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 .
Remarks
Claims 1, 5-7 have been presently amended, claims 2-4, 8-18 are as previously presented. Claims 1-18 are presently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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) 1-9 and 11-18 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 Tejima (JP2014075340A), 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 length of the tool tips in relation to the electrode stack
In regards to 1) 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]. The separators are adhered together via welding points, which are distributed in a well-balanced manner to restrict the movement of the electrode plate and may possibly weld one entire side of the separator [0045-0046, fig. 5 and 7, Tejima]. This reads on the claim limitation of “a tool tip”.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Lee such that the top roller of the “adhesion unit” contained welding points such that as the roller rotates around the central axis the welding points 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 help restrict the movement of the electrode plate [0046, Tejima].
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].
In regards to 3) Lee as presently modified discloses the tool tip is disposed at the outer surface of the main body roll so as to be perpendicular to the first separator spacing portions [fig. 7, Tejima depicts the tips of the heaters being pressed into the upper layer of the separator (FU) such the tips are perpendicular to the separator sheet].
However, Lee as presently modified does not explicitly state the length of the tool tip in regards to the electrode stack.
However, Ishida discloses a longitudinal welding portion (40, “tool tip”) used to weld separators at a predetermined point between two electrodes [0033, Ishida]. Furthermore, 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 the tool tip was longer than the length of the electrodes. 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].
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].
The separator sheet adhesion apparatus, wherein the adhesion unit (600) comprises: a tip configured to press the first separator spacing portions to press together the first and the second separator spacing portions [0045-0046, fig. 5 and 7, Tejima], 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.
Regarding claim 5, 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].
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_image1.png
213
677
media_image1.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 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 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 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 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].
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].
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 11/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant argues that one would not modify Lee with Zheng and Tajima such that a tip protruded from the roller of Lee and points to the following arguments.
Applicant argues that a protruding tip extending from the roller of Lee would not serve to laminate electrodes and separators as designed. However, Lee notes that the lamination process comprises “a step of combining the electrodes with the separators”. So long as the separator and electrodes are combined then one has not moved away from the intended design. The applicant fails to explicitly point out how this modification would prevent the electrode and separator from being combined. As such, this argument is not persuasive. Moreover, the claims are directed to the apparatus and not the intended use thereof. The presence of the structures claimed are taught by the art as explained above and therefore read on the instant claimed invention.
Applicant then argues that nothing in Zheng or Tajima teaches adding a protruding tip to a surface roller. But Lee does teach using a laminator to bond electrodes to separators, Tejima teaches using protruding tips to bond the outer edge of the separator, and Zheng teaches using an elastic tip to increase the bonding area of the separator. The examiner has provided rational for why it would be obvious to modify Lee with Tejima and the further modify with Zheng in the rejection of claim 1 above. Applicants arguments focus on attacking each reference individually and not considering the modification as a whole. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that Zheng teaches using a heating cutter heat with an elastic sleeve and that Lee is not a heating cutter head. Again the examiner notes that this ignores the modification of Lee and Tejima to which it would then be obvious to add in the elastic sleeve of Zheng; one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Applicant argues that Tejima teaches additional elements such as 29b’, 30a, and 22 which would get in the way of the protruding element. This argument is not persuasive because 1) these are two separate steps where the cited elements are for a adjusting the positioning and alignment of the electrodes while a separate part of the assembly teaches the bonding step and 2) these elements are not cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant again argues that any modification to the roller of Lee such that it included protrusions would prohibit the lamination roller from functioning as a lamination roller. However mere allegation is not persuasive, applicant fails to point out how this would prohibit the function. The combination of references Lee and Tejima are both directed to the lamination/adhesion of separator and electrodes; they share the common purpose of lamination/adhesion of layers in the manufacturing of battery electrodes.
For instance, Tejima teaches the electrode plate being sandwiched between separator (“film”), if one were to bind the separator such that it surrounds the electrode plate then one would understand that the electrode plate and separator have been laminated or combined together.
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. Park (US20230387447A1) discloses an apparatus with a top roller designed to laminate the space in between electrode unit cells. Chung (US20240413372A1) discloses a top roller with tool tips designed to laminate and cut separators in-between adjacent unit cells. Oki (WO2018162477A2) discloses a tool tip designed to bond the separator in the space between unit cells.
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 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
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724