Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/25/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims has overcome the objection to claim 4 and one of the 112(a) rejections to claim 1 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8/25/2025.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The amendment filed 11/25/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 remain pending in this application.
The amendment filed 11/25/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 112(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the claims of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is ““the electrode assembly having an NP-ratio equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes” and is discussed in detail below.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to “abstract idea” without significantly more. The claim recites “determining a specific region where the positive electrode and the negative electrode face each other, and setting the measurement location in the specific region” and “calculating a ratio of the thickness of the electrode mixture layer of the positive electrode and the electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode measured during step (b) to the thickness of each respective electrode mixture layer at the central portion measured during step (c).”
The limitation of “determining a specific region where the positive electrode and the negative electrode face each other, and setting the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the specific region” under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses determination and setting as a mental process as one can set/determine where the electrodes are to be measured in their mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performances of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The amendment of the limitation of “the electrode mixture layer of each of the positive and negative electrodes having sliding regions where a thickness thereof gradually decreases relative to constant thicknesses at a central portion of the electrode mixture laver” merely elaborates on the mental step of “setting” the measurement location and is therefore just continuing to add to the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Movement of when the context is provided to what the mental step is determining does not change that it contributes to the abstract idea.
The amendments of “analyzing the electrode mixture layer at measurement locations in the sliding regions of the electrode mixture layer of each of the positive and negative electrodes; and” and “wherein the analyzing of the electrode mixture layers includes:” under broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses observation and judgement, they therefore fall under the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “calculating a ratio of the thickness of the electrode mixture layer of the positive electrode and the electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode measured during step (b) to the thickness of each respective electrode mixture layer at the central portion measured during step (c)” under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses mathematically calculating. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, “(b) measuring a thickness and a loading amount of an electrode mixture layer of the positive electrode and an electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode at the set measurement location; (c) measuring a thickness and a loading amount of each respective electrode mixture layer at a central portion of the positive electrode and the negative electrode;” as a whole are used to gather data used to calculate the ratio in step (d). Therefore steps (b) and (c) are data gather to be used in the abstract idea what is insignificant extra-solution (pre-solution) activity, and not a particular practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of steps b and c are pre-solutionary activity and furthermore are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) shows an example of how steps b and c are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the non-final rejection of claim 1. Mere instructions to measure values to an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Additionally, the amended limitation of “assembling the positive electrode and the negative electrode together with a separator to form the electrode assembly” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This limitation does not link itself to anything either the specific region that has been determined or the measurement location that has been set or the ratio that has been calculated. Therefore, the limitation does not generally link to any of the judicial exceptions to the field of endeavor. This limitation is also well-understood, routine and conventional as shown by Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in the non-final rejection of claim 1. Mere instructions to assemble basic pieces of a battery to an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The movement of this limitation does not counteract that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional and does not add significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding the amended limitation “the electrode assembly having an NP-ratio of a capacity per unit area of the negative electrode to a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode, the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes,” this limitation does appear to link itself in any way this property to the process steps and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This limitation does not link itself to anything either the specific region that has been determined or the measurement location that has been set or the ratio that has been calculated. This limitation is also well-understood, routine and conventional as shown by Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) in the non-final rejection of claim 1. Mere instructions to assemble basic pieces of a battery to an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Movement of this limitation does change that it still does not appear to link itself in any way from the property to the process steps and therefore does not integrate itself into the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the amended limitation that relies on cancelled claim 11, “forming each of positive and negative electrodes by applying an electrode slurry containing an electrode active material on a current collector and then drying the electrode slurry to form an electrode mixture layer on the current collector” similar to the previous 101 rejection of the now cancelled claim 11 is adding an additional element that generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. This is supported by Yeol teaching an electrode assembly made up of coating electrode mixture including an electrode active material onto a sheet current collector and drying it in Para. 4. It is best understood this may done for both a positive and negative electrode based on both types of electrodes being mentioned as part of the electrode assembly in Para. 3. This step also just assists with data gathering to be used in the abstract idea and therefore is insignificant pre-solutionary activity. The movement of claim limitations from a dependent claim previously rejected under 101 into an independent claim does not overcome a 101 rejection.
Regarding the amended claim limitation, the relies on cancelled claim 2, “(e) calculating the NP-ratio of the capacity per unit area of the negative electrode to the capacity per unit area of the positive electrode at the measurement locations” under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses mathematically calculating. This provides another abstract idea of a mathematical calculation and does not add any further limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or adds any elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, “wherein step (e) comprises: (e-1) accumulating correlation data between a ratio of each loading amount of the positive electrode and the negative electrode to each thickness of the positive electrode and the negative electrode, and the NP-ratio, by repeating steps (a) through (d) while changing the measurement location for the positive electrode and the negative electrode;” is also pre-solutionary activity in order for steps (e-2) and (e-3) are does not recite an element that is significantly more than the abstract idea. It is well understood, routine, and conventional to accumulate data by taking repeat measurements. “(e-2) deriving a correlation equation by analyzing the correlation data; (e-3) calculating the NP-ratio by substituting a ratio of the loading amount measured during step (b) to the thicknesses calculated during step (d) into the correlation” under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses mathematically calculating. This provides another abstract idea of a mathematical calculation and does not add any further limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or adds any elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, “wherein step (a) includes setting the measurement location at which the positive electrode faces the negative electrode in the sliding region” is used to determine setting the measurement location in step (a). Therefore, this further limitation is setting the measurement location, which is the abstract idea. Therefore, it does not integrate the claim into a particular practical application and is not an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, “step (a) includes setting a plurality of measurement locations (X1, X2...X.) at regular intervals along a width direction (x-axis) on a center line in a longitudinal direction of each electrode” is used to determine setting the measurement location in step (a). Therefore, this further limitation is setting the measurement location, which is the abstract idea. Therefore, it does not integrate the claim into a particular practical application and is not an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, “setting a plurality of measurement locations at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y axis) of each electrode, at each point of the measurement locations (Xi, X2...Xn)” is used to determine setting the measurement location in step (a). Therefore, this further limitation is setting the measurement location, which is the abstract idea. Therefore, it does not integrate the claim into a particular practical application and is not an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7,” step (a) comprises: (a-1) making an image for a plurality of vertical lines at regular intervals along a width direction (x-axis) of the electrode at the specific region; (a-2) making an image for a plurality of horizontal lines at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y-axis) in the sliding region;” ;” is pre-solutionary activity to the abstract idea of setting and determining the measurement locations of step (a) of claim 1 and does not recite an element that is significantly more than the abstract idea. It is well understood, routine, and conventional to accumulate data by taking repeat measurements. “(a-3) setting a plurality of rectangular regions formed by intersection of the vertical lines and the horizontal lines as segmented regions; and (a-4) setting respective points within the set segmented regions as measurement locations” is used to determine setting the measurement location in step (a). Therefore, this further limitation is setting the measurement location, which is the abstract idea. Therefore, it does not integrate the claim into a particular practical application and is not an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 8, “wherein the plurality of measurement locations (Xi, X2...X.) are spaced apart from each other at an interval of 0.05 to 0.2 mm” is used to determine setting the measurement location in step (a). Therefore, this further limitation is setting the measurement location, which is the abstract idea. Therefore, it does not integrate the claim into a particular practical application and is not an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9, “step (c) each include measuring a thickness of each electrode mixture layer by using rotary calipers”;” is also pre-solutionary activity to the pre-solutionary activity of step (c) of claim 1 and does not recite an element that is significantly more than the abstract idea. It is well understood, routine, and conventional to accumulate data by taking repeat measurements.
Regarding claim 10, “step (b) includes measuring the loading amount of the electrode mixture layer by using a web gauge” is also pre-solutionary activity to the pre-solutionary activity of step (b) of claim 1 and does not recite an element that is significantly more than the abstract idea. It is well understood, routine, and conventional to accumulate data by taking repeat measurements.
Regarding claim 12, wherein each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode have not gone through a rolling process at the time of step (b) is also pre-solutionary activity or a lack thereof to the pre-solutionary activity of step (b) of claim 1 and does not recite an element that is significantly more than the abstract idea. It is well understood, routine, and conventional to accumulate data by taking repeat measurements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Lines 18-19 of amended claim 1 now recite “the electrode assembly having an NP-ratio equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes.” However, the specification on page 7 lines 1-7 only states the benefits and drawbacks when an NP-ratio is equal to or greater than 1 or if it less than 1. The instant specification never notes the NP-ratio as a result of the method or a specific NP-ratio in reference to a step of the method. Therefore, this limitation does not have support. Slight modification of the “measurement locations” from “all locations” does not change that there is unclear support for this property as part of the method. None of the recited paragraphs that Applicant argued provided support clarified the specific NP-ratio range as some sort of result the method (Para 9, 33-35, 38, 50, and 61-62).
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12 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.
In regard to claim 1, it is unclear how “the electrode assembly having an NP-ratio equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes” relates to the method described throughout the rest of claim 1. The instant specification does on page 7 lines 1-7 state the benefits and drawbacks when an NP-ratio is equal to or greater than 1 or if it less than 1. However, it is still unclear how and in what way the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 is a result or expected property of the method claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in view of Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) and further in view of Ideaka (US 2011/0189546 A1). Yeol et al. was cited in the non-final rejection filed 4/14/2025. Ideaka et al. was cited in the non-final rejection filed 4/14/2025. Takahata et al. was cited in the final rejection filed 8/25/2025.
Regarding claim 1, Yeol et al. teaches a method of assembling an electrode assembly, the method comprising:
Forming each of positive and negative electrodes by applying an electrode slurry containing an electrode active material on a current collector and then drying the electrode slurry to form an electrode mixture layer on the current collector (see e.g. an electrode assembly made up of coating electrode mixture including an electrode active material onto a sheet current collector and drying it in Para. 4. It is best understood this may done for both a positive and negative electrode based on both types of electrodes being mentioned as part of the electrode assembly in Para. 3),
Analyzing the electrode mixture layer at measurement locations of the electrode mixture layer of each of the positive and negative electrodes (see e.g. Yeol et al. teaches this by its comparison of the loading amount data to standard data it has collected in Para. 37, which includes thickness as noted in Para. 36.); and
Assembling the positive electrode and the negative electrode together with a separator to form the battery assembly (see e.g. battery of positive and negative electrode with interposing separator in Para. 53-53 and 55).
Wherein the analyzing of the electrode mixture layers includes:
(a) Determining a specific region where the positive electrode and the negative electrode face each other, and setting the measurement locations (see e.g. the system of Yeol et al. measures individual points of the coating in Para. 1. The coatings of the electrode being measured inherently faces the other electrode of the opposite charge in a wound or stacked electrode assembly with a positive and negative electrode as mentioned in Para. 3. It is an expected property that the specific region that Yeol et al. is measuring where the electrode mixture layers of the positive and negative electrodes are configured to overlap considering Yeol et al. is measuring thickness of an electrode as a way to improve electrode loaded state uniformity and therefore performance and safety for a jellyroll, stacked, or folded battery in Para. 8-9, all of which inherently consist of electrodes overlapping).
(b) measuring a thickness and a loading amount of the electrode mixture layer of the positive electrode and the electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode at the set measurement location (see e.g. measuring loading and thickness of the electrode at the points being measured in Para 64-65 for both positive and negative electrode in Para. 18.)
(c) measuring a thickness and a loading amount of each respective electrode mixture layer at the central portion of the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g. because it is measuring a coating amount in Para. 1 and is measuring throughout the coating process in Para. 10 for both positive and negative electrode in Para. 18. This is also noted in Para. 64 of the continuous loading of the electrode sheet and then measuring. Thus, one would expect at least one of the measurements is in a central or important portion of the electrode during the measurement taking process); and
(d) calculating a ratio of the thickness of the electrode mixture layer of the positive electrode and the electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode measured (see e.g. Yeol et al. teaches this by its comparison of the loading amount data to standard data it has collected in Para. 37, which includes thickness as noted in Para. 36).
Yeol fails to explicitly teach the electrode mixture layer of each of the positive and negative electrodes having sliding regions where a thickness thereof gradually decreases relative to constant thickness at a central portion of the electrode mixture layer:
Analyzing the electrode mixture layer at measurement locations in the sliding regions of the electrode mixture layer of each of the positive and negative electrodes;
setting the measurement locations in sliding regions of the specific region
The electrode assembly having an NP-ratio of a capacity per unit area of the negative electrode to a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode, the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes,
(d) calculating a ratio of the thickness of the electrode mixture layer of the positive electrode and the electrode mixture layer of the negative electrode measured during step (b) to the thickness of each respective electrode mixture layer at the central portion measured during step (c)
(e) calculating the (NP-ratio) of a capacity per unit area of the negative electrode to a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode at the measurement location.
However, Takahata et al. teaches measuring and comparing the thickness deviation of an electrode from the edge and the center during manufacturing is beneficial as to ensure uniform thickness and therefore lead to more stable properties in Para. 41.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure, compare, and calculate a ratio of the process of Yeol between the thinner edge of electrodes as compared to thicker centers of the electrodes, as taught by Takahata et al. to continue to ensure uniform thickness and therefore stable properties as supported by Takahata et al. in Para. 41. Upon the combination of references, it would be expected that the electrodes would be measured and compared throughout points along the sheet including the central portions and thinner edge regions and this would lead to calculating a ratio, even just visually, between the two rejections considering the established processes of Yeol.
Furthermore, because the combined teachings of Yeol and Takahata et al. teach each and every limitation of the claimed method recited thus far, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the resulting property to be met, absent any evidence to contrary that there is a distinction between the claims and prior art, of the electrode assembly having an NP-ratio equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes. See MPEP 2112.01.
Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. fails to explicitly teach further comprising: (e) calculating the (NP-ratio) of a capacity per unit area of the negative electrode to a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode at the measurement location.
However, Ideaka teaches calculating an NP-ratio capacity per unit area of the negative electrode to a capacity per unit area of the positive electrode at the measurement location as seen in the y-axis of Fig. 12 and described in Para. 71-73, Para. 93, and Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. Ideaka teaches the NP ratio has an effect on the electrode’s internal resistance in Para. 106.
Yeol et al., Takahata et al., and Ideaka are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they teach measuring and calculating characteristics of electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and calculate the N/P capacity ratio of an electrode as taught by Ideaka during the measuring process of Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. in order to assess and ensure limited resistance due to Ideaka’ s findings that the N/P capacity ratio and thickness has an effect on internal resistance in Para. 106 in Ideaka. Furthermore, Ideaka establishes measuring and calculating N/P capacity ratio is a known technique when characterizing electrodes with predictable results. Upon the combination of references, the result would lead to this calculation being made for the measurements taken at the measurement locations.
Regarding claim 4, Yeol in view of Takahata and Ideaka teach the method of claim 1,
Yeol et al. teaches wherein step (a) includes setting the measurement locations at which the positive electrode faces the negative electrode (see e.g. Yeol et al. measures individual points of the coating in Para. 1. The coatings of the electrode being measured inherently faces the other electrode of the opposite charge in a wound or stacked electrode assembly with a positive and negative electrode as mentioned in Para. 3. It is an expected property that the specific region that Yeol et al. is measuring where the electrode mixture layers of the positive and negative electrodes face each other considering Yeol et al. is measuring thickness of an electrode as a way to improve electrode loaded state uniformity and therefore performance and safety for a jellyroll, stacked, or folded battery in Para. 8-9 all of which inherently consist of electrodes facing each other.
Yeol et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein step (a) includes setting the measurement location at which the positive electrode faces the negative electrode in the sliding region based on how the sliding region is defined in claim 1 of “the sliding regions being where thicknesses of the electrode mixture layers of the positive and negative electrodes gradually decrease relative to constant thicknesses at a central portion thereof”
However, Takahata et al. teaches measuring and comparing the thickness deviation of an electrode from the edge and the center during manufacturing is beneficial as to ensure uniform thickness and therefore lead to more stable properties in Para. 41.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to measure and compare the thinner edge of electrodes as compared to thicker centers of the electrodes, as taught by Takahata et al., in the measuring and analyzing process of Yeol to continue to ensure uniform thickness and therefore stable properties as supported by Takahata et al. in Para. 41. Upon the combination of references, it would result in setting the measurement location at which the positive electrode faces the negative electrode in the sliding region based on how the sliding region as defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein each of the positive electrode and the negative electrode have not gone through a rolling process at the time of step (b) (see e.g. Yeol et al. teaches the singular electrode being measured in Fig. 3 and described throughout Para. 64-65. The measurement occurs before the “rolling process” occurs in which the electrode is laminated or rolled against the other electrode and/or separator to form a stacked or wound electrode assembly in Para. 3).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in view of Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) and Ideaka (US 2011/0189546 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akashi et al. (US 6537704 B1). Akashi et al. was cited in the non-final rejection filed 4/14/2025.
Regarding claim 3, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka teach the method of claim 1, wherein step (e) comprises:
(e-1) accumulating correlation data of a ratio between the loading amount of the positive electrode and the negative electrode, a ratio between the thickness of the positive electrode and the negative electrode, by repeating steps (a) through (d) while changing the measurement location for the positive electrode and the negative electrode (see e.g. Yeol et al is understood to teach repetition of data measurements by the data of which the translation is interpreted to intend data in its plural meaning, taken as the electrode sheet moves along the conveyor belt as noted in Para. 63-65. This repetition would reasonably apply to the measurement processes taught by the combination of Yeol in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka in the rejection of claim 1 above).
It is important to note Yeol et al. exemplifies how the thickness and loading of the electrodes are both important to consider in Para. 6 and 36. Ideaka teaches the importance of the NP ratio to electrode characteristics and is interconnected to the thickness of an electrode in Para. 23-24.
Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka fails to explicitly teach (e-2) deriving a correlation equation by analyzing the correlation data; (e-3) calculating the NP-ratio by substituting a ratio of the loading amount measured during step (b) to the thicknesses calculated during step (d) into the correlation equation.
However, Akashi et al. teaches correlation equations by analyzing correlation data by the polynomial model curves in Fig. 12 used to fit the data sets 60, 90, 120, 159, and 180 comparing the thickness ratio between the negative and positive electrode and the capacity ratio. While Akashi et al. doesn’t explicitly cite what the correlation equations are, the modeling of the polynomial model correlation curves inherently show a correlation equation was produced in how to map the curve between the data points. When Akashi et al. analyzes the results of Fig. 12 in column 13: lines 42-65, it is explaining how data points between the thickness ratios measured would lead to specific capacity ratios based on the polynomial model curves in Fig. 12. The production of Fig. 12 and comparing of the thickness ratio between the positive and negative electrode and capacity ratio % and the curves and analysis exemplified led to confirming excellent load characteristics and that a satisfactory capacity ratio was not obtained as compared with the other batteries in column 13: lines 51-65.
Yeol et al., Takahata, Ideaka, and Akashi et al are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all teach characterization of properties of electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to derive a correlation equation by analyzing the correlation data as taught by Akashi et al. for the thickness and loading of the electrodes of Yeol et al. in view of Takahata and the NP-ratio of Ideaka and to calculate the NP-ratio based upon the loading and thickness values using the correlation equation. This is because when Akashi et al. analyzes the results of Fig. 12 in column 13: lines 42-65, it is explaining how data points between the thickness ratios measured would lead to specific capacity ratios based on the polynomial model curves in Fig. 12. Akashi et al. is able to learn upon the production of Fig. 12 and comparing of the thickness ratio between the positive and negative electrode and capacity ratio % and the curves and after the analysis exemplified that excellent load characteristics were confirmed and that a satisfactory capacity ratio was not obtained as compared with the other batteries in column 13: lines 51-65. This motivates someone to compare other relevant characteristics via this method to further establish the most satisfactory battery. Akashi also establishes a relationship and meaning between the thickness between the negative and positive electrode and capacity ratio in Fig. 12 and column 13: lines 51-65. This creates motivation to assess the effects of the thickness, and therefore the loading because they are interrelated as established by Yeol et al. in Para. 6 and 36, of both the negative and positive electrode of the primary reference Yeol et al. This also creates motivation that it would be relevant to take the NP-ratio data collected, as discussed in the non-final rejection of claim 1, and combine it into the correlation equation of thickness and loading because Akashi et al. establishes there is a relationship between thickness between the positive and negative electrode and the capacity ratio. Ideaka had already established the significance of the NP-ratio, a different capacity ratio, onto the thickness of the electrode and characterization of an electrode in Para. 106.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in view of Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) and Ideaka (US 2011/0189546 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasuaki et al. (JP 2012/160301 A). Yasuaki et al. (JP 2012/160301 A) was in the IDS filed 08/29/2022.
Regarding claim 5, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka teaches the method of claim 1.
However, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al and Ideaka fails to explicitly teach wherein step (a) includes setting a plurality of measurement locations (X1, X2...X.) at regular intervals along a width direction (x-axis) on a center line in a longitudinal direction of each electrode.
However, Yasuaki et al. teaches measuring capacitance of an electrode sheet via a plurality of conductive portions 10 in Para. 50-53 at regular intervals along the x-axis on a center line by the multiple center lines on and next to the dotted line of A to A’ of Fig. 2 that are in a longitudinal direction, as also seen in Fig. 1. Yasuaki et al. explains this method provides a quality determination or measurement for each region of the measurement region in Para. 5.
Yeol et al., Takahata et al., Ideaka, and Yasuaki et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they teach measuring characteristics of an electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of measuring and collecting points as taught by Yasuaki et al. to the data collection of Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka, in order to obtain a quality determination or measurement for each region of the measurement region as noted in Para. 5 of Yasuaki et al.
Regarding claim 6, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al, Ideaka, and Yasuaki et al. teach the method of claim 5.
Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka fails to explicitly teach further comprising setting a plurality of measurement locations at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y axis) of each electrode, at each point of the measurement locations (Xi, X2...Xn).
However, Yasuaki et al. teaches measuring capacitance of an electrode sheet via a plurality of conductive portions 10 in Para. 50-53 further comprising setting a plurality of measurement locations at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y axis) of each electrode, at each point of the measurement locations (Xi, X2...Xn) by the multiple conductive portions 10 along the y-axis at each point of the conductive portions 10 along the x-axis or the A to A’ line in Fig. 2 and Fig. 1. Yasuaki et al. explains this method provides a quality determination or measurement for each region of the measurement region in Para. 5.
Yeol et al., Takahata et al., and Yasuaki et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they teach measuring characteristics of an electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of measuring and collecting points as taught by Yasuaki et al. to the data collection of Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka in order to obtain a quality determination or measurement for each region of the measurement region as noted in Para. 5 of Yasuaki et al.
Regarding claim 8, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al., Ideaka, and Yasuaki et al. teach the method of claim 5.
Yeol et al. teaches the invention will be able to perform various applications and modifications in Para. 72 which would reasonably include measuring electrodes sized for different applications than the mobile device noted in Para. 2.
Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka fails to explicitly teach further comprising setting a plurality of measurement locations at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y axis) of each electrode, at each point of the measurement locations (Xi, X2...Xn) and wherein the plurality of measurement locations (Xi, X2...X.) are spaced apart from each other at an interval of 0.05 to 0.2 mm.
However, Yasuaki et al. teaches measuring capacitance of an electrode sheet via a plurality of conductive portions 10 in Para. 50-53 further comprising setting a plurality of measurement locations at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y axis) of each electrode, at each point of the measurement locations (Xi, X2...Xn) by the multiple conductive portions 10 along the y-axis at each point of the conductive portions 10 along the x-axis or the A to A’ line in Fig. 2 and Fig. 1. Yasuaki et al. shows different measurement location sizes and shapes between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, conductive portions 10 and 11 respectively, and Para. 34. Yasuaki et al. explains this method provides a quality determination or measurement for each region of the measurement region in Para. 5.
Yeol et al., Takahata et al., Ideaka, and Yasuaki et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they teach measuring characteristics of an electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the method of measuring and collecting points as taught by Yasuaki et al. to the data collection of Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka in order to obtain a quality determination or measurement for each region of the measurement region as noted in Para. 5 of Yasuaki et al.
In light of Yeol being applicable to different sized applications that would reasonably yield different sized electrodes in Para 2 and Yasuaki et al. showing different measurement location sizes and shapes between Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, conductive portions 10 and 11 respectively, and Para. 34, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the size or proportion of the integrals of measurements along the x-axis depending on the size of the electrode and battery. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in view of Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) and Ideaka (US 2011/0189546 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jun et al. (KR 20150054185 A). Jun et al. was cited in the non-final rejection filed 4/14/2025.
Regarding claim 7, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein step (a) comprises:
Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka fails to explicitly teach wherein step (a) comprises: (a-1) making an image for a plurality of vertical lines at regular intervals along a width direction (x-axis) of the electrode at the specific region; (a-2) making an image for a plurality of horizontal lines at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y-axis) in the sliding region; (a-3) setting a plurality of rectangular regions formed by intersection of the vertical lines and the horizontal lines as segmented regions; and (a-4) setting respective points within the set segmented regions as measurement locations.
However, Jun et al. teaches an electrode of a secondary battery wherein step (a) comprises: (a-1) making an image for a plurality of vertical lines at regular intervals along a width direction (x-axis) of the electrode at the specific region; (a-2) making an image for a plurality of horizontal lines at regular intervals along a longitudinal direction (y-axis) in the sliding region by explaining that “conventionally, in manufacturing an electrode plate of a secondary battery, an optical instrument is installed around an electrode plate wound on a roll, and an image of the electrode plate obtained through the optical plate is read to measure the thickness” in Para. 6 and the plurality of measurements taken by the light source at regular intervals in an x-direction as the transfer frame moves in a longitudinal direction along the roller 110 in Fig. 1 and Para. 18, and along the y-direction because the system will take a plurality of measurement sets as the roller rotates in the abstract, collecting sets of data and form an image along the length of the electrode sheet, as seen in Fig. 3A and 3B to measure the thickness. Jun et al. teaches (a-3) setting a plurality of rectangular regions formed by intersection of the vertical lines and the horizontal lines as segmented regions; and (a-4) setting respective points within the set segmented regions as measurement locations by the plurality of measurements or imaging data taken of the electrode as it is rotated on the roller and the transfer roller is moved longitudinally the that form rectangular regions of the x-direction and y-direction of the electrode in which the data measurements are taken within by the light in Fig. 1, 3A, and 3B and the abstract, Para. 6, and Para. 18. Jun et al. establishes this procedure helps to sufficiently manage the thickness of the electrode plate in Para. 5 and prevents measuring errors in Para. 7.
Yeol et al., Takahata et al., Ideaka, and Jun et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they teach measuring thickness for an electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assess the electrode of Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka via the imaging process as taught by Jun et al. for to sufficient management of the thickness of the electrode plate as noted in Para. 5 of Jun et al. and prevents measuring errors as noted in Para. 7 of Jun et al.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in view of Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) and Ideaka (US 2011/0189546 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura et al. (US 2015/0280208 A1). Kimura et al. was cited in the non-final rejection filed 4/14/2025.
Regarding claim 9, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein step (b) and step (c) each include measuring a thickness of each electrode mixture layer (see e.g. Yeol teaches measuring thickness of the loading amount of the electrode mixture in Para 1, 36, 65, and as described in the non-final rejection of claim 1).
Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka fails to explicitly teach this is completed by using rotary calipers.
However, Kimura et al. teaches that using rotary calipers is a known technique to measure a thickness difference in a width direction of a negative electrode mixture layer in Para. 111. The known technique that would have yield predictable of measuring the thickness of an electrode mixture layer.
Yeol et al., Takahata et al., Ideaka, and Kimura et al. are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they teach measuring the thickness of a coating layer of an electrode. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of using rotary calipers as taught by Kimura et al. to measure the thickness of a coating layer of an electrode of Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka to yield predictable results and result in an improved system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in view of Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) and Ideaka (US 2011/0189546 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ThermoFisher Scientific (What you need to know about Web Gauging Systems, 2018). ThermoFisher Scientific was cited in the non-final rejection filed 4/14/2025.
Regarding claim 10, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka teaches the method of claim 1, wherein step (b) includes measuring the loading amount of the electrode mixture layer (see e.g. Yeol teaches measuring the loading amount with a loading amount measuring unit in Para. 13).
Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka fails to explicitly teach this is completed by using a web gauge.
However, ThermoFisher Scientific teaches a web gauging system that measures non-contact basis weight in page 4, which is the loading amount. ThermoFisher Scientific notes this can be completed for anode and cathode coatings in page 8 and notes it provides automatic control, saves money, and reduces scrap material in page 6.
Yeol et al., Takahata et al, Ideaka, and ThermoFisher Scientific are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they teach measuring loading amount of electrode coatings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of a web gauge such as the one taught by ThermoFisher Scientific to measure loading amount of electrode coating as discussed in Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and Ideaka in order to provides automatic control of measuring loading amount, saves money, and reduces scrap material as noted in page 6 of Yeol et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues from paragraph 4 of page 5 to paragraph 1 of page 7 of Applicant’s remarks that the restructuring and additional details brought in, including claim limitations from original claim 2 and claim 11, in order to tie the method to a physical product. Applicant hopes the reorganization and additional method steps ties to the electrode assembly will overcome the pending patentable subject matter rejection:
(1) adds a step of forming the electrodes by applying an electrode slurry to a current collector (from claim 11);
(2) adds an analyzing the electrode mixture layer step;
(3) moves the assembling the electrode assembly step earlier into the claim;
(4) adds a step of calculating the NP-ratio (from claim 2);
(5) adds the definition of the NP-ratio into the assembling step; and
(6) changes the NP-ratio feature to “the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
The first change: “(1) adds a step of forming the electrodes by applying an electrode slurry to a current collector (from claim 11)” of essentially moving up a dependent claim limitation previously rejected under 101 into an independent claim does not overcome a 101 rejection. The movement of when the limitation is recited does not change the fact that applying an electrode slurry to a current collector is adding an additional element that generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment and is also well-understood, routine, and conventional. This is supported by Yeol teaching an electrode assembly made up of coating electrode mixture including an electrode active material onto a sheet current collector and drying it in Para. 4. This step also just assists with data gathering to be used in the abstract idea and therefore is insignificant pre-solutionary activity.
The second step: “(2) adds an analyzing the electrode mixture layer step;” under broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses observation and judgement are therefore falls under the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the amended claim limitation recites an abstract idea.
Regarding the third step: “(3) moves the assembling the electrode assembly step earlier into the claim;” movement of this limitation does not counteract that it is still well-understood, routine, and conventional and does not add significantly more than the judicial exception. Movement of when the limitation is recited does not change that it stills does not ground the abstract idea into a practical application. This limitation does not link itself to anything either the specific region that has been determined or the measurement location that has been set or the ratio that has been calculated. Therefore, the limitation does not generally link to any of the judicial exceptions to the field of endeavor. This limitation is also well-understood, routine and conventional as shown by Yeol et al. (KR 101562571 B1) in the non-final rejection of claim 1. Mere instructions to assemble basic pieces of a battery to an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the fourth step: “(4) adds a step of calculating the NP-ratio (from claim 2),” as discussed above, movement of a dependent claim limitation previously rejected under 101 into an independent claim does not overcome a 101 rejection. under its broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses mathematically calculating. This provides another abstract idea of a mathematical calculation and does not add any further limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a particular practical application or adds any elements that are significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the fifth change: “(5) adds the definition of the NP-ratio into the assembling step; and,” as discussed, the movement of claim limitations within a claim, to a different section of the claim, does not overcome the 101 rejection. This limitation does not appear to link itself in any way from the property to the process steps and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This limitation does not link itself to anything either the specific region that has been determined or the measurement location that has been set or the ratio that has been calculated and just adds to the abstract idea. This limitation is also well-understood, routine and conventional as shown by Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) in the non-final rejection of claim 1. Mere instructions to assemble basic pieces of a battery to an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the sixth change: “(6) changes the NP-ratio feature to “the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes.”” Additionally, does not appear to link itself in any way this property to the process steps and therefore does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This limitation does not link itself to anything either the specific region that has been determined or the measurement location that has been set or the ratio that has been calculated. This limitation is also well-understood, routine and conventional as shown by Takahata et al. (US 2013/0212875 A1) in the non-final rejection of claim 1. Mere instructions to assemble basic pieces of a battery to an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Movement of this limitation does change that it still does not appear to link itself in any way from the property to the process steps and therefore does not integrate itself into the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is not patent eligible.
For the reasons stated above, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive
Applicant Argues the amendments of incorporation claim 2 into claim 1 to further define what the NP-ratio is and amending the claim to remove overlap will help get around alleged indefinite rejections. The applicant also argues for support of amendments to claim 1 based on various paragraphs of the instant specification, instant figures, and original claims.
The amendment comprising the removal of the term “overlap” does overcome the 112(a) rejection in the final rejection filed 8/25/2025.
Examiner respectfully disagrees Lines 12-14 of amended claim 1 now recite “the electrode assembly having an NP-ratio equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement locations in the sliding regions of the positive and negative electrodes.” However, the specification on page 7 lines 1-7 only states the benefits and drawbacks when an NP-ratio is equal to or greater than 1 or if it less than 1. The instant specification never notes the NP-ratio as a result of the method or a specific NP-ratio in reference to a step of the method. Therefore, this limitation does not have support. Slight modification of the “measurement locations” from “all locations” does not change that there is unclear support for this property as part of the method. None of the recited paragraphs Applicant argued provided support clarifying the specific NP-ratio range as some sort of result the method (Para 9, 33-35, 38, 50, and 61-62).
For the reasons stated above, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive
Applicant Argues that by amending and restructuring claim 1, it may recite additional details related to the NP-ratio feature and in combination with the other rearranged feature, address the obvious rejection. Applicant does not think that Yeol or Takahata recognizes the issue of the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement location in the sliding regions. Applicant does not think it would naturally mean that person having ordinary skill in the art would modify Yeol after reading Takahata to specifically require the NP-ratio being equal to order greater than 1 at measurement locations in the sliding regions. Applicant believes that the office action applied this obviousness rejection was because of the rejections for patentable subject matter, written description, and indefiniteness preventing the claims from having their intended scope, so the office action is not giving patentable weight to the current language of the NP-ratio feature and that the amendments would overcome the obviousness rejection. Applicant argues each and every limitation of amended claim 1 is not taught or suggested by any of the references of record, alone or in combination.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments made to claim 1 appear to rely on restructuring the claim and bringing up dependent claim limitations into the independent claim. This did not change how one would interpret the claim limitations as a whole and therefore did not make a significant difference in the rejection of claim 1 other than incorporating the rejections of claim 2 and 11.
In regards to the limitation of “the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement location in the sliding regions,” considering the claim only lists the property and does not relate it back as a result of a specific step or material that is not taught by the prior art, and because all limitations were met by the prior art, one would reasonably expect it to have the property. Given that the prior art, Yeol et al. in view of Takahata et al. and further in view of Ideaka, discloses the same structure, methodology, and composition as recited thus far by the claimed invention, a person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to have the claimed property of “the NP-ratio being equal to or greater than 1 at the measurement location in the sliding regions,” lacking any distinction or anything to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01. Additionally, the applicant is not providing amendments and/or arguments with support from the specification to overcome this using factual and technical reasonings of why it wouldn’t be expected. The examiner asserts this limitation is given patentable weight. 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 language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Considering applicant does not address which of “each and every limitation of amended claim 1 is not taught or suggested by any of the references of record, alone or in combination,” and considering the NP-ratio limitation is addressed above, it is unclear what other limitations the applicant is referencing. Upon review of the rejection, the examiner sees each and every limitation is addressed and is either taught or suggested by the references alone or in combination. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
For the reasons stated above, applicant’s argument is not found persuasive
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 107819148 A teaches an equation comparing loading amount, thickness, and capacity. This was cited in the Non-Final Rejection filed 4/14/2025.
WO 2012/056532 A1 teaches measurement and analysis of electrode end thickness difference.
US 2025/0297964 A1 teaches measurement of electrode layer thickness changes
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723