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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/04/2026 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
The basis of the rejection of claims 1-7 under U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
In view of the amendment to claim 1 the claim objection of claim 1 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the purpose of the mask of Woon is to externally connect the lead wire and does not describe a lead to lead connection. However, Park is specifically relied upon to teach a lead-to-lead connection and internal connection of these wires within the battery, while Woon teaches a method of improvement of a lead connection including improved adhesion at bonding locations and and corrosion resistance within the setting of a pouch type secondary battery similar to that of Park. In the case of Park, where there are two electrode leads with bonding portions, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize both electrode leads would benefit from the improved adhesion and anticorrosion teachings of Woon.
A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim even if the reference does not describe "the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015), MPEP §2131.02.III.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (WO2018199511A1, reference made to US20190207196A1 as English translation), and further in view of Woon (KR101029821B1, reference made to English translation).
Regarding claim 1 and 16, Park discloses manufacturing a first electrode lead (125a, Fig. 3) and a second electrode lead(125b, Fig. 3) bonded together through a first connection area and a second connection area (see Fig. 3 portions of the electrode leads which are connected) (¶[0021]) through a connection part (i.e. connection layer 126, Fig. 3) connected directly to the lead which acts as an adhesive and creates a lead stack, wherein the connection part may be a polymer with a conductive agent(¶[0068]-[0069]) and the polymer is thermosetting polymer which is inherently cured by heat(¶[0070]).
Park does not disclose unwinding a metal plate from a metal reel, attaching and removing a
tape, or plating and surface treating a metal plate.
Woon, related to electrode manufacturing, teaches a roll-to-roll plating and surface treating of metal plates where the first step is unwinding a first metal plate from the roll (¶[0050]). Woon further teaches masking an end of the metal plate with a polymer film (i.e. tape) (¶[0022], step (a)), plating and surface treating the metal plate (¶[0022], steps b-j) such that the treatment forms only on the unmasked area, and removing the masking (i.e. tape)(¶[0022, step (k)) to expose the unplated connection area ¶[0049], see mask covers where the lead wire is connected). These steps manufacture a first electrode lead and one of ordinary skill in the art would realize repeating the steps with a second reel would produce a second electrode lead manufactured in the same way.
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize using the manufacturing steps of Woon would provide with excellent adhesion capability of the unplated region and corrosion resistance (¶[0010]) as well as the advantage of roll-to-roll processing (¶[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used the manufacturing steps of Woon on the first metal reel to produce the first electrode lead of Park and the second metal reel to produce the second electrode lead of Park to improve corrosion resistance and utilize roll-to-roll processing.
Woon further teaches processing the metal plates after being cut (Fig. 2, ¶[0050]). The first roll for the first electrode lead from claim 1 and the second roll of the second electrode lead can each be processed with cutting of the individual pieces before further processing including placement of the tape and plating procedures.
One with ordinary skill in the art would realize cutting the metal plates before attaching the tape and plating would allow the manufacturing flexibility advantage of batch mode operation (page 4-5 lines 168-174).
Therefore it would have been obvious to cut the metal plates before attaching the first tape to improve manufacturing method flexibility with batch mode operation.
Regarding claim 2, modified Park discloses the method according to claim 1 and Park further discloses an electrode lead connected to an electrode tab (¶[0066], Fig. 3 see electrode tab 122 connected to the first electrode lead 125a) and the first electrode lead has a first connection area where it connects to the connection layer (see end of 125a which connects to connection layer 126, Fig. 3, ¶[0067]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Park discloses the method according to claim 2 and Park further discloses the second electrode lead has a first connection area where it connects to the connection layer (see end of 125b which connects to connection layer 126, Fig. 3, ¶[0067]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Park discloses the method according to claim 1 and Woon further teaches a nickel-plating film in step (h) which acts as a “first film” on the outside of the metal plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this process can be repeated during the manufacturing process to form a “second film” on a second metal plate as one of the manufacturing method steps to provide excellent adhesion capability and corrosion resistance to the electrode (¶[0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the film of Woon on the electrode lead of Park to improve corrosion resistance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Park as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tani (US20130115510A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park discloses the method according to claim 1, and Woon, but does not teach surface treating the first and second metal plates with chromate, zirconia or titanium treatments.
Tani, related to electrodes for secondary batteries, teaches adding an anti-corrosion layer of
chromate (¶0030], see Table 1) on top of a heat-resistant layer of zinc and nickel (¶[0029]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have known the chromate anti-corrosion layer of Tani would act to prevent corrosion of the electrode (¶[0028]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to provide the chromate layer of Tani to prevent corrosion.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 5 May 2026
Prosecution Insights