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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 02/25/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-21 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15 have been amended; claims 3 and 6 cancelled; claims 20-21 have been newly added.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 02/25/2026 have created another Claim Objections, see details in the Claim Objections section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation will be maintained in this Office Action.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025, except for the limitation “an electrode processor” recited in claim 11 (line 6). Additionally, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 02/25/2026 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 02/25/2026 have changed the scope of the claims; thus, the claim interpretation has changed.
To be more specific, Applicant alleged that “claim 1 now recites that the range is less than 300 W, so that the value of 300 W is not be included. Thus, claim 1 clearly excludes the value of 300 W and also does not overlap the range provided by Choi.”, see details on pages 6-8 of the Remarks dated 02/25/2026.
Regarding the newly amended limitation “wherein, the process of cutting is performed by using a laser having an output capability of greater than about 50 W and less than as recited in the independent claim 1, Examiner has applied MPEP 2144.05, see details in the rejections of claim 1 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the thickness” in line 2. This should be changed to “the total thickness” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 10).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“electrode processor configured to cut the etched portion of the electrode mixture layer and the electrode collector” in claim 11 (lines 6-7), and “electrode processor” in claim 12 (line 2), claim 15 (line 2), claim 16 (line 3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “processor” (Prong A); the term “processor” is modified by functional language “configured to cut the etched portion of the electrode mixture layer and the electrode collector” (Prong B); and the term “processor” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “electrode processor” will be interpreted as laser, as indicated by Specification Par.0024: “the electrode processing unit may emit a laser.”.
“suction … that suctions … residual substances generated by the laser or electrode processor” in claim 16 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “suction” (Prong A); the term “suction” is modified by functional language “that suctions … residual substances generated by the laser or electrode processor” (Prong B); and the term “suction” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “suction” will be interpreted as “vacuum pump” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0079: “The suctioning unit may include a vacuum pump”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 11-16 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “an electrode processor” in line 6. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 11 depends on claim 1. However, claim 1 recites the limitations “a process of cutting the etched portion of the electrode mixture layer and the electrode collector” (in lines 6-7) and “the process of cutting is performed by using a laser” (in line 14). Claim 11 depends on claim 1, and claim 11 recites “an electrode processor configured to cut the etched portion of the electrode mixture layer and the electrode collector” in lines 6-7. Therefore, both “an electrode processor” recited in claim 11 (line 6) and “a laser” recited in claim 1 (line 14) are used for cutting the etched portion of the electrode mixture layer and the electrode collector; thus, it is unclear if “an electrode processor” recited in claim 11 (line 6) and “a laser” recited in claim 1 (line 14) are the same component or different components. For examination purposes, the limitation “an electrode processor” recited in claim 11 (line 6) and the limitation “a laser” recited in claim 1 (line 14) will be interpreted as the same component.
Claims 12-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 11.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the laser” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Specifically, claim 16 depends on claim 11; claim 11 depends on claim 1. Thus, it is unclear if the limitation “the laser” recited in claim 16 (line 2) refers to the limitation “a laser” recited in claim 1 (line 14), or refer to the limitation “a light source” recited in claim 11 (line 4) since the light source is configured to perform laser ablation as indicated by claim 11, or refer to the “electrode processor” recited in claim 11 (line 6) since the electrode processor is configured to perform the process of cutting by laser as explained previously in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 11 above. For examination purposes, the limitation “the laser” recited in claim 16 (line 2) will be interpreted as to refer to the limitation “a light source” recited previously in claim 11 (line 4) since the light source is configured to perform laser ablation as indicated by claim 11.
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 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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-9, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses an electrode manufacturing method (Choi Par.0005 discloses: “The present invention provides a method for manufacturing a secondary battery and a secondary battery using the same, which can improve the quality of a cut surface of an electrode plate and improve the reliability of the secondary battery.”; therefore, Choi disclose an electrode manufacturing method) comprising:
a process of preparing an electrode sheet (electrode sheet includes active material layer 112 and current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2C & Par.0027) (Choi Par.0027 and Figs.1, 2A disclose the active material layer forming step S1; in the active material layer forming step S1, an active material 112 is coated on both surfaces of a current collector plate 111) in which an electrode mixture layer (active material layer 112, Choi Fig.2A & Par.0027) is formed on one surface or each of both surfaces of an electrode collector (current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2A & Par.0027) (it is noted that the limitation “one surface or each of both surfaces” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, Choi Par.0027 & Fig.2A disclose the active material 112 is coated on both surfaces of the current collector plate 111);
a process of etching a portion of the electrode mixture layer (active material layer 112, Choi Fig.2C) through laser ablation (Choi Par.0029 discloses “In the active material layer removing step (S2), the laser beam generated from the first laser part 30 is irradiated to the current collector plate 111 having the active material layer 112 formed thereon to remove a portion of the active material layer 112. Accordingly, portions of the active material layer 112 formed on the top and bottom surfaces of the current collector plate 111 are removed.”, this can be seen in Choi Fig.2C); and
a process of cutting the etched portion of the electrode mixture layer (active material layer 112, Choi Fig.2E) and the electrode collector (current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2E) of the electrode sheet (electrode sheet includes active material layer 112 and current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2C & Par.0027) to manufacture an electrode (electrode plate 110, Choi Par.0031) (Choi Par.0031 discloses: “In the cutting step (S3), the current collector plate 111 is cut by irradiating a laser beam to the collector plate 111 from which the active material layer has been removed in the active material layer removing step (S2).”), and
wherein, the process of cutting is performed by using a laser having an output capability of 300 W to 1 KW instead of greater than about 50 W and less than 300 W as required by the claim (Choi Par.0008 discloses: “The laser beam irradiated in the cutting step may be an infrared laser having an output capacity of 300 W to 1 KW”.).
Regarding the limitation about the laser having an output capability of greater than about 50 W and less than 300 W while the prior art teaches the laser having an output capability of 300 W to 1 KW, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (MPEP 2144.05. I.). In this case, the laser having output capability of 299.999 W is close enough to output capability of 300 W.
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (Choi Par.0008 discloses: “The laser beam irradiated in the cutting step may be an infrared laser having an output capacity of 300 W to 1 KW”.), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05. II. A.). In this case, Choi teaches certain range of the laser output capacity, and having a specific range of laser output capacity is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the laser output capacity is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the laser output capacity affects the ability to achieve a clean, functional cut without leaving behind uncut material. A laser with optimized laser output capacity would achieve a proper cut, thus, improve the cutting quality. Therefore, the laser output capacity is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Choi laser output capacity, by making process of cutting is performed by using laser having output capability of 299.999 W as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
Modified Choi does not explicitly disclose:
laser ablation within a range not exposing the electrode collector
wherein, with respect to the electrode mixture layer on one surface of the electrode collector, a thickness of the electrode mixture layer that is etched in the process of etching is 0.1 times to 0.3 times a total thickness of the electrode sheet, and
wherein a laser beam in the laser ablation of the process of etching has a pulse repetition rate of 10 kHz to 300 kHz, and
wherein a beam diameter of the laser beam is 50 μm to 300 μm.
Chang teaches a laser method (Chang Figs.5-6) comprising:
a process of etching a portion of the first layer (material 21, Chang Figs.5-6) through laser ablation within a range not exposing the second layer (material 24, Chang Figs.5-6) (Chang Par.0063 teaches: “Referring to FIGS. 5, 6, 7, and 8 the process by which a thin membrane 25 is left at the bottom of the hole 20 is shown. The infrared laser beam 22 can remove almost all of the interior of the hole 20 leaving only a thin membrane 25 at the bottom.”; therefore, Chang teaches the laser ablation within a range not exposing the second layer 24);
wherein a laser beam (laser beam 22, Chang Figs.5-6) in the laser ablation of the process of etching has a pulse repetition rate of 10 kHz to 300 kHz (Chang Par.0052 teaches “PRF=10 kHz”; it is noted that the PRF=10 kHz mentioned in Chang Par.0052 is “Characteristics of the Percussive Laser System”, as indicated by Chang Pars.0045-0052; it is further noted that the percussive laser is laser beam 22 as shown in Chang Figs.5-6 and indicated by Chang Par.0064; therefore, Chang teaches the laser beam in the laser ablation of the process of etching has the pulse repetition rate that is within the claimed range); and
wherein a beam diameter of the laser beam (laser beam 22, Chang Figs.5-6) is 250 μm instead of 50 μm to 300 μm as required by the claim (Chang Par.0064 teaches: “A 300 μm hole 20 is depicted in a 1 mm thick material 11 using a 250 μm percussive laser at 1.06 μm as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6”; therefore, Change teaches the beam diameter of the laser beam is 250 μm, which is within the claimed range; it is noted that the “at 1.06 μm” mentioned in Chang Par.0064 refers to the wavelength of the light emitted by the laser, it is noted that the laser wavelength of 1.06 μm is associated with Nd:YAG lasers, this is also indicated by Chang Par.0043: “the 1.06 μm percussive laser can be the fundamental of Diode Pumped Solid State Laser using a Nd:YAG gain media”)
Thus, the prior art Chang teaches beam diameter of the laser beam is 250 μm. However, Chang does not explicitly teach the beam diameter of the laser beam is 50 μm to 300 μm as required by the claim.
Regarding the limitation that the beam diameter of the laser beam is 50 μm to 300 μm, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Chang Par.0064, where the reference Chang teaches certain beam diameter of the laser beam), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Chang Par.0064 teaches certain beam diameter of the laser beam, and Chang Par.0026 teaches the beam diameter can be varied based on the diameter of the hole to be drilled, thus, having a specific beam diameter of the laser beam not inventive according to the courts. Varying the beam diameter of the laser beam is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying beam diameter of the laser beam would impact the diameter of the hole to be drill and thus, affecting the precision of the hole to be drilled. Based on the diameter of the hole to be drilled, varying the beam diameter of the laser beam to a diameter slightly smaller than the diameter of the hole to be drilled would result in the hole to have dimension of high precision; thus, the beam diameter of the laser beam is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Chang beam diameter of the laser beam by making the beam diameter of the laser beam to be 50 μm to 300 μm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi, by adding the teachings of etching a portion of the first layer through laser ablation within a range not exposing the second layer and wherein the laser beam in the laser ablation of the process of etching has a pulse repetition rate of 10 kHz, and the beam diameter of the laser beam is 50 μm to 300 μm, as taught by Chang, in order to prevent the formation of excessive burr as a result of the cutting process; thus, achieving a high quality cut, which results in a high-throughput and high-quality production of electrode.
Choi in view of Chang teaches the method as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein, with respect to the electrode mixture layer on one surface of the electrode collector, a thickness of the electrode mixture layer that is etched in the process of etching is 0.1 times to 0.3 times a total thickness of the electrode sheet
Hashimoto teaches an electrode manufacturing method (Hashimoto Fig.5):
wherein, with respect to the electrode mixture layer (electrode active material layer 34, Hashimoto Fig.5) on one surface of the electrode collector (current collector 32, Hashimoto Fig.5), a thickness of the electrode mixture layer (electrode active material layer 34, Hashimoto Fig.5) that is etched in the process of etching is 0.1 times to 0.3 times a total thickness of the electrode sheet (electrode sheet includes the electrode active material layers 34 and the electrode collector 32, Hashimoto Fig.5) (Hashimoto Par.0031 teaches: “The thickness of positive current collector is not particularly limited, either, and can be, for instance, 5 μm to 30 μm.”, Hashimoto Par.0049 teaches: “The positive electrode active material layer preferably has a thickness per face of positive current collector of 30 μm or larger (e.g. 50 μm or larger, typically 70 μm or larger), but 120 μm or smaller (e.g. 100 μm or smaller, typically 80 μm or smaller)”; since Hashimoto Fig.3 and Par.0027 teach the electrode sheet 30 comprises a positive current collector 32 and positive electrode active material layer 34 formed above at least one (typically each) face thereof., therefore, the total thickness of the electrode sheet would be 30 μm [electrode collector] + 30 μm [electrode active material layer] + 30 μm [electrode active material layer] = 90 μm; therefore, Hashimoto teaches the ratio of the electrode active material layer/the total thickness of the electrode = 30 μm/90 μm = approximately 0.3; it is noted that Choi in view of Chang teaches the process of etching a portion of the electrode mixture layer through laser ablation within the range not exposing the electrode collector, and the process of etching removes almost all of the electrode mixture layer leaving only a thin membrane at the bottom of the electrode mixture layer, as previously cited and incorporated above; therefore, the thickness of the electrode mixture layer that is etched in the process of etching is approximately 30 μm; thus, in combination, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the thickness of the electrode mixture layer that is etched in the process of etching is approximately 0.3 times the total thickness of the electrode sheet).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thickness of each layer of the Choi electrode sheet with the thickness of each layer of the Hashimoto electrode sheet, because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would have yield a predictable result of providing the electrode sheet comprising electrode collector layer and electrode active material layer in order to manufacture an electrode. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Choi also discloses:
wherein the laser (second laser part 40, Choi Fig.2E) used in the process of cutting is the same as a light source used in the laser ablation of the process of etching (the process of etching is performed by the first laser part 30, Choi Fig.2E) (it is noted that the Instant Application defines same “light source” as “The laser of the electrode processing unit and the laser of the laser irradiating unit may have different intensities but have the same type of light source.” in Par.0077 of the Specification of the Instant Application, this is also shown in Fig.2 of the Instant Application, the process of etching [Fig.2(a)] is performed by laser 300 and the process of cutting [Fig.2(b)] is performed by laser 400, they are different lasers but have the same type of light source; in this case, Choi discloses the first laser part 30 and the second laser part 40 are the same light source because both of them are infrared lasers, as indicated by Choi Pars.0030 & 0033; specifically, Choi Par.0030 discloses: “the first laser part 30 may be an infrared pulse laser having a wavelength in the range from approximately 1030 nm to approximately 1080 nm.”, and Choi Par.0033 discloses: “the laser beam irradiated from the second laser part 40 may be an infrared pulse laser having a wavelength in the range from approximately 1030 nm to approximately 1080 nm”).
Regarding claim 5, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Hashimoto also teaches:
wherein the thickness of the electrode sheet (electrode sheet includes the electrode active material layers 34 and the electrode collector 32, Hashimoto Fig.5) in the process of preparing is 100 μm or more (Hashimoto Par.0031 teaches: “The thickness of positive current collector is not particularly limited, either, and can be, for instance, 5 μm to 30 μm.”, Hashimoto Par.0049 teaches: “The positive electrode active material layer preferably has a thickness per face of positive current collector of 30 μm or larger (e.g. 50 μm or larger, typically 70 μm or larger), but 120 μm or smaller (e.g. 100 μm or smaller, typically 80 μm or smaller)”; since Hashimoto Fig.5 and Par.0027 teach the electrode sheet 30 comprises a positive current collector 32 and positive electrode active material layer 34 formed above at least one (typically each) face thereof., therefore, the total thickness of the electrode sheet would be 30 μm [electrode collector] + 50 μm [electrode active material layer] + 50 μm [electrode active material layer] = 130 μm, which is more than 100 μm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thickness of the Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto electrode sheet (see the applied thickness in the rejection of claim 1 above) with the thickness of the Hashimoto electrode sheet (130 μm, as cited and explained previously), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would have yield a predictable result of providing the electrode sheet comprising electrode collector layer and electrode active material layer in order to manufacture an electrode. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Regarding claim 8, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Choi also discloses:
wherein the process of cutting comprises one of notching, punching, or slitting (it is noted that the limitation “one of notching, punching, or slitting” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, Choi discloses the second laser part 40 performs slitting as shown in Choi Fig.2E)
Regarding claim 9, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Choi also discloses:
wherein a laser beam (laser beam generated from the first laser part 30, Choi Fig.2C) in the laser ablation of the process of etching (the active material layer removing step S2, Choi Fig.2C & Par.0030) has a pulse width of 1 ns to 300 ns (Choi Par.0030 discloses: “The laser beam may have a pulse width in the range from approximately 5 nsec to approximately 100 nsec”; therefore, Choi teaches the pulse width within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, and also teaches: wherein the beam diameter of the laser beam is 50 μm to 300 μm (as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); however, Chang does not explicitly teach:
wherein the beam diameter of the laser beam is about 80 μm.
Regarding the limitation that the beam diameter of the laser beam is about 80 μm, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Chang Par.0064, where the reference Chang teaches certain beam diameter of the laser beam), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Chang Par.0064 teaches certain beam diameter of the laser beam, and Chang Par.0026 teaches the beam diameter can be varied based on the diameter of hole to be drilled, thus, having a specific beam diameter of the laser beam not inventive according to the courts. Varying the beam diameter of the laser beam is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying beam diameter of the laser beam would impact the diameter of the hole to be drill and thus, affecting the precision of the hole to be drilled. Based on the diameter of the hole to be drilled, varying the beam diameter of the laser beam to a diameter slightly smaller than the diameter of the hole to be drilled would result in the hole to have dimension of high precision; thus, the beam diameter of the laser beam is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto beam diameter of the laser beam by making the beam diameter of the laser beam to be about 80 μm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Regarding claim 19, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Choi does not disclose:
wherein the process of cutting is performed 1 second to 10 seconds after the process of etching to maintain heat applied to the electrode collector during the process of etching.
Chang teaches a laser method (Chang Figs.5-6):
wherein the process of cutting is performed a few seconds after the process of etching to maintain heat applied to the electrode collector during the process of etching (Chang Par.0044 discloses: “At the ablative threshold, a 500 W average power IR laser is sufficient to cut through a millimeter thick sample of steel in a fraction of a second assuming a pulse duration of 100 ns. The trepanning laser need only have {fraction (1/100)} the average power for the same laser conditions assuming a beam diameter of 25 μm or 10 times smaller than the hole diameter. The entire process should take no more than a few seconds and result in high aspect ratio holes with high precision and negligibly small HAZ.”; therefore, Chang teaches the total time of the process of cutting and the process of etching take no more than a few seconds; since the total time of the process of cutting and the process of etching take no more than a few seconds, the heat would maintain applied to the collector during the process of etching).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by adding the teachings of the total time of the process of cutting and the process of etching take no more than a few seconds, as taught by Chang, in order to achieve high precision cutting and minimize the heat-affected zone (HAZ) in laser cutting, as recognized by Chang [Chang Par.0044]; thus, preventing the formation of excessive burr as a result of the cutting process; and therefore, achieving a high quality cut, which results in a high-throughput and high-quality production of electrode.
Thus, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the total time of the process of cutting and the process of etching take no more than a few seconds, as cited and incorporated above. However, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto is not specific enough about the process of cutting is performed 1 second to 10 seconds after the process of etching.
Regarding the limitation that the process of cutting is performed 1 second to 10 seconds after the process of etching, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disclosed in the prior art (see Chang Par.0044 teaches the total time of the process of cutting and the process of etching take no more than a few seconds), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 II.A).
In this case, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto discloses the process of cutting is performed certain seconds after the process of etching (see Chang Par.0044 teaches the total time of the process of cutting and the process of etching take no more than a few seconds), and having specific seconds is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the time in between the process of etching and the process of cutting is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, varying the time in between the process of etching and the process of cutting would impact the cutting precision and the heat-affected zone. A manufacturing process with an optimized time in between the process of cutting and the process of etching would achieve high precision cutting and minimize the heat-affected zone in laser cutting; thus, preventing the formation of excessive burr as a result of the cutting process; and therefore, achieving a high-quality cut, which results in a high-throughput and high-quality production of electrode. Accordingly, the time in between the process of etching and the process of cutting is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto time in between the process of etching and the process of cutting by making the process of cutting is performed 1 second to 10 seconds after the process of etching as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0001206 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
further comprising at least one of a suctioning process and a blowing process which is performed simultaneously with at least one of the process of etching and the process of cutting or performed after each of the processes of the etching and the cutting.
Yamamoto teaches (Yamamoto Fig.1B):
further comprising at least one of a suctioning process (suctioning process is performed by the suction device 15, Yamamoto Fig.1B & Par.0083) and a blowing process [it is note that the limitation “at least one of a suctioning process and a blowing process” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these features was given patentable weight during examination] which is performed simultaneously with at least one of the process of etching and the process of cutting (Yamamoto Par.0083 teaches the suction device 15 is vacuum pump and is configured to suck and remove soot 12 generated at the time of laser cutting) [it is note that the limitation “at least one of the process of etching and the process of cutting” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these features was given patentable weight during examination] or performed after each of the processes of the etching and the cutting [it is note that the limitation “performed simultaneously with at least one of the process of etching and the process of cutting or performed after each of the processes of the etching and the cutting” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these features was given patentable weight during examination].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by adding the suctioning process which is performed simultaneously with the process of cutting, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to suck and remove residual substances generated by the laser during laser cutting, thus, clogging of laser head can be prevented, and desired laser cutting conditions can be maintained stably, as recognized by Yamamoto [Yamamoto, Par.0084]; thereby, increasing productivity and improving quality of the product.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Nishio et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0198853 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein a cutting speed in the process of cutting is 600 mm/S or more.
Nishio teaches an electrode manufacturing method (Nishio Abstract & Fig.2):
wherein a cutting speed in the process of cutting is 600 mm/S or more (Nishio Par.0041 teaches: “It is more desirable that the cutting speed be 1000 mm/s to 5000 mm/s”; therefore, Nishio teaches the cutting speed is more than 600 mm/S).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by making the cutting speed is more than 600 mm/S, as taught by Nishio, in order to form neat linear cut portions and also further suppress formation of protrusion, thus, it would ensure good productivity, as recognized by Nishio [Nishio, Par.0043].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Scherner et al. (EP 3415265 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Choi also discloses wherein the laser ablation of the process of etching is performed on both top and bottom surfaces of the electrode sheet (electrode sheet includes active material layer 112 and current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2C & Par.0027).
Choi does not disclose:
wherein the laser ablation of the process of etching is performed on only one surface of the electrode sheet
Scherner teaches an electrode manufacturing method (Scherner Fig.6):
wherein the laser ablation of the process of etching is performed on only one surface of the electrode sheet (substrate 110, Scherner Figs.1 & 6) (Scherner teaches the laser ablation of the process of etching as shown in Figs.6b & 6c in annotated Fig.6 below, the laser beam 112 performs the laser ablation of the process of etching on one surface of the electrode sheet 110).
PNG
media_image1.png
990
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of the laser ablation of the process of etching is performed on only one surface of the electrode sheet, as taught by Scherner, in order to ablate a small amount of material on one surface of the electrode sheet step by step with each subsequent passing of the laser beam, so that the ablated material is transformed into such small particles that no substantial burr formation occurs; therefore, no excessive burr is introduced as a result of the cutting process; thus, achieving a high-throughput and high-quality production of electrode, as recognized by Scherner [Scherner Pars.0007, 0045, 0065-066].
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Umehara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0072512 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth above, Choi also discloses an electrode forming device (electrode forming device as shown in Choi Figs.2C & 2E) to perform the electrode manufacturing method of claim 1, the electrode forming device comprising:
a sheet conveyor (winding roller 50, Choi Fig.2C) configured to move the electrode sheet (electrode sheet includes active material layer 112 and current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2C & Par.0027);
a light source (first laser part 30, Choi Fig.2C) configured to perform the laser ablation that etches the portion of the electrode mixture layer (active material layer 112, Choi Fig.2C) within the range not exposing the electrode collector (current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2E) (Choi Par.0029 discloses “In the active material layer removing step (S2), the laser beam generated from the first laser part 30 is irradiated to the current collector plate 111 having the active material layer 112 formed thereon to remove a portion of the active material layer 112. Accordingly, portions of the active material layer 112 formed on the top and bottom surfaces of the current collector plate 111 are removed.”, this can be seen in Choi Fig.2C; it is noted that Choi in view of Chang teaches laser configured to perform the laser ablation that etches the portion of the electrode mixture layer within the range not exposing the electrode collector, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of independent claim 1 above); and
an electrode processor (second laser part 40, Choi Fig.2C) configured to cut the etched portion of the electrode mixture layer (active material layer 112, Choi Fig.2C) and the electrode collector (current collector plate 111, Choi Fig.2E) (Choi Par.0031 discloses “the second laser part 40 irradiates a laser beam to cut the current collector plate 111. Accordingly, the manufacture of the electrode plate 110 (positive electrode plate) is completed.”).
Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto is not specific enough about:
the sheet conveyor configured to move at a constant speed
Umehara teaches an electrode forming device (10, Umehara Fig.8):
a sheet conveyor (conveying device 11, Umehara Fig.8 & Par.0063) configured to move the electrode sheet (electrode 140A, Umehara Fig.8 & Par.0063) at a constant speed (Umehara Par.0063 teaches: “Specifically, the conveying device 11 is configured to convey this negative electrode 140A at a constant speed from an upstream side (the right side in FIG. 8) to a downstream side (the left side in FIG. 8) of a conveying line 11A along the longitudinal direction DA.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of the sheet conveyor configured to move at a constant speed, as taught by Umehara, in order to increase the processing rate as compared to a stop-and-go process, thus, reducing the manufacturing cost. Furthermore, the modification would improve the stability of the electrode sheet being conveyed; and since the cut through of the electrode sheet is performed at the etched portion, the modification would also avoid the relative misalignment between the etched portion and the cut through portion due to the change of the speed, thereby, improving the cutting quality.
Regarding claim 12, Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Umehara teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 11, Choi also discloses:
wherein the electrode processor (second laser part 40, Choi Fig.2C) performs one of notching, punching, or slitting (it is noted that the limitation “one of notching, punching, or slitting” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, Choi discloses the second laser part 40 performs slitting as shown in Choi Fig.2E).
Regarding claim 13, Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Umehara teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 11, Choi also discloses:
wherein the electrode processor (second laser part 40, Choi Fig.2C) emits a laser light (Choi Par.0031 discloses: “as shown in FIGS. 2E and 2F, the second laser part 40 irradiates a laser beam to cut the current collector plate 111.”).
Regarding claim 14, Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Umehara teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 11, Choi also discloses:
wherein the electrode forming device (electrode forming device as shown in Choi Figs.2C & 2E) is provided such that, in a traveling direction (traveling direction is denoted by an arrow as shown in Choi Figs.2C & 2E) thereof, the laser ablation is performed first (the laser ablation is performed by the first laser part 30, Choi Par.0030 or as explained previously in the rejection of claim 11 above) and then the process of cutting is performed thereafter (the laser cutting is performed by the second laser part 40, Choi Par.0031 or as explained previously in the rejection of claim 11 above) (Choi Par.0031 discloses: “Therefore, if the current collector plate 111 from which the active material layer has been removed by the first laser part 30 is transferred to a position of the second laser part 40 by the winding roller 50, as shown in FIGS. 2E and 2F, the second laser part 40 irradiates a laser beam to cut the current collector plate 111.”; therefore Choi discloses the laser ablation is performed first and then the cutting is performed thereafter).
Regarding claim 15, Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Umehara teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 11, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a distance between the light source of the laser beam and the electrode processor is 20 mm to 300 mm.
However, the court has held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
In this case, Choi Par.0031 discloses the second laser part 40 is positioned on the same line with the first laser part 30, and the position of the second laser part 40 needs to be optimized to “irradiate(s) a laser beam to cut the current collector plate 111” if the current collector plate 111 from which the active material layer has been removed by the first laser part 30 is transferred to the position of the second laser part 40. This can be seen in Figs.2C and 2E of Choi. Therefore, the distance between the first laser part 30 and the second part 40 is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between these two laser parts changes the cutting width and depth which affects ease of laser penetration. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the distance between the first laser part 30 and the second part 40 of Choi to have a distance within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the position of the component disclosed to require adjustment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Umehara, by making the distance between the Choi first laser part (30) and the Choi second laser part (40) is 20 mm to 300 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”. MPEP 2144.05 II.A.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), Umehara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0072512 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Yamamoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0001206 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Umehara teaches the apparatus as set forth in claim 11, but does not teach:
further comprising a suction or blower that suctions or blows residual substances generated by the laser or the electrode processor.
Yamamoto teaches (Yamamoto Fig.1B):
further comprising a suction (suction device 15, Yamamoto Fig.1B & Par.0083) or blower [it is note that the limitation “suction or blower” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these features was given patentable weight during examination] that suctions or blows residual substances (soot 12, Yamamoto Fig.1B & Par.0083) generated by the laser (laser 7, Yamamoto Fig.1B & Par.0083) (Yamamoto Par.0083 teaches the suction device 15 is vacuum pump and is configured to suck and remove soot 12 generated at the time of laser cutting) or the electrode processor [it is note that the limitation “the laser or the electrode processor” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these features was required during examination].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Umehara, by adding the suction device, as taught by Yamamoto, in order to suck and remove residual substances generated by the laser during laser cutting, thus, clogging of laser head can be prevented, and desired laser cutting conditions can be maintained stably, as recognized by Yamamoto [Yamamoto, Par.0084]; thereby, increasing productivity and improving quality of the product.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20080101725 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the output capability of the laser is 70 W to 200 W.
Kim teaches an electrode manufacturing method comprising cutting an electrode sheet by using a laser (Kim Translated Abstract):
wherein the output capability of the laser is 70 W to 200 W (Kim Translated Document on page 8 paragraph 14 teaches “output capacity of the fiber pulse laser was set to 100 W”; therefore, Kim teaches the output capacity of the laser is 100 W, which is within the claimed range of 70 W to 200 W)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by making the output capability of the laser is 100 W, as taught by Kim, in order to lower the defective rate in laser cutting, as recognized by Kim (Kim Translated Document on page 9 teaches when the pulsed laser is used and the output capacity of the fiber pulse laser was set to 100 W, this would achieve the lowest defective rate of 0.5%, see details on page 9 of Kim Translated Document). Thus, the modification would improve the laser cutting quality and thus, improve the battery performance and safety due to high precision product, while also offering cost savings and higher throughput from reduced material waste.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0263705 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 20, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto does not disclose:
wherein a spot size of the laser is 10 μm to 100 μm, and
wherein a minimum spot size and a maximum spot size of the laser is less than a minimum beam diameter and a maximum beam diameter of the laser beam, respectively.
Kim teaches a laser cutting method for electrode (Kim Abstract & Fig.1)
wherein a spot size of the laser is 10 μm to 100 μm (Kim Par.0081 teaches: “the size of the focal spot of the laser beam radiated to the surface of the cathode sheet 3 is about 10 μm to about 50 μm”), and
wherein a minimum spot size and a maximum spot size of the laser is less than a minimum beam diameter and a maximum beam diameter of the laser beam, respectively (It is noted that Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the beam diameter of the laser beam is 50 μm to 300 μm, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above. In this case, Kim teaches the spot size of the laser is about 10 μm to about 50 μm. Thus, in combination, Choi in view of Chang, Hashimoto and Kim teaches a minimum spot size and a maximum spot size of the laser is less than a minimum beam diameter and a maximum beam diameter of the laser beam, respectively).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of spot size of the laser is about 10 μm to about 50 μm, as taught by Kim, in order to optimize cutting efficiency and quality across different sections of the cathode of the electrode, as recognized by Kim [Kim, Pars.0080-0081].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0267608 A1, previously cited) in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), Hashimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0221951 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Bayramian (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0286480 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 21, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto teaches the method as set forth in claim 1, Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto does not explicitly teach:
wherein an output capability of the laser beam is greater than 50 kW and less than about 300 kW
Bayramian teaches a laser processing method (Bayramian Abstract):
wherein an output capability of the laser beam is greater than 50 kW and less than about 300 kW (Bayramian Par.0037 teaches output capability of the laser beam ranging from 50 kW – 100 kW; specifically, the Bayramian Par.0037 teaches: “In some embodiments, the average output power of the first laser is on the order of greater than 10 KW. In particular embodiments, average output powers ranging from 1-5 KW, 5-10 KW, 10-20 KW, 20-50 KW, 50-100 KW, 100-500 KW, 500 KW-1 MW, 1 MW-10 MW, or greater are provided.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Chang and Hashimoto, by adding the teaching of output capability of the laser beam is greater than 50 kW and less than about 300 kW, as taught by Bayramian, in order to ensure fast, clean cutting so that the laser beam can effectively remove portion of the electrode layer mixture while not being exposed to the electrode collector layer.
Conclusion
The prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Sakurai et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0160596 A1) discloses an electrode sheet manufacturing apparatus that forms an electrode sheet by cutting a sheet stack including an electrode composite material layer and a separator provided on the electrode composite material layer.
Wakimoto et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0221791 A1) discloses method of manufacturing a secondary battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/05/2026