DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 14-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO2020184835A1; US20220131175A1 as an English equivalent translation) and in view of Zheng (CN 209709104 U) and Ishida (JP2016103450A).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a separator sheet adhesion apparatus configured to form an electrode stack comprising a first separator sheet (12) [0002, 0008-0009, 0038, fig. 1, Lee], a plurality of first electrodes (11) disposed on the first separator sheet and spaced apart from each other along the first separator sheet by a first predetermined distance to define first separator spacing portions [0038, 0073, 0079, fig. 1-2, Lee], a second separator sheet [fig. 1-2: top and bottoms, Lee], and a plurality of second electrodes disposed on the second separator sheet and spaced apart from each other along the second separator sheet by a second predetermined distance to define second separator spacing portions [0038, 0073, 0079, fig. 1-2: top and bottoms, Lee], the separator adhesion apparatus comprising: an adhesion unit (600) configured to press together and thereby adhere the first separator spacing portions of the first separator sheet between the first electrodes and the second separator spacing portions of the second separator sheet between the second electrodes at predetermined intervals corresponding to the first and the second predetermined distances [0038, 0071, 0096, Lee]; and a support aligned with the adhesion unit and configured to support the electrode stack when the adhesion unit is pressing together the first and the second spacing portions [fig. 1, Lee], wherein the adhesion unit (600) comprising a cylindrical main body configured to rotate about a central axis [0038, 0071, 0096, fig. 1, Lee]. Lee’s rollers read on the claim language as they are cylindrical and rotate about a central axis.
Lee discloses the use of two rollers. The bottom roller reads on “a support” as it allows the top roller to press into the electrode stack and prevents the electrode stack from moving away from the top roller.
Lee is silent to 1) a tool tip disposed at an outer surface of the main body roll 2) the tool tip being made of elastic material, 3) the tool tip pressing into the separator(s) by rotation of the main body roll, 4) the length of the tool tips in relation to the electrode stack.
In regards to 1) and 4) Ishida discloses an apparatus for sandwiching an electrode plate (10) between a first (11) and second (12) separator [abstract, fig. 1, Ishida]. A longitudinal welding portion (40, “tool tip”) is used to weld separators at a predetermined point (51, 53; “separator spacing portions”) between two electrodes [0033, Ishida]. Such that when the “tool tip” presses the first separator (11) spacing portions into the second separator (12) spacing portion [fig. 5 and 7, Ishida]. The separator is then heated to a predetermined welding temperature at which point the longitudinal welded portion is moved backwards away from both separators [fig. 5 and 7, Ishida]. Finally, the longitudinal weld portion has a length longer than both ends of the two longitudinally adjacent electrode plates [0033, fig. 5, Ishida].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that 1) the top roller of the “adhesion unit” contained a longitudinal welding portion (“tool tip”) disposed at an outer surface of the main body roller. Such that as the roller rotates around the central axis the “tool tip” come in contact with the portion of the separator located in-between the two electrode stacks and presses into the separator to allow for welding. Doing so would allow for would for the tool tip to come in contact with the separator and press the first separator into the second separator welding them together [0007, fig. 5 Ishida]. Additionally, it would be obvious to have the length of the “tool tip” being greater than that of the thickness of the electrode stack. Doing so would allow for the welding to take place at a predetermined length and allow for the upper and lower separators to be welded together [0033, fig. 5, 7, Ishida].
For clarity of the record, a visual example of Lee as presently modified is presented below. The examiner points to Suzuki (JP2002075334A) figure 1, as a visual aid to help depict the present modification.
PNG
media_image1.png
488
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Suzuki (JP2002075334A) figure 1, as a visual aid to show the present modification of Lee in which the top roller (4a, “main body roll”) has “tool tips” (23) disposed on its surface. The “main body roll” rotates causing the “tool tip” to come in contact with the assembly material at predetermined locations.
In regards to 3) the above modification of Lee in view of Ishida results in the main body roller having tool tips disposed on its surface. As the roller rotates about its central axis, the tool tip comes into a predetermined location (“separator spacing portion”) by rotation of the main body roll. As it comes into that location the tool tip presses the first separator into the second separator welding them together.
In regards to 2) Zheng discloses a heat sealing cutter head (100) for sealing a diaphragm (separator) wherein the heat sealing head contains an elastic heat-conducting sleeve (130) [0035-0037, Zheng].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to further modify Lee with such that the tip of the adhesion unit contained an elastic heat-conducting sleeve. Doing so would allow for the tip to be deformed when pressed against the separator increasing the contact area with the diaphragm (separator) making the heat sealing area larger [0037, Zheng].
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, further comprising: an alignment unit (500, 510, 520, 530, 540) configured to dispose the first electrodes and the second electrodes of the electrode stack on the respective first and second separator sheets such that corresponding centers thereof are aligned with each other [0038, 0050-0057, 0065-0069, fig. 1-7, Lee].
Lee discloses that the purpose of the position corrector (500) is to ensure proper alignment of the upper electrode and that the measurement sensor (530) calculates a position value of the uppermost electrode among the combined electrodes and separator and determines if the position corrector needs to adjust the uppermost electrode such that it is in alignment with the stack and not damaged during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein a length of the first electrode parallel to a direction in which the electrode stack is transferred is less than a length of the second electrode [fig. 4 and 5, Lee depicts the bottom electrode (“first electrode”) as being longer than the uppermost electrode (“second electrode”)].
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, further comprising a sensor (530) configured to sense a position of at least the first separator spacing portions [0067-0069, fig. 6-7, Lee].
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the adhesion unit is configured such that the elastic material is added to an entirety of an outer surface of a cylindrical pressing roll configured to be rotated about a central axis so as to have an equal thickness [0010-0016, 0036, fig. 1, Zheng].
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the support is a support roll [0071, fig. 1, Lee discloses that the adhesion unit is a pair of rollers. The bottom roll reads on the claim limitations as it both supports the adhesion unit and is a roll].
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, further comprising: a transfer unit configured to convey the electrode stack [0009, 0078-0084, Lee].
Regarding claim 18, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the adhesion unit comprises an elastic material that contacts the first spacing portions when the adhesion unit presses together the first and the second spacing portions [0036-0037, Zheng].
Regarding claim 19, most of the limitations present within claim 19 are additionally present within claim 1. As such, the overlapping limitations of claim 1 are applied to claim 19.
Claim 19 differs from claim 1 with the following limitation “ wherein the separator adhesion apparatus is configured such that the outer surface of the main body roll does not contact the electrode stack when the main body roll is rotated”.
Modified Lee as written in the rejection of claim 1 above is explicitly silent to the main body roll not contacting the electrode stack.
However, Ishida teaches of only pressing/welding/laminating the separators and does not teach of the apparatus contacting the electrode plate [0007-0008, fig. 3-7, Ishida].
One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that in Lee as presently modified the main body roll may do one of a finite number of options either A) the main body roll contacts the surface of the electrode stack or B) the main body roll does not contact the surface of the electrode stack. Lee as presently modified will still result in the “tool tip” pressing the first separator into the second separator welding them together. This welding of the first and second separator occurs regardless of if the main body roll presses the electrode stack. As such, the outcome is the same in either case.
One of ordinary skill within the arts would then appreciate that it would be “obvious to try” to have the main body roll not contact the electrode stack, see MPEP 2143.I.E.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the main body roll does not come into contact with the electrode stack. Doing so is a matter of obvious to try as there exist only a finite number of options (either it does or does not contact the stack) yielding predictable results, see MPEP 2143.I.E.
Claim(s) 5-9, 12-13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tejima (JP2014075340A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the adhesion unit comprises: a tip configured to press the first separator spacing portions to press together the first and the second separator spacing portions [fig. 5 and 7, Ishida], the tip being made of the elastic material [0035-0037, Zheng];
In regards to the following claim limitation “an adhesion unit main body configured to be attached to the tip”. The examiner notes that as written this is the cylindrical body of the roller in the adhesion unit.
Modified Lee as presently amended is silent to 1) an upward-downward transfer portion configured to move the adhesion unit main body upwards and downwards and 2) and a horizontal transfer portion configured to move the adhesion unit main body in a horizontal direction at a transfer speed synchronized with a transfer speed of the electrode stack when the tip presses the first separator spacing portions.
In regards to 1) and 2) Tejima discloses an apparatus for forming an electrode by sandwiching an electrode plate (P) between two layers of a separator (F, FU, FL) and welding the separators together in a length and width direction using a width direction heater (51, a first “adhesion unit”), a length direction using travel direction heater (52, a second “adhesion unit”), and a support (53) to support the electrode during adhesion [0009-0010, 0041, 0044, 0048, 0064, Tejima]. Both heaters are able to move in an upward and downward direction as a result of a vertically operating cam (55) [0044, Tejima]. Both heaters contain welding points where the where the tip of the heater welds the two separators together [0045-0046, fig. 5, 7, Tejima]. Furthermore, Tejima discloses that the heaters (“adhesion unit”) are set to move horizontally at the same rate as the transfer speed of the electrode stack [0066-0072, Tejima].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the upper roller of the “adhesion unit” capable of moving upwards/downwards in addition to a horizontal transfer portion. Doing so would allow for separators to be welded at welding points and while the assembly continues to move at a travel speed [0065-0073, Tejima].
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses an adhesion unit (600) but is silent to a rotary unit configured to adjust the rotational speed of the main body roll.
However, Tejima discloses the use of a vertical and horizontal cam being used to adjust the position of the heater “adhesion unit” such that its speed aligns with the electrode transverse speed [0045-0046, 0051, 0067-0068, Tejima].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the rotation speed of the main body. Doing so can allow for the timing of the adhesion unit to match the speed of the traversing electrode and perform continuous (welding point) operations [0051, 0067-0068, Tejima]
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee as modified above discloses the heater (51, 52, “adhesion unit”) adjusts the rotational speed of the main body roll such that the tool tip presses the first separator spacing portions of the electrode stack during transfer thereof [0044, fig. 7, Tejima].
Regarding claim 8, Modified Lee does not explicitly disclose a circle having an outermost side of the tool tip as a diameter, when the tool tip is provided in one, a length obtained by subtracting a thickness of the tool tip from a total circumference length of the circle is equal to a distance between adjacent first separator spacing portions or is equal to a distance between nonadjacent first separator spacing portions, and when the tool tip is provided in two or more, a circumferential length between closest tool tips is equal to a distance between adjacent first separator spacing portions or is equal to a distance between nonadjacent first separator spacing portions, and circumferential lengths between the closest tool tips are equal to each other
However, Tejima does disclose a “left side position regulating portion” (28a”) used to adjust the positioning of the electrode plates. The rollers have cylindrical portion (31a”) and an expanded portion (31b”) protruding radially outward from the cylindrical portion [0089, fig. 10, Tejima]. Wherein a notch (29a”) is present such that the electrode tab may pass adjacent to the roller without coming in contact with the roller, wherein the expanded portion then comes in contact with a desired part of the electrode [0089, Tejima]. Wherein the roller is designed to run in conjunction with the traverse speed of the assembly [0089, Tejima].
One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that this design allows for the roller to utilize a notch to skip over a part of the assembly which one does not want the roller to come in contact with and an expanded portion to come in contact with a part of the assembly that one does desire contact with. One would further appreciate that the size of the circular and tool tip must be designed for one’s own needs and if too small or too large the adhesion unit would miss the welding point of the separator and instead risk coming in contact with the electrode stack and damaging it.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the adhesion unit with its protruding tool tip were designed such that one or two tool tip protrude out from opposite sides of the outer surface of the roller and such that as the roller rotates. When the roller is in a (relatively) horizontal position the roller skips over the body of the electrode and then when the roller in a (relatively) vertical position the tool tip comes into contact with the separator and presses down into the separator. Doing so would allow for the electrode stack to move under the roller when the tool tips are not engaged with the separator. Upon rotation the tool tips would engage the separator pressing down on them and welding the separator layers together.
For clarity of the record, the examiner has provided a visual representation of the modified adhesion unit possessing two tool tips at the horizontal and vertical positions.
PNG
media_image2.png
213
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiners depiction of the modified adhesion unit with two protruding tool tips in a horizontal (left) and vertical (right) position.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the rotary unit comprises a control unit configured to synchronize an outermost circumferential speed of the tool tip with a transfer speed of the electrode stack when the adhesion unit presses together the first and the second separator spacing portions.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 6, modified Lee discloses a rotary unit . As additionally discussed above Tejima discloses the use of cams (54, 55) to control the speed of the tool tips and synchronize them with the travels. The speed of the tool tip is synchronized with the transfer speed of the electrode stack when the adhesion unit presses together the separator spacing portions [0044-0051, 0067-0068, Tejima].
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the adhesion unit further comprises a pressing roll upward-downward transfer portion (55, vertical cam) configured to move the adhesion unit upwards and downwards such that the adhesion unit presses together the first and the second separator spacing portions [0046, 0050, 0068, Tejima].
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein protrusion-shaped end tool tips are added along circumferences of opposite ends of the main body roll in a lateral direction [see discussion of the rejection of claim 8, modified Lee], wherein the first separator sheet and the second separator sheet have surplus portions formed at opposite ends thereof parallel to a movement direction of the electrode stack so as to extend farther than the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein the end tool tips press the first separator sheet and the second separator sheet at the surplus portions [0044, 0073, fig. 7b, Tejima].
The examiner is interpreting the claim limitation of a “surplus portion” to be the part of the separator before the first electrode plate and after the last electrode plate. Tejima discloses that all four sides of the electrode plate must be welded and depicts welding occurring before a first electrode plate, P1, is introduced; this reads on the applicant’s claim limitations.
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the transfer unit conveys the electrode stack at a rate that aligns the first separator spacing portions with the adhesion unit [0049, 0067-0072, Tejima discloses that the heaters move at the same rate as the electrode plates thanks to the horizontal cam].
Regarding claim 17, modified Lee discloses the separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the support inhibits movement of the second separator sheet when the adhesion unit is pressing together the first and the second spacing portions [0048, Tejima].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Lee as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yu (CN209225534U).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Lee is silent to the adhesion unit having an adjustable protruding height of the tool tip.
However, Yu discloses a cutting composite roller for a rotary die possessing a sealing and cutting mechanism to seal and cut packaging material [abstract, 0041, Yu]. A roller (200) possess an embossing (300) in which a blade or blades may be mounted and locked into place using adjusting screws (710) such that the height of the blade protruding from the embossing may be adjusted up and down to achieve a desired effect [0041, 0045-0048, Yu].
The work of Yu and modified Lee are both analogous as each uses a roller with a protruding tip designed to press into and seal a desired packaging material (examiner is interpreting the separator of modified Lee to be akin to a packaging material as it surrounds the electrode plate in a way that is “packaged”).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the tool tips of the adhesion unit were mounted and locked into an embossing as described by Yu such that the height of the tool tips were adjustable. Doing so would allow for one to adjust the height of the tool tip to achieve desired effects along with allowing for one to remove a single tool tip for maintenance instead of replacing the entire roller [0044, 0048, Yu].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Tejima in claim(s) 1 and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this reference for claims 1 and 19 as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that there is not basis to conclude that Ishida can be applied to the outer surface of the rotating cylinder as to only press a specific (“separator spacing”) portion. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this and has pointed to Suzuki (JP2002075334A) figure 1 as a visual representation to show that a “tool tip” can be fixed onto a roller body and press only a specific portion of the assembly material.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image3.png
78
665
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the proposed modification of Lee still does function as a lamination apparatus as modified Lee still applies heat and pressure (lamination) to a separator. As such the minimum requirement set forth by the applicant has been met.
Applicant then argues:
PNG
media_image4.png
196
680
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s argument that the proposed modification would contravene a primary principle of the operation is not persuasive. The primary principle of Lee has not been contravened as alleged by the applicant. As argued above a primary principle of Lee is the presence of a lamination apparatus, which is still present.
Additionally, the examiner notes that Lee discloses the following as the intention and purpose of the invention:
PNG
media_image5.png
167
1089
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that these are the primary principles of Lee as stated by them. The proposed modification does not go against these teachings.
In regards to applicants arguments for newly presented claim 19 can be largely summarized with the following remarks made by the applicant:
PNG
media_image6.png
51
663
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
138
678
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments that any modification to keep the main body roll from contacting the electrode assembly would go against the teachings of Lee is not persuasive as the proposed modification still provides a means for laminating an electrode assembly such that electrodes and separators are bound together.
Applicant’s argument that it is required for the lamination roller of Lee to contact the electrode stack is also unpersuasive as this is not commensurate with the scope of Lee’s teachings. Lee may provide broad teachings for their apparatus, as cited by the applicant in this remarks. However, Lee never explicitly states that it is required for the lamination roller to contact the electrode surface.
If one were to be forced to point to a “requirement” for the roller of Lee to fill that the roller must bond or combine electrodes and separators.
In regards to the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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.
No other arguments have been presented. The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Suzuki (JP2002075334A) teaches of a method for cutting a belt-shaped plate continuously with high accuracy at a planned cut portion using a main body roller with blades (tool tips) [abstract, fig. 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights