Oorui further discloses wherein the pair of rollers press and seal only both of the ends of the electrode stack, respectively (i.e., linear bonding portion 40 i in Fig 10A,B; [0109]).
Even though the limitations were mapped to the prior art, Examiner further notes that the manner of operating the device (“press and seal”) does not differentiate this apparatus claim from the prior art, and such limitations are not considered to further limit the structure of the claim (MPEP 2114 II). Since Oorui discloses all the structural limitations (i.e., sealing unit comprising a pair of rollers, transfer unit) necessary to carry out such an operation of the device, the claim limitation is considered met.
Regarding claim 13, Oorui discloses the lamination device of claim 4, wherein the separator is rectangular (see separator 40 in Fig 2,3).
Regarding claim 14, Oorui discloses the lamination device of claim 4,
wherein the pair of rollers (ultrasonic horn 241 and anvil 245) are opposing to each other so that the ends of the electrode stack (i.e., linear bonding portion 40 i in Fig 10A,B) are interposed between the pair of rollers,
wherein the portion of the electrode stack is provided as a plurality of sealing parts (i.e., bonding portions 40 h located between separator 13 and the outer edge of the electrode 20 in Fig 3) interposed between the plurality of electrodes and the separator, and
the pair of rollers is configured to form the plurality of sealing parts (see linear bonding portion 40 h in Fig 3 or bonding portion 40 i in Fig 10A,B) so that inner ends of the plurality of sealing parts are aligned.
Even though the limitations were mapped to the prior art, such limitations of operating the device are not considered to further limit the structure of the claim in accordance to MPEP 2114 II. Oorui discloses all the claimed structures (i.e., a pair of rollers, a transfer unit, a sealing unit) necessary to operate the device, thus the claimed limitations are considered met. Further, inclusion of the material or article (e.g., electrode stack, electrodes, separator) worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims in accordance to MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 15, Oorui discloses the lamination device of claim 4, wherein an overlap of each of both ends of the electrode stack and the pair of rollers is in an axial direction (i.e., thickness of the disk of ultrasonic horn 241 and anvil 245 in Fig 10A,10B) of the pair of rollers.
Regarding claim 16, Oorui discloses the lamination device of claim 14, wherein each sealing part is provided at each of both sides of the electrode stack on which an electrode tab (positive electrode terminal 21a or negative electrode terminal 31a; Fig 3; [0025, 0027]) is disposed, as claimed.
Oorui further discloses wherein the sealing part presses and seals both ends of the electrode stack (i.e., bonding portion 40h in Fig 3 or 40i in Fig 10A,B are on both ends of the electrode stack).
Even though the limitations were mapped to the prior art, Examiner further notes that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate this apparatus claim from the prior art, and such limitations are not considered to further limit the structure of the claim (MPEP 2114 II). Since Oorui discloses all the structural limitations (i.e., sealing unit with rollers, transfer unit) necessary to carry out such an operation of the device, the claim limitation is considered met.
Further, inclusion of the material or article (e.g., electrode tab) worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims in accordance to MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 17, Oorui discloses the lamination device of claim 4. Regarding the limitation “the pair of rollers are further configured to pass the separator … ”, Examiner notes that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate this apparatus claim from the prior art, and such limitations are not considered to further limit the structure of the claim (MPEP 2114 II). Since Oorui discloses all the structural limitations (i.e., sealing unit with rollers, transfer unit) necessary to carry out such an operation of the device, the claim limitation is considered met.
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.
/T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 5/14/2026
Prosecution Insights