DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/06/2026, has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended to include the subject matter of claim 11, and claim 11 is now cancelled. Claims 14-20 are new. Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claim 1 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “preparing an electrode assembly by alternately laminating the electrode and separator (S3); performing lamination by simultaneously heating and pressing the electrode assembly (S4), including heating the electrode assembly”. However, it is unclear whether there is one lamination step, two lamination steps, and where the lamination starts and ends. When interpreted in light of the figures and specification, there are contradictions. Fig. 2 clearly depicts only one lamination step (S4). The specification recites: “The lamination process is a process of attaching an electrode and a separator… it is impossible to assemble a stacked or
stacked/folded battery without a lamination process” as well as “Specifically, in the lamination process, the electrode is laminated in the order of positive electrode/ separator/ negative electrode, and then heat and pressure are applied to the laminated electrode (lamination cell)”.
Therefore, the drawings say the lamination process is only S4, and the specification say the lamination process is simply preparing the electrode assembly, S3, or is both S3 and S4. Claim 1 is interpreted wherein S3 is a lamination process in the sense of assembly, and S4 is a separate lamination process in the sense of heating and pressing; wherein lamination can refer to an assembly or packaging of layers.
Claims 2-7 and 10-13, and 15-20 are rejected in view of dependence on the rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US-20050238957-A1) in view of Kwon (US-20160020434-A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a secondary battery [0001], comprising:
preparing [0069] a slurry [0069] containing a solvent [0069] and an electrode mixture [0069] containing succinonitrile (S1) [0069];
preparing an electrode by coating the slurry to a current collector and drying the slurry (S2) [0069];
preparing an electrode assembly [0005] by alternately laminating [0005] the electrode [0005] and a separator [0005] (S3) ([0005]; wherein alternately the anode and cathode are laminated via the separator);
including heating( [0069], the electrode assembly [0069] to a temperature of a melting point [0069] or more of the succinonitrile ([0069], 60 °C; wherein a melting point of succinonitrile is 57 °C, see https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Succinonitrile), wherein a heating temperature of the electrode assembly is in in a range of 57°C C to 70°C ([0069], 60 °C);
and accommodating [0061] the laminated electrode assembly [0061] in a battery case [0061] and injecting an electrolyte solution [0061] (S5) ([0061], “electrolyte…aluminum”, wherein aluminum serves as the battery case).
wherein the succinonitrile acts as a binder between the electrode and the separator ([0068], wherein succinonitrile forms a complex with the electrode, binding it together; see also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211285523008911 , wherein succinonitrile is a known plasticizer, thus enabling crosslinking in the slurry and binding it together; wherein this limitation is considered to be a functional limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(g)). The recitation has been fully considered; however, it carries limited patentable weight. In the instant case, Kim discloses/teaches all of the structural limitations as claimed. Therefore, Kim is capable of performing the functional limitations in the manner claimed).
Kim fails to specifically teach performing lamination by simultaneously heating and pressing the electrode assembly (S4), and wherein the heating step is performed before accommodating the electrode in a case. Kwon teaches performing lamination (see Fig. 12; [0098]) by simultaneously (see [0098]; and Fig. 12, L1 and L2) heating [0098] and pressing [0098] the electrode assembly (Fig. 1, 30) and wherein the heating step is performed before accommodating the electrode in a case (Fig. 1, 30; wherein Fig. 12 depicts lamination occurring during the electrode assembly formation step, before being placed in the case of Fig. 1; see also [0098]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include a lamination step of heating and pressing the electrode assembly (see 112(b) rejection above), as taught by Kwon, as Kwon teaches this as an acceptable method of manufacturing a secondary battery in the art (Fig. 12; [0098]).
Regarding claim 2,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a content of the succinonitrile [0068] is 0.1 to 5% by weight based on a total weight [0068] of the electrode mixture ([0068], 2.5 wt%, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step (S1) of preparing [0007] the electrode slurry [0007] includes: a step of uniformly [0007] dispersing the succinonitrile [0007] in the electrode slurry ([0007], “uniformly).
Regarding claim 4,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step (S2) of preparing [0069] the electrode includes: a step of applying [0069] the electrode slurry [0069] on one or opposite surfaces [0069] of the current collector [0069]; and a step of drying the electrode to which the electrode slurry has been applied [0069].
Regarding claim 6,
PNG
media_image1.png
608
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the succinonitrile is positioned on an upper portion or surface of the electrode ([0069], coated uniformly with succinonitrile”), the upper portion being an end region of the electrode disposed opposite the current collector ([0069], wherein succinonitrile is described to form a complex with the electrode active material coating uniformly on top of the electrode active material, such that the content far from the current collector; see annotated Fig. above), and the surface being disposed opposite the current collector (see [0069] and annotated Fig. above) and in contact with the separator (see annotated Fig. and [0005]; wherein alternately the anode and cathode are laminated via the separator).
Regarding claim 7,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the step (S2) of preparing the electrode includes: a step of solidifying liquid succinonitrile by cooling the electrode, to which the electrode slurry has been applied, to a room temperature ([0069], wherein treating it again at a high temperature for 12 hours, thus a 12 hr heat treatment requires cooling to RT once the time is up since Kim is silent to any further heat treatments).
Regarding claim 11,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the succinonitrile acts as a binder between the electrode and the separator ([0068], wherein succinonitrile forms a complex with the electrode, binding it together; see also https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211285523008911 , wherein succinonitrile is a known plasticizer, thus enabling crosslinking in the slurry and binding it together).
Regarding claim 12,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein in the step of accommodating the laminated electrode assembly in a battery case and injecting an electrolyte solution (S5), the succinonitrile in the electrode is eluted to the electrolyte solution ([0068], wherein some degree of succinonitrile is inherently eluted into the electrolyte due to solubility and diffusion).
Regarding claim 13,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein during the drying the electrode slurry ([0068]-[0069]), a distribution of the succinonitrile is rearranged ([0068]-[0069]) so that a content of the succinonitrile ([0068]-[0069]) of an electrode surface layer far from the current collector ([0068]-[0069]) becomes greater ([0068]-[0069]; wherein succinonitrile is described to form a complex with the electrode active material coating uniformly on top of the electrode active material, the coating is uniform compared to the content within the electrode, such that the content far from the current collector is greater than a content of an electrode inner layer close to the current collector) than a content of the succinonitrile of an electrode inner layer close to the current collector ([0068]-[0069]), wherein the content of the succinonitrile of the electrode surface layer far from the current collector is in a range of > 90% of a total amount of the succinonitrile([0068]-[0069], “treating it again at a high temperature of 60° C. for 12 hours or more so that any unreacted and/or residual succinonitrile in the electrode can form a complex” wherein the term any suggests that all of the succinonitrile forms a complex with the surface of the cathode material, or 100%, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 14,
Kim teaches a method of manufacturing a secondary battery [0001], comprising:
preparing a electrode slurry [0069] containing a solvent [0069] and an electrode mixture [0069] containing succinonitrile (S1) [0069];
preparing an electrode by coating [0069] the electrode slurry to a current collector [0069] and drying the electrode slurry (S2) [0069];
preparing an electrode assembly [0005] by placing an electrode [0005] on one side of the separator [0005], and placing the electrode on the opposite side (S3) [0005];
including heating [0069] the electrode assembly [0069] to a temperature of a melting point [0069] or more of the succinonitrile ([0069], wherein the melting point of succinonitrile is 57C, see https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Succinonitrile), wherein a heating temperature of the negative electrode assembly is in in a range of 57 C to 70 ([0069], wherein the melting point of succinonitrile is 57C);
and accommodating [0061] the laminated electrode assembly [0061]in a battery case [0061] and injecting an electrolyte solution [0061] (S5).
Kim, in the embodiment [0069] relied upon, fails to wherein the electrode is a negative electrode as well as fails teach performing lamination by simultaneously heating and pressing the electrode assembly.
However, in another embodiment, Kim teaches wherein the electrode is a negative electrode (see claim 10 of Kim). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the succinonitrile layer for the negative electrode as Kim as suggested by claim 10 of Kim. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.). Kim still fails to teach performing lamination by simultaneously heating and pressing the electrode assembly.
Kwon teaches performing lamination (see Fig. 12; [0098]) by simultaneously (see [0098]; and Fig. 12, L1 and L2) heating [0098] and pressing [0098] the electrode assembly (Fig. 1, 30) and wherein the heating step is performed before accommodating the electrode in a case (Fig. 1, 30; wherein Fig. 12 depicts lamination occurring during the electrode assembly formation step, before being placed in the case of Fig. 1; see also [0098]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include a lamination step of heating and pressing the electrode assembly (see 112(b) rejection above), as taught by Kwon, as Kwon teaches this as an acceptable method of manufacturing a secondary battery in the art (Fig. 12; [0098]).
Regarding claim 15,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein a content of the succinonitrile [0068] is 0.1 to 5% by weight based on a total weight [0068] of the negative electrode mixture ([0068], 2.5 wt%, which is within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 16,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein (S1) the preparing [0007] the negative electrode slurry [0007] includes: uniformly [0007] dispersing the succinonitrile [0007]in the negative electrode slurry ([0007], “uniformly”).
Regarding claim 17,
PNG
media_image1.png
608
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the succinonitrile is positioned on an upper portion or surface of the negative electrode ([0069], coated uniformly with succinonitrile”), the upper portion being an end region of the negative electrode disposed opposite the current collector ([0069], wherein succinonitrile is described to form a complex with the electrode active material coating uniformly on top of the electrode active material, such that the content far from the current collector; see annotated Fig. above), and the surface being disposed opposite the current collector (see [0069] and annotated Fig. above) and in contact with the separator (see annotated Fig. and [0005]; wherein alternately the anode and cathode are laminated via the separator).
Regarding claim 18,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein (S2) the preparing the negative electrode includes: solidifying the succinonitrile from liquid form by cooling the electrode, to which the electrode slurry has been applied, to a room temperature ([0069], wherein treating it again at a high temperature for 12 hours, thus a 12 hr heat treatment requires cooling to RT once the time is up since Kim is silent to any further heat treatments).
Regarding claim 20,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the succinonitrile acts as a binder between the negative electrode and the separator (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20050238957 A1) in view of Kwon (US-20160020434-A1) and Nishide (US 20160197350 A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Kim in view of Kwon teaches the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein Hee teaches the electrode assembly is pressed (Hee, [0061]), thus teaching a pressure greater than 0 kgf/cm, but fails to teach wherein the electrode assembly is pressed at a pressure of 30kgf/cm or less. Nishide teaches wherein the electrode assembly is pressed at a pressure of .9 kgf/cm, which is within the claimed range of 30kgf/cm or less [0030]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the pressure of Nishide in the lamination step of Kim in view of Kwon as that is an acceptable pressure for lamination in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 19,
Kim in view of Kwon and Nishide teaches the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the electrode assembly is pressed at a pressure of 30kgf/cm or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Kwon fails to teach the temperature of 60C at the proper time. However, this is not persuasive, as Kim modified in view of Kwon teaches performing the aging step of Kim ([0069], “60 C”) during the simultaneous heating and pressing before packaging in a case which is taught by Kwon (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant argues that Kwon fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies mentioned above because Kwon is silent to a teaching of a temperature range and fails to teach simultaneous heating and pressing. However, this argument is not convincing. On the contrary, since Kwon does not specify a lamination temperature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Kim’s disclosed heating conditions ([0069], “60 C”) when incorporating Kwon’s simultaneous heating/pressing lamination technique. Additionally, heating and pressing are mentioned together in the same sentence, within the same clause, such that a skilled artisan would understand the heating and pressing to happen simultaneously (Kwon; [0098], “Subsequently, the laminators L1 and L2 form a structural body in which the two electrodes and the two separators are laminated to each other using heat and pressure”; and Fig. 12, wherein L1 and L2 are lamination devices which apply heat and pressure, and wherein [0098] discloses such lamination as happening within the same step).
Applicant argues that the argument that succinonitrile acts as a binder because it is a known plasticizer, thus enabling crosslinking in the slurry (see rejection of claim 1 and 14 above) does not work because “crosslinking” and “complexing” are completely different than blinding the electrode and the separator. However, this argument is not persuasive. The argument does not specify how these concepts are different or why forming a complex/crosslinking fails to perform binding. Absent any demonstration to the contrary, forming a complex and crosslinking is an acceptable example of binding electrode materials together under the broadest reasonable interpretation of “acts as a binder”. Also, the limitation “wherein the succinonitrile acts as a binder between the electrode and the separator” is considered to be a functional limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(g)). The recitation has been fully considered; however, it carries limited patentable weight. In the instant case, Kim discloses/teaches all of the structural limitations as claimed. Therefore, Kim is capable of performing the functional limitations in the manner claimed.
Applicant argues that the assertion that the temperature range is an optimization of a result-effective-variable is not supported. However, this is not persuasive, as a result-effective-variable argument is not used in this rejection. Additionally, given that 57C is exactly the melting temperature of succinonitrile (see rejection of claim 1 above), performing lamination at this temperature would predictably permit the molten succinonitrile to wet and adhere between adjacent layers during lamination.
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off the allowable independent claim. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20190074538-A1, relevant to an alternative disclosure of the simultaneous heating and pressing during lamination and as well as relevant to the claimed temperature pressure conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights