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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered. Claim(s) 13-16 are new. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous rejection of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Zhao et al. (US20220021016A1) in view of Isaka et al. (US20210135220A1), Greinke et al. (US5677082A), and Nakashima et al. (US20070048607A1) set forth in the Office action mailed 03/16/2026 has been maintained for the reasons presented below (p. 13-15 of this Office action). Newly added claims 13 and 15 have also been rejected under this prior art combination.
Furthermore, a rejection of claims 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Isaka (US20210135220A1) in view of Greinke (US5677082A) and Vivattine (US20070202401A1) has been applied as presented below (pp. 2-8 of this Office action)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US20220021016A1 cited in 08/15/2025 Office action) in view of Isaka et al. (US20210135220A1), Greinke et al. (US5677082A cited in 02/24/2025 Office action), and Nakashima et al. (US20070048607A1).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 9-13 and 15, Zhao discloses an energy storage device (30, “secondary battery”) comprising a case (40) having an opening, an electrode assembly (50) housed in the case, a nonaqueous electrolyte housed in the case ([0083-0084], FIG. 4), and a lid body (60, “top cover assembly”) covering the opening of the case (40) ([0085], FIG. 4) (claims 1, 2), the electrode assembly comprising:
a negative electrode (51, “first electrode plate”) ([0119]) including a pair of flat portions (512, “stacking sections”) facing each other and a curved folding portion (511, “bending section”) connecting end portions on one side of the pair of flat portions (512) to each other ([0092], FIGs. 7, 9);
a positive electrode (52, 521, “second electrode plate”) disposed between the pair of flat portions (512) of the negative electrode ([0119], FIGs. 7-9) (claims 1, 2).
Zhao’s negative electrode (51) includes a negative electrode substrate (51 a, “current collector”) and a negative active material layer (51 b, “electrode active material layer”) stacked on a surface of the negative electrode substrate directly or indirectly ([0088], FIG. 6) (claims 1, 2). Zhao provides grooves (5111 a) in the bending sections (511) to ensure the negative electrode active material is subject to little or no compression stress during bending ([0089], FIGs. 6-8). Additionally, Zhao silent to require any pressing steps of the negative electrode (51) in particular. In one manufacturing embodiment, Zhao describes a method of roller pressing the positive electrode (521) and a separator (53) to form a composite of the two, however, Zhao is silent to discuss any necessary step or intended effect of pressing the negative electrode (51) specifically ([0147], FIG. 26).
Therefore, as Zhao’s energy storage device may be manufactured where the negative electrode active material layer is exposed only to the small or nonexistent compression stress applied during a bending process of stacking, Zhao’s negative electrode substrate is stacked on a surface of the negative electrode substrate in a non-pressed or low-pressure pressed state as claimed in claim 1.
Zhao further discloses the negative active material layer contains a negative active material, ([0094]) as claimed in claim 1; while Zhao’s negative active material is noted as being in a powder (i.e., particulate) form ([0094]), Zhao fails to further disclose that the negative active material contains a solid graphite particle having an aspect ratio of 1 or more and 5 or less as further claimed in claim 1.
Greinke, directed a compacted carbon for an active material in an electrochemical cell (Greinke, abstract), teaches the selection of a finite group of materials as negative electrode active materials including coke and graphite particles (Greinke C2/L15-30), and teaches reducing the closed porosity of the material porosity down to a range of 5% or less in order to improve the volume capacity (C3/L53-64, C2/L15-30), Greinke’s closed porosity parameter being correlated to Applicant’s particle solidity as a ratio of internal void space to a total size of the particle (FIG. 3A, C4/L49-53).
As a skilled artisan must select some type of negative active material in order to form a functioning energy storage device where Greinke’s coke or graphite particles are art-recognized negative active materials within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan, it would be obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore the selection of a graphite particle with a reasonable expectation of successfully producing Zhao’s energy storage device (claims 1, 2).
In seeking to improve the volume capacity, it would further be obvious to optimize a closed porosity of modified Zhao’s graphite particle down to a range of 5% or less as taught by Greinke. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Greinke teaches a suitability of using graphite particles with this porosity range in a negative electrode (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this optimization, the skilled artisan would produce a solid graphite particle, as reduction of the closed pore volume to <5% would inherently increase the ratio of cross-section particle area without voids and total cross section area to greater than 95% (inst. spec. [0035]) (claims 1, 2).
Furthermore, while modified Zhao’s solid graphite particles would necessarily comprise at least some measure of an aspect ratio of 1 or more, Zhao fails to explicitly indicate that the solid graphite particle has an aspect ratio of 1 or more and 5 or less as claimed in claims 1, 2.
Nakashima, directed to an energy storage device (Nakashima, abstract), teaches a desirability to optimize the aspect ratio within a range of at least 1.02 to improve ease of production and to avoid excessively spherical negative electrode active material particles which have reduced adhesion, and less than 3.0 to provide a sufficient tap density ([0204-0205], [0228]). Such considerations are pertinent to Zhao’s disclosure, which aims to prevent the negative active material powder from falling off the active material layer (Zhao [0096]) and would benefit from avoiding the adhesion loss taught by Nakashima.
As such, in seeking to improve the negative electrode tap density without impairing production efficiency or reducing adhesion, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the to optimize modified Zhao’s aspect ratio within a range of 1.02 to 3.0 as taught by Nakashima, this range falling within the aspect ratio range of 1 or more and 5 or less claimed in claims 1 and 2, and overlapping with a portion of the range of 2 or more and 5 or less claimed in claims 10 and 12 between 2.0-3.0, such that a skilled artisan would select within these encompassed/overlapped ranges through routine optimization under Nakashima’s teaching. Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as modified Zhao’s negative electrode active material necessarily comprises at least some value of aspect ratio which would be available for and expected to benefit from the above optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Moreover, as Zhao’s energy storage device may be manufactured where the negative electrode active material layer is exposed only to the small or nonexistent compression stress applied during a bending process of stacking, no pressure is applied to the negative active material layer during manufacture of the energy storage device or a pressure applied to the negative active material layer throughout the manufacture of the energy storage device is less than 10 kgf/mm as claimed in claim 1, including to any portion across an entirety of the negative active material layer as claimed in claims 13 and 15.
Modified Zhao fails to explicitly quantify a ratio Q2/Q1 of the negative electrode substrate surface roughness with (Q2) and without (Q1) the negative electrode active material layer as being 0.90 or more (see claim 2). However, the instant specification indicates that in a state where no or little pressure is applied to the negative active material layer, the surface roughness ratio Q2/Q1 becomes close to 1 (inst. spec. [0016], [0108] Table 1), such that modified Zhao’s energy storage device produced where no or little pressure is applied to the negative active material layer would inherently comprise a Q2/Q1 of at least 0.90 or more as claimed in claim 2.
Furthermore, while Modified Zhao’s solid graphite particles inherently comprise at least some measure of a Raman spectrum R value as a material property of graphite (see claims 1, 2), Zhao fails to numerically indicate that an R value is 0.25 or more and 0.8 or less.
Isaka, directed to an analogous negative electrode active material (Isaka, abstract), teaches optimizing an R value of a carbon material within a preferable range of at least 0.3 to improve the input-output characteristics of the material and less than 0.7 to suppress decomposition of the electrolytic solution and maintain initial efficiency (Isaka [0110-0111]). Such considerations are pertinent to Zhao’s disclosure, where Zhao simialrly desires to ensure the electrochemical and safety performance of the battery (Zhao [0118]).
As such, in seeking to balance the above considerations according to Isaka’s teaching, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to optimize an R value of modified Zhao’s solid graphite particles within a range of 0.3-0.7, which is within the claimed range of 0.25-0.8 (claims 1, 2). Such an optimization would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as modified Zhao’s solid graphite particle necessarily comprises some value of R as a property of graphite, which would be available for and expected to benefit from the above optimization (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim(s) 3, 6 modified Zhao discloses the energy storage device according to claims 1, 2, wherein the negative electrode (51) is a belt-like body folded in a bellows shape (“substantially zigzag shape”) (Zhao [0092], FIG. 7) along a longitudinal direction (“extending direction W”) of the negative electrode ([0087], FIG. 8).
Regarding claim(s) 4, 7, modified Zhao discloses the energy storage device according to claims 1, 2, wherein the positive electrode (52, “second electrode plate”) includes a plurality of positive electrodes (521, “stacking sections”), and each positive electrode of the plurality of the positive electrodes (521) is a plate-like positive electrode (521) (Zhao [0093-0094], FIGs. 8-9).
PNG
media_image1.png
1030
2113
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Zhao FIG. 9
Regarding claim(s) 5, 8, modified Zhao discloses the energy storage device according to claims 4, 7, wherein the plate-like positive electrode (521) includes a positive electrode substrate (black line in 521 in figures) and a positive active material layer (unfilled line in 521 in figures, see Annotated Zhao FIG. 9 above).
A surface of the positive electrode substrate facing one of each pair of the flat portions (512) of the negative electrode (51) is recognized as the principal surface as claimed (Annotated Zhao FIG. 9, [0095], FIG. 10);
the positive active material layer is directly or indirectly stacked on the principal surface of the positive electrode substrate (Annotated Zhao FIG. 9).
Zhao’s negative active material layer of the curved folding portion (511) faces away from the plate-like positive electrode (521) having the positive active material layer ([0094], Annotated Zhao FIG. 9), and thus does not face the positive active material layer directly or indirectly stacked on the principal surface of the positive electrode substrate as claimed.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isaka et al. (US20210135220A1) in view of Greinke et al. (US5677082A) and Vivattine (US20070202401A1).
Claim 14 recites a negative electrode substrate as being in a “low-pressure pressed state”, this term being interpreted according to the definition of ¶[0014] of the instant specification as meaning a step of applying pressure (linear pressure) to the negative active material layer is not performed during manufacture.
Claim 14’s recitation of a “low-pressure pressed state” is also defined ¶[0014] of the inst. spec. as meaning a step of applying pressure (linear pressure) to the negative active material layer is performed at less than 10 kgf/mm.
Claims 14 and 16 recite the structure of a “solid graphite particle”, this term being interpreted according to the definition of ¶[0035] of the instant specification as meaning an inside of the particle is filled substantially without voids, where in a cross-section of a particle, the area ratio excluding voids in the particle relative to a total area of the particle is 95% or more.
Claims 14 and 16 recite the structure of a separator which covers an entirety of the positive electrode, which is interpreted in the manner defined in ¶[0027] of the inst. spec. as requiring the end edges of the separator to be joined: “separator 8 … covers the entire positive electrode 14 so as to sandwich the positive electrode 14. Specifically, the separator 8 is folded back at a central portion in the longitudinal direction so as to sandwich the positive electrode 14, and both end edges in a fold line direction are joined” (emphasis by Examiner).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Isaka discloses an example embodiment of an energy storage device (“coin-type lithium ion secondary battery”) comprising a case (“coin-battery container”) having an opening, an electrode assembly (i.e., a negative electrode, a separator, and a cathode) housed in the case, a nonaqueous electrolyte housed in the case ([0241]); the structure of a coin battery is reasonably understood in the art to comprise a lid body covering the opening of the case as claimed in claims 14 and 16 in order to close the case after the electrode assembly is inserted through the opening.
The example further comprises a negative electrode (“anode”) which is folded ([0268]), in other words, comprising “a negative electrode including a pair of flat portions facing each other and a curved folding portion connecting end portions on one side of the pair of flat portions to each other” as claimed in claims 14 and 16
The negative electrode includes a negative electrode substrate (“current collector”) and a negative active material layer (“anode material layer”) which is coated directly on a current collector ([0179-0180]), thus reading on “wherein the negative electrode includes a negative electrode substrate and a negative active material layer stacked on a surface of the negative electrode substrate directly or indirectly” recited in claims 14 and 16
Isaka further discloses that the negative active material layer may optionally be flattened or pressed ([0186-0187]), where Isaka teaches a desirability to avoid or limit pressing pressure of the negative electrode during manufacturing to achieve a more desirable orientation of a carbon negative active material and improve the material’s Li-ion intake and discharge behavior ([0069]).
Thus, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art seeking these advantages in the carbon negative active material to omit flattening or pressing the negative electrode during manufacturing, thus resulting in a negative active material layer stacked on a surface of the negative electrode substrate “in a non-pressed state” as claimed in claim 14
At the same time, Isaka discloses that the optional flattening or pressing may be performed at a (flat) pressure of 1-200 MPa ([0186-0187]), equal to about 0.102 kgf/mm2 to 20.39 kgf/mm2. Isaka does not specify a linear pressure in units of kgf/mm as claimed by Applicant; however, Isaka’s flattening or pressing is equivalent to a linear pressure of 0.102 kgf/mm to 20.39 kgf/mm, as linear pressure (i.e., force/width) applied across an area (e.g., by a widthwise roller along a length of an electrode) applies the same amount of force per length per width, in other words, force/area or flat pressure as used by Isaka. Moreover, as Isaka recognizes a desirability to reduce the pressing pressure of the negative electrode to improve the particle orientation ([0069]), it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely explore the selection of a range of 0.102 kgf/mm to 20.39 kgf/mm. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 10 kgf/mm or less for a low-pressure pressed state (see claim interpretation above) between 0.102-10 kgf/mm such that one skilled in the art would have routinely selected within the overlapping portion with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2144.05 I). Accordingly, this forms a “negative active material layer stacked on a surface of the negative electrode in a low-pressure pressed state” as claimed in claim 14
Isaka further discloses that the carbon negative active material is preferably a graphite particle (“a spherical graphite particle “) ([0123]), reading on portions of claims 14 and 16 wherein the negative active material layer contains a negative active material, which contains a graphite particle. However, although Isaka desires to improve the tap density and battery capacity through selection of this particular type of negative active material ([0123]), Isaka fails to further specify that the graphite particle is a solid graphite particle, defined by Applicant as one where an area ratio excluding voids of the particle is 95% or more (see claim interpretation section above).
Greinke, directed a compacted carbon for an active material in an electrochemical cell (Greinke, abstract), teaches the selection of a finite group of materials as negative electrode active materials including coke and graphite particles (Greinke C2/L15-30), and teaches reducing the closed porosity of the material porosity down to a range of 5% or less (C2/L15-30) in order to improve the volume capacity and density (C3/L53-64, C2/L10-15). Greinke’s closed porosity parameter correlates to Applicant’s particle solidity as a ratio of internal void space to a total size of the particle (Greinke FIG. 3A, C4/L49-53; see claim interpretation of “solid graphite particle” above).
In seeking to improve the volume capacity and density, it would therefore be obvious to optimize to optimize a closed porosity of modified Isaka’s graphite particle down to a range of 5% or less as taught by Greinke. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success as Isaka similarly considers increasing the tap density and battery capacity through optimizing a selection of carbon (preferably graphite particle) material for use as the negative active material (Isaka [0123]), Greinke’s teaching analogously being directed to a graphite particle material.
In this optimization, the skilled artisan would produce a solid graphite particle as claimed in claims 14 and 16, as reduction of the closed pore volume to <5% would inherently increase the ratio of cross-section particle area without voids and total cross section area to greater than 95%, thus meeting the range specified in Applicant’s definition of a solid graphite particle (see claim interpretation) (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Modified Isaka further spherical graphite particles as desirable in order to improve the tap density ([0123-0124]), i.e., particles with an aspect ratio which approaches 1. Isaka fails to explicitly disclose an aspect ratio of the particles; however, a skilled artisan seeking to improve the tap density through selecting more spherical particles would necessarily decrease an aspect ratio of modified Isaka’s solid graphite particles to approach 1, such that it would be obvious for a skilled artisan to have routinely selected within at least some portion overlapping with the lower bounds of claim 14 and claim 16’s range of 1 or more and 5 or less.
Modified Isaka discloses that the negative active material layer may optionally be flattened or pressed as discussed above ([0186]). It would be obvious for a skilled artisan to omit the flattening or pressing in order to improve the negative active material orientation ([0069]), such that “no pressure is applied to the negative active material layer during manufacture of the energy storage device” as claimed in claim 14.
Otherwise, it would also be obvious for a skilled artisan to limit the applied pressure to the equivalent of a linear pressure of 0.102-20.39 kgf/mm ([0186-0187]; see discussion above), overlapping with claim 14’s “pressure applied to the negative active material layer throughout the manufacture of the energy storage device is less than 10 kgf/mm” It would be obvious for a skilled artisan to utilize this overlapping portion to achieve a more desirable negative active material orientation according to Isaka’s disclosure (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Modified Isaka fails to explicitly quantify a ratio Q2/Q1 of the negative electrode substrate surface roughness with (Q2) and without (Q1) the negative electrode active material layer as being 0.90 or more as claimed in claim 16. However, the instant specification indicates that in a state where no or little pressure is applied to the negative active material layer, the surface roughness ratio Q2/Q1 becomes close to 1 (inst. spec. [0016], [0108] Table 1), such that modified Isaka’s energy storage device produced where no pressure is applied to the negative active material layer or a pressure applied to the negative active material layer throughout the manufacture of the energy storage device is less than 10 kgf/mm (specifically, between 0.102-10 kgf/mm) would also inherently comprise a Q2/Q1 of at least 0.90 or more as claimed in claim 16.
Modified Isaka further discloses a preferable R value as being at least 0.3 to improve the input-output characteristics of the material and less than 0.7 to suppress decomposition of the electrolytic solution and maintain initial efficiency (Isaka [0110-0111]), which falls within the range of R value of 0.25 to 0.8 claimed in claims 14 and 16
Modified Isaka further discloses a positive electrode member is disposed inside the curved folding portion of the negative electrode, the positive electrode member comprising the positive electrode and a separator so as to sandwich the positive electrode (Isaka [0268]), reading on portions of claims 14 and 16, but fails to disclose a separator with a structure of joining both end edges in a fold line direction as recited in the limitation “a separator which covers an entirety of the positive electrode” of claims 14 and 16 (see claim interpretation above). Nonetheless, Isaka notes no particular restrictions on the structure of the separator itself to exclude this structure ([0195-0196]).
Vivattine is directed to an energy storage device comprising a U-fold electrode structure (100) with a second electrode (120) disposed inside the curved folding portion of the U-fold electrode structure (100) (Vivattine [0045, 0048], FIG. 4), these electrode structures being analogous to Isaka’s folded negative electrode and positive electrode disposed therein in the exemplary embodiments (Isaka [0268]). Vivattine teaches that a separator (182) in this electrode layout may enclose and seal around the electrode plate (120) (i.e., Isaka’s positive electrode plate) thus entirely covering the plate (Vivattine FIG. 15), or alternatively, separator (182) is layered between the U-fold electrode structure (100) and the electrode plate (120) (i.e., the separator as provided in Isaka [0268]) (Vivattine [0065]). Vivattine recognizes both configurations as suitably equivalent to isolate the opposing electrodes ([0067]).
Therefore, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Isaka’s positive electrode and separator to provide a separator covering an entirety of the positive electrode as taught by Vivattine, thus fully reading on claims 14 and 16. Such a modification would be made with a reasonable expectation of success, as Vivattine teaches a suitability of this structure for the same intended purpose of isolating opposing electrodes, and because Isaka’s disclosure is not limited to any particular structure of separator (Isaka [0195-0196]) (MPEP 2144.06 II, 2144.07).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons presented below.
Claim 1 is directed inter alia to an energy storage device comprising a negative electrode active material layer stacked on a surface of a negative electrode substrate in a non-pressed or low-pressure pressed state, where no pressure is applied to the negative active material layer during manufacture or a pressure applied throughout the manufacture is less than 10 kgf/mm. Claim 2 is directed inter alia to a similar energy storage device where a ratio (Q2, surface roughness without the negative active material layer)/(Q1, surface roughness with negative active material layer) is 0.90 or more. The rejection of record holds that this ratio of Q2/Q1≥0.90 is inherently present when no or little pressure is applied to the negative active material layer (pp. 11-12 of this Office action).
Claims 1 and 2 are both directed to an energy storage device (an end product) where the negative electrode active material layer comprises the structure implied by the recited method where no pressure or less than 10 kgf/mm pressure is applied throughout manufacture. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation, the structure implied by this step is one where stress is minimized at an interface between the curved folding portion and flat portion, where the falling off of the negative active material at the folding portion is suppressed (MPEP 2113 I). Paragraph ¶[0013] of the instant specification discusses the structure implied by the low-pressure or non-pressed steps, reciting inter alia:
“the negative active material layer of the flat portion facing the positive electrode is likely to expand, and the negative active material layer of the curved folding portion not facing the positive electrode is less likely to expand. Thus, stress is applied to an interface between the curved folding portion and the flat portion, and the negative active material layer of the folding portion to which particularly large stress is likely to be applied tends to fall off from the negative electrode substrate. On the other hand, the energy storage device includes the negative electrode in which the negative active material layer containing solid graphite particles is disposed in the non-pressed or low-pressure pressed state, and has a configuration in which stress is hardly applied to the negative active material until the electrode assembly is formed […]
Thus, it is presumed that the stress applied to the interface between the curved folding portion and the flat portion of the negative electrode is reduced, and the falling off of the negative active material at the folding portion is suppressed” (emphasis by Examiner).
Additionally, Table 1 of the specification ([0108]) shows that low pressure or an absence of pressure on the negative active material layer specifically prevents the active material from falling off.
Applicant asserts that Zhao’s negative active material layer (51) is pressed by a roller pressing component (502) during manufacturing of the energy storage device (Remarks p. 8-9). Supporting this, Applicant cites an exemplary forming method of the electrode assembly from ¶[0111] and FIGs. 21 of Zhao where a roller pressing component (502) is disposed downstream is configured to roll a separator (53) and a cathode electrode plate (521) which are then compositely connected, and ¶[0147] and FIGs. 21, 26 where a separator (53) clamps a negative electrode (51) at a separator conveying mechanism (200) arranged upstream of the roller pressing component (502). In this step, Applicant asserts that separator (53) also includes the negative active material layer (51), which is thus also pressed alongside the separator (53) and a cathode electrode plate (521).
While this argument has been considered, it has not been found persuasive, as Zhao is silent to require any pressing steps of the negative electrode (51) in particular, and furthermore, provides the structure implied the method where no pressure or less than 10 kgf/mm pressure is applied throughout manufacture.
As cited in the rejection of record, Zhao provides grooves (5111 a) in the bending sections (511) to ensure the negative electrode active material is subject to little or no compression stress during bending ([0089], FIGs. 6-8); effectively, in energy storage device, this step “facilitates reducing an internal stress suffered by the corresponding electrode active material layer 51 b, thereby reducing a possibility that the electrode active material layer 51 b will drop in powder form or fall off” ([0096]). Therefore, Zhao’s energy storage device necessarily comprises the structure implied by the claimed recited steps where no pressure or less than 10 kgf/mm pressure is applied throughout manufacture (MPEP 2113 I).
However, in Zhao’s associated method of assembling the energy storage device cited by Applicant (Remarks p. 8), Zhao describes a method of roller pressing the positive electrode (521) and a separator (53) to form a composite of the two, but Zhao is silent to directly mention any instance where the negative electrode plate (51) itself is pressed or would contain the structure implied by the pressing. For example, Zhao [0175] recites “the [positive electrode 521] and the separator 53…can be squeezed by the squeezing rollers 5021 disposed in pairs, so that the [positive electrode 521] and the separator 53 are compositely connected and form an assembly to be stacked with the [negative electrode plate 51]”. Zhao does not disclose that the negative electrode plate (51) is included by the separator (53), or that the negative electrode plate (51) is squeezed by or alongside the positive electrode (521)/separator (53). Zhao only discloses that the positive electrode (521)/separator (53) are compositely connected to form an assembly, which is to be stacked with the negative electrode plate (51). Notably, the negative electrode plate (51) is excluded from this composited assembly; thus a skilled artisan would have no reason to perform a roller pressing step on Zhao’s anode.
Moreover, Zhao’s description of the separators (53) “clamping” the negative electrode (51) (Zhao [0111]) does not indicate that Zhao considers the separator (53) as including the anode (51) as asserted by Applicant (remarks p. 8); Zhao [0155-0156] describes heating conveying assemblies (501) which “jointly clamp and convey” the positive electrode (521)/separator(53) and are not included by the positive electrode (521)/separator(53) during manufacturing.
Even assuming arguendo that the negative electrode plate (51) can be considered included by the separator (53) which is then connected to the positive electrode (521), Zhao’s manufacturing method is not limited to steps of compressing the positive electrode (521) and separator(53)/negative electrode (51) to connect the two. Zhao [0093] envisions multiple suitable methods of forming this connection including “hot pressing, electrophoresis, or bonding”; electrophoresis for example relies on the application of DC current to induce adhesion and does not use mechanical pressure to join the positive electrode (521) and a separator (53).
Therefore, Zhao does not teach the negative active material layer is pressed by the roller pressing component 502 during manufacturing of the energy storage device, as Zhao does not envision any apparent need or desirability to press the negative active material layer through roller pressing or obtain the structure implied by pressing the negative active material layer, and is furthermore not limited to manufacturing methods which utilize pressing of the electrode or separator at all. Accordingly, embodiments of Zhao’s energy storage device are produced where only “a small compression stress or no compression stress” (Zhao [0089]) is applied during bending of the negative electrode in Zhao, producing the structure in the energy storage device (i.e., the end product) implied by the low-pressure or non-pressed steps wherein stress is minimized at an interface between the curved folding portion and flat portion and falling of the negative active material at the folding portion is suppressed (MPEP 2113 I).
Applicant asserts that the features of newly recited claims 14 and 16 are not taught or recited in the cited prior art (Remarks p. 10).
These remarks have been considered but are moot since Applicant's amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection under new prior art as presented above (see p. 2, p.7 of this Office action).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVERETT T CHOI whose telephone number is (703)756-1331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-8:00.
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, Jonathan G Leong can be reached on (571) 270 1292. 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.
/E.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/4/2026
Prosecution Insights