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 .
Remarks
Claim 1, 3, and 5 are as previously presented. Claims 13-15 are as previously presented. Claims 16-17 are newly presented. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 13-17 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The previous rejection has been withdrawn in light of the applicant’s amendments. The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicants amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Independent claim 1 requires a separator with a corona-untreated and corona-treated section on opposite edges of the separator, wherein the electrode tab overlaps only the corona-treated section among the corona-treated section and the corona-untreated section.
Dependent claim 17 requires the corona-treated and corona-untreated section located at opposite edges of the separator wherein the corona-untreated section does not overlap the electrode tab.
Given that claim 1 requires a separator with a corona-treated and corona-untreated section located at opposite edges where only the tab is overlapped with the corona-treated section, and as a result, not the untreated section. Dependent claim 17 does not further limit the subject matter by requiring a separator with a corona-treated and corona-untreated section located at opposite edges and an electrode tab not overlapping the corona-untreated section, and as a result, overlapping only the corona-treated section.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
See below for additional rejection of claim 17.
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.
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) Taniyama discloses the electrode tabs being at each end of the electrode (fig. 2, 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama).
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].
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. 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama), and wherein the electrode tab is interposed between adjacent corona-untreated sections in the progress direction for manufacturing the electrode assembly (fig. 3, 5, and 6, Taniyama). Furthermore, the number (plurality) or the corona treated and untreated sections along with their orientation to the electrode tab is a matter of mere aesthetic design or change in shape barring any criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
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_image1.png
414
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cho, figure 14 annotated by examiner to show the orientation and width of the corona treated section.
PNG
media_image2.png
227
679
media_image2.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_image3.png
183
548
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5 Cho, showing the relation to the edge of the electrode to the edge of the separator
Regarding claim 17, the examiner notes their §112 rejection and maintains their rejection of claim 1. In the interest of compact prosecution the examiner will provide an additional rejection below using the present art.
Claim 17 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein, among the corona-treated section and the corona-untreated section located at the opposite edges of the separator, the corona-untreated section does not overlap the electrode tab.”
The examiner notes that the present modification 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 electrode tab not overlapping the corona-untreated section. Taniyama teaches the electrode tab (123, 133) overlapping the bonding section (124, 134; “corona-treated section”) across the entire width of the electrode tab [0043, fig. 9-11].
PNG
media_image4.png
412
659
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 11 Taniyama showing the width of the bonding section of the separator.
In regards depth of the corona-treated (“bonding section”). The examiner notes that Cho teaches the size of the bonding region being between the interface of the electrode and separator to be between 50-90% [0013, Cho]. More desirably 50% to 65% or 65% to 80% of the size of the entire interface between the electrode and the separator [0013, Cho]. At the lower end point, a requirement of a corona-treated section covering 50% of the electrode-separator interface would require a depth of the bonding section (“corona-treated”) to extend past electrode tab into the electrode-separator interface.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts to have the size of the corona-treated section be at least 50% of the interface between the electrode and separator as this would allow for sufficient adhesive strength between the electrode and the separator [0013, Cho]. One would further find it obvious for the corona-treated section (“bonding portion”) to extend across the width of the electrode tab as this would promote a bonding region between the two interfaces [0033, 0038, Cho].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Pages 1-3 of the applicant’s response summaries the invention as described in claim 1 and as described in the specification.
Page 4-5 of the applicant’s response reiterates the examiner’s use of Cho and Lee as applied to the rejection of claim 1.
Beginning on the top page 6 applicant points to the deficiencies of the primary reference (Cho) and secondary reference (Lee). However, in doing so the applicant attacks the references individually.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On the bottom half of page 6 applicant argues the three possibilities for the overlapping of the electrode tab with the corona-treated and -untreated sections. To which they then point to secondary reference (Taniyama). However, for the rejection of claim 1, Taniyama is only used to teach the electrode tabs being located on opposite sides of the electrode stack and not for their teaching of bonding vs non-bonding areas. As such, this argument presented by the applicant is unpersuasive.
Nevertheless, in an effort to expedite prosecution. In the rejection of claim 17 the examiner points to where Taniyama teaches an embodiment where the electrode tab overlaps with the bonding (“corona-treated”) section of the separator.
Between the arguments presented in claim 1 and claim 17 the examiner maintains that they have met their burden to show how the art teaches the claim limitations and that one would find it obvious to arrive at the applicant’s claimed invention.
Beginning in the last paragraph of page 6-page 8 the applicant presents what they feel is evidence for what they say is improved adhesion between the separator and electrode tab. However, the examiner notes that in each of the cited paragraphs, and in the specification as a whole, the applicant does not produce any (quantitative) evidence and rather only asserts that improved adhesion is present without actually performing and presenting any examples.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the claimed invention is an improvement over the prior art.
The examiner also notes that the applicant’s assertions of improved adhesion between the corona-treated section and the interface between the electrode/electrode tab is a known phenomenon. As both Cho and Lee disclose that using corona-treatment on a separator may be used to improve adhesion between the separator and electrode interface. In the conclusion section below, the examiner has provided additional references that teach how a corona-treated separator may be used to improve adhesion between the separator and electrode interface.
As such, the examiner’s stance is that the applicant’s assertion of improved adhesion in their specification does not expand upon the prior art as the instant specification also teaches how a corona-treated separator may be used to improve adhesion between the separator and electrode interface.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724