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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/26 has been entered.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (WO2018030810A1) in view of Lee (KR20160126343A) and Taniyama (JP2014211974A).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly [abstract, Cho], the method comprising: a corona treatment [abstract, Cho] process of performing corona discharge treatment on opposite edges of a separator (fig. 5 and 14, Cho (11, corona treatment section)) in a direction perpendicular to a progress direction for manufacturing the electrode assembly (fig. 14, Cho shows an arrow on 1110 indicates progress direction and corona treated section (11) is oriented perpendicular to that direction); a lamination process (330) of alternately laminating an electrode and the corona-treated separator [0102-0103, Cho]; and a bonding process of pressing the electrode and the corona-treated separator [0097, Cho], which are laminated [0103, Cho], to bond the electrode to the corona-treated separator ([0085-0105, throughout] fig. 2, 7, 9, and 11 (140), Cho), wherein, in the corona treatment process, corona is locally discharged (1500) to the opposite edges of the separator to form a corona-treated section (11) and a corona-untreated section (12) on the opposite edges of the separator (fig. 14, Cho), wherein opposite edges of the electrode overlap the corona-treated section and the corona-untreated section of the opposite edges respectively, of the separator, [0074, fig. 5-6, 11 Cho discloses that a surface of a porous coating layer in the separator includes an area processed by plasma/corona discharging process (11) and an untreated area (12). By activating the surface of the porous coating layer through discharge treatment, the adhesion between the electrode and separator can be improved. This indicates that the electrode overlaps with the treatment section so that the adhesion effects may be achieved. Figs 5-6 show the treatment, treatment sections may have widths spanning 1/3 or 1/5 of the separator and fig. 11 shows the electrode would clearly overlap with these regions], wherein, in the lamination process, the electrode and the corona-treated separator are laminated in an arrangement where an electrode tab faces the corona-treated section of the corona-treated separator (21, 22, [0101], fig. 1, Cho. The examiner notes, that the electrode assembly is a stack where the separator is disposed between the cathode and anode and that both surfaces of the separator undergo corona discharge. As such, the corona layer would face the electrode tab (21, 22)), and wherein an end of the electrode tab connected to the electrode overlaps only the corona-treated section ([0006], fig. 1-2, 11, and 14 Cho. The examiner notes, that the Cho depicts the orientation of the wound battery in figure 11 and the location of the corona discharge in figure 14. Cho discloses and depicts the electrode tabs protruding from the electrode and overlapping with the separator. As such, since this end is covered by the corona discharge then the electrode tabs will overlap with the corona-treated section).
Cho discloses using a corona treatment to form an alternating treatment and non-treatment section of a separator designed to improved adhesion between the separator and adjacent material while still allowing for gas to be discharged [0074, Cho].
However, Cho is silent to, 1) the corona-treated section and the corona-untreated section are alternately formed at the opposite edges of the separator in the progress direction for manufacturing the electrode assembly. 2) wherein the electrode tabs are provided at each end of the electrode. 3) the length of the corona-treated section is greater than the length of the electrode tab.
In regards to 1) Lee discloses a separator with an alternating surface modification (11a) and untreated (11) section (fig. 2e, Lee). Lee also notes that the pattern of the surface modification is not limited to any particular shape [page 9, ¶1-4 Lee]. The surface modification may include a corona discharge method [page 7 last paragraph to page 8 first paragraph, Lee].
As Lee discloses that the pattern of the surface modification is not limited to a particular shape, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that they may choose whatever pattern they see fit for the surface treatment. As such, this pattern used in the alternating corona-treated and -untreated sections is a matter of mere change in shape, see MPEP 2144.IV.B.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Cho such that the separator contained a corona-treated and corona-untreated section alternately formed at opposite edges of the separator. Doing so can allow for one to create a separator with a pattern that still may allow for good electrolyte wettability [page 3 ¶ 1 and page 8 last paragraph-page 9 ¶ 2].
In regards to 2) and 3) Taniyama discloses the electrode tabs being at each end of the electrode (fig. 2, 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama). Where the electrode tab (123, 133) may overlap the bonding section (124, 134; “corona-treated section”) across the entire width of the electrode tab [0043, fig. 9-11].
This reads on the applicant’s claimed limitation of “wherein the corona-treated section has a first length in the progress direction and is bounded by the corona-untreated section on each of opposite sides in the progress direction, wherein the electrode tab has a second length in the progress direction, and wherein the first length of the corona-treated section is greater than the second length of the electrode tab.”
PNG
media_image1.png
449
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 11 Taniyama showing the difference in length between the bonding section and electrode tab.
The works of Cho and Taniyama are analogous as they both disclose methods for forming a separator with bonded (alternating treatment) and unbonded (non-treatment sections) [abstract, 0074, Cho and fig. 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama]. The treatment/bonding sections allow for improved adhesion/bonding with adjacent materials while the non-treatment/non-bonding sections are designed such that generated gas may still be discharged via a section of the separator that has not undergone any treatment process [0074, 0078, Cho and 0030, Taniyama].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Cho such that the electrode tabs were disposed at opposite sides. Doing so can prevent the separator from shrinking in the direction in which the electrode leads, which are part of the respective current collecting terminals, extend, and to prevent the electrodes from coming into contact with each other [0028, Taniyama].
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Cho such that the corona-treated section (“bonding portion”) extends past the length of the electrode tab as this would promote a bonding region between the two interfaces [0033, 0038, Taniyama].
Regarding claim 3, Cho as modified above, discloses the method, wherein a central portion of the separator is a part of the corona-untreated section (fig. 5, 14 (12), Cho), and in the corona treatment process, the separator is locally subjected to the corona treatment so that the central portion of the separator and the corona-untreated section formed at each of the opposite sides of the separator are continuously connected to each other (fig. 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama, uncoated portion S continues into the central uncoated portion).
Regarding claim 5, Cho as modified above discloses the method, wherein the electrode tab protrudes in a lateral direction of the electrode (fig. 11, Cho, shows the finished wound electrode and the opening of the wound electrode, where the tab would be located, would be on the side of the corona treated separator), which is perpendicular to the progress direction for manufacturing the electrode assembly (fig. 14, Cho). Taniyama discloses the electrode and the corona-treated separator are laminated so that edges of the electrode tabs face each other within the corona-treated section of the corona-treated separator (fig. 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama show the edges of the electrode facing each other).
Regarding claim 13, Cho as modified above discloses the method, wherein the corona-treated section and the corona-untreated section each are provided in a plurality (fig. 10 and 11, Taniyama), and wherein the electrode tab is interposed between adjacent corona-untreated sections in the progress direction for manufacturing the electrode assembly (fig. 10 and 11, Taniyama).
Regarding claim 14, Cho as modified above discloses the method, wherein the corona-treated section contacts both the electrode tab (fig. 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama) and the electrode (fig. 2, 3, 7, 9-11¸ Cho).
Regarding claim 15, Cho discloses the method, wherein the corona-treated section is provided in plural [figs. 3, 5, 14, Cho], and each corner of the electrode overlaps respective one of the plurality of corona-treated sections [fig. 3, 5-7, 11, and 14, Cho. Specifically, in figures 5 and 14 show that the corona treated section takes up 2/3rds of the Y direction of the separator (as noted in examiners annotation of fig. 14). Figure 11 shows that the electrode is large enough that it would overlap with the corona treated section].
PNG
media_image2.png
414
503
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Cho, figure 14 annotated by examiner to show the orientation and width of the corona treated section.
PNG
media_image3.png
227
679
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Cho, figure 11 annotated by examiner to show the orientation of the separator/electrode.
Regarding claim 16, Cho as presently modified discloses wherein only the opposite edges of the electrode overlap the corona-treated section and the corona-untreated section that are alternately formed at the opposite edges of the separator in the progress direction for manufacturing the electrode assembly [fig. 3, Cho].
The examiner notes that the edge of the electrode is sufficiently close to the edge of the separator such that it would overlap the alternating treated and untreated section of the presently modified invention [fig. 3, Cho].
PNG
media_image4.png
183
548
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5 Cho, showing the relation to the edge of the electrode to the edge of the separator
Regarding claim 17, Cho as presently modified, teaches a separator with a corona-treated and corona untreated section located at opposite edges of the separator (see rejection of claim 1).
In regards to the claimed limitation of “the corona-treated section that overlaps the electrode tab has a first width in a direction perpendicular to the progress direction, wherein a portion of the electrode tab that overlaps the corona-treated section has a second width in the direction perpendicular to the progress direction, and wherein the first width is greater than the second width.”
The examiner notes that Lee teaches that the pattern of the surface modification is not limited to any particular shape [page 9, ¶1-4 Lee]. Lee’s teachings make it known that the shape of the pattern of the corona-treated section is not limited to a particular shape, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that they may choose whatever pattern they see fit for the surface treatment. As such, this pattern used in the alternating corona-treated and -untreated sections is a matter of mere change in shape, see MPEP 2144.IV.B.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that it would be “obvious to try” and have the width of the corona-treated section being greater than the width of a portion of the electrode tab as there are a finite number of options in regards to the width of the corona-treated section vs the width of the electrode tab, see MPEP 2143.I.E. 1) the width of the corona-treated section is less than the width of the electrode tab, 2) the width of the corona-treated section is equal to the width of the electrode tab, 3) the width of the corona-treated section is greater than the width of the electrode tab. In all three instance, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. This is because the pursuit of the potential solutions may be made by changing the width of the corona-treated section. Cho demonstrates that the width of the corona-treated section is capable of being altered (fig. 5 and 6, Cho).
Finally, as noted above, Taniyama teaches that when the bonding-portion extends past the length of the electrode tab promotes a bonding region between the two interfaces and that bonding strength is secured by increasing the bonding area of the bonding portion [0033, 0038, Taniyama]. As such, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that by having the width of the corona-treated portion extend past the width of the electrode tab then this would increase the bonding area and improve bonding strength.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Cho such that the width of the corona-treated section was greater than a width of a portion of the electrode tab that overlaps the corona-treated section. Doing so would increase the bonding area of the treated section which can improve the bonding strength of the interface [0033, 0038, Taniyama]. Furthermore, it would be obvious to modify Cho such that the width of the corona-treated section was greater than a width of a portion of the electrode tab that overlaps the corona-treated section, as it would be “obvious to try”, see MPEP 2143.I.E
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant argues allowability of their application as a result of the newly amended claim 1. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 these limitations are taught as Taniyama depicts a bonding section (“corona-treated section”) with a length longer than that of the electrode tab (fig. 10 and 11, Taniyama).
Applicant then argues the following :
PNG
media_image5.png
159
637
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner does not find this to be persuasive as claim 1 of the office action filed on 01/22/26 does not contain any mention of a corona-(un)treated section in relation to the electrode tab.
However, as noted above and again the rejection of claim 1 Taniyama does depict the length of the bonding section (“corona-treated section”) being longer than that of the electrode tab (fig. 10 and 11, Taniyama).
Applicant points to figure 3 of Taniyama as evidence that the amended limitations are not taught, however, they fail to consider figures 10 and 11 of the Taniyama as depicted in the rejection of claim 1.
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.", see MPEP 2123.I
"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." see MPEP 2123.II
No other arguments were presented, as such the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The follow art teaches how a corona-treated separator may be used to improve adhesion between the interface between the electrode and separator.
See US20190215944A1 and KR20180086364A
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights