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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments filed on June 25th, 2026, Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending in the present application. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 2 was cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended to further describe the separator sheet comprising a first portion, second portion, third portion, fourth portion, and fifth portion in relation to a first and second direction.
Support for the amendment is not found in the originally filed disclosure. See rejection under 25 U.S.C. 112 (a) below.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 3-4 and 10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103620852 A) in view of Cho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190189976 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 5-9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103620852 A) in view of Cho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190189976 A1) and further in view of Jung et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2015180082 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Remarks” on June 25th, 2026, have been fully considered as described below.
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 as amended. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claim 1, support for the amended limitations are not found in the originally filed disclosure. In the “Remarks” filed on June 25th, 2026, applicant refers to Fig. 1 of the originally filed drawings with annotations as support for the amended claim language. However, the originally filed disclosure (i.e., claims, specification, and drawings) does not comply with the written description requirement (see MPEP 2163.06); the disclosure does not describe a separator sheet comprising a first portion, second portion, third portion, fourth portion, and fifth portion in relation to a first and second direction. Support for the amended limitations must be found in the originally filed disclosure; the “Remarks” (i.e., annotated Fig. 1) cannot be relied upon as the basis for support. Therefore, the amended limitations are deemed new matter.
Claims 3-10 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate correction is required.
In view of the proposed amendment, Claim 1 appears to contain allowable subject matter.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Kwon et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103620852 A) (“Kwon et al.”).
Previously Cited Jung et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150180082 A1) (“Jung et al.”).
Previously Cited Cho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190189976 A1) (“Cho et al.”).
Claim Interpretation
Figure 1 of applicant’s originally filed drawings is annotated and provided below to show the Examiners interpretation of the closed side and open side of the first and second spaces, in view of the amendment and as defined in para. 39 of the originally filed specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
418
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Figures included in previous Office Actions have been omitted.
[AltContent: textbox (Kwon et al. (Fig. 5))]
PNG
media_image2.png
662
994
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 3-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103620852 A) in view of Cho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190189976 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kwon et al. teaches an electrode assembly comprising a separator sheet (single sheet separation membrane (70)) in which includes a first folding to one side (in the left direction) and a second folding folded to the other side (in a right direction); the first folding and second folding are repeated at certain intervals forming separators (para. 169, Fig. 5). The electrode assembly includes unit cells (501-507) (para. 170, Fig. 5) formed by stacking a plurality of electrodes (positive electrode (40), negative electrodes (50)) and separators (60) disposed there between (para. 163, Fig. 5). As indicated in annotated Figure 5, the folding of the separator sheet create spaces analogous to first and second spaces, in which the plurality of the stacked electrodes and separators are disposed there between (Fig. 5).
Further, Kwon et al. teaches the unit cells including an outer electrode stacked on the two outermost surfaces and an inner electrode disposed between the outer electrodes with the two outer electrodes having the same polarity (second polarity) (para. 81, Fig. 5). The described unit cell structure can be considered a bi-cell as known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Kwon et al. teaches each of the plurality of first spaces and the plurality of second spaces has an open side and a closed side, and wherein the respective open and closed sides of the plurality of first spaces are on opposite sides of the electrode assembly relative to the respective open and closed sides of the plurality of second spaces (see annotated Figure 5); the elongated separator sheet (70) indicated by the darker solid line of Fig. 5 forms equivalent first spaces and second spaces (para. 168-170, Fig. 5). As shown, the elongated separator sheet is formed in a zig-zag manner wherein one side of the unit cell is open and the opposite side is closed by the separator sheet.
PNG
media_image3.png
524
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cho et al. (Fig. 1))][AltContent: textbox (Cho et al. (Fig. 3))]
PNG
media_image4.png
202
353
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Kwon et al. does not teach independent electrodes disposed in the second spaces and wherein the unit cells and the independent electrodes are alternately attached on one surface and another surface of the separator sheet.
Cho et al. teaches second (independent) electrodes (21) disposed between unit cells (comprising a first electrode, second electrode, and separator) as shown in annotated Figure 1 (Fig. 1,3; para. 42-43). The independent electrodes are positive electrodes (para. 43) having a first polarity as known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Cho et al. teaches a structure in which the unit cells (disposed in annotated Space A) and independent electrodes (disposed in annotated Space B) are attached to opposing surfaces of a sheet-like separator (Fig. 1,3; para. 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Kwon et al. to include independent electrodes having a first polarity arranged in which the unit cells and independent electrodes are alternately attached on opposing surfaces (one surface and another surface) of the separator sheet as taught by Cho et al. When performing the described modification, it is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to correspond the first space of Kwon et al. to the annotated Space A of Cho et al. as both spaces comprise at least one first electrode, second electrode, and separator interposed there between. Further, disposing the independent electrodes shown in annotated Space B of Cho et al. in the second spaces of Kwon et al. would be necessary to achieve the goal of the modification in which is an alternating arrangement on opposing surfaces of a separator.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to provide an electrode assembly capable of implementing high capacity by its simple structure (Cho et al., para. 10, 97). Additionally, Kwon et al. teaches that the electrode assembly is flexibly arranged to enhance space utilization and reduce the overall thickness or volume of the device to achieve an ultra-thin design (para. 191) in which modifying by Cho to include independent electrodes rather than unit cells disposed alternately would further achieve Kwon’s goal by reducing the size of the electrode assembly.
Regarding Claim 3, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Kwon et al. teaches each unit cell comprising one inner electrode (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 3 above.
Kwon et al. does not teach the inner electrode having the same first polarity as the independent electrode.
Cho et al. teaches (unit cells) comprising an inner positive electrode (22) and an independent positive electrode (21) having the same first polarity as known to one of ordinary skill in the art (Fig. 1,3; para. 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Kwon et al. to include the inner electrode having the same first polarity as the independent electrode as taught by Cho et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification as to provide an electrode assembly capable of implementing high capacity (para. 10) and smooth lithium movement (para. 72) as described by Cho et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Kwon et al. teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly (para. 3). The electrode assembly is contained in a battery case in which is configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (para. 4).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 103620852 A) in view of Cho et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190189976 A1) and further in view of Jung et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 2015180082 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
Kwon et al. does not teach a plurality of inner electrodes formed in the electrode assembly.
Jung et al. teaches a unit cell (200) including a plurality of inner electrodes as shown in the annotated Figure 4 (para. 47, Fig. 4 (b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Kwon et al. to include a plurality of inner electrodes as taught by Jung et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Jung et al. useful in developing an electrode assembly having improved productivity and position alignment between electrodes (Jung et al., para. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. and Jung et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above. Further, Kwon et al. teaches one inner electrode formed in each unit cell in which one is an odd number (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. and Jung et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 5 above.
Kwon et al. does not teach the electrode assembly including a first inner electrode stacked such that a respective separator is disposed between the outer electrode and the first inner electrode, and a second inner electrode of the inner electrodes is stacked such that a respective separator is disposed between the first inner electrode and the second inner electrode.
Jung et al. teaches the inner electrodes stacked in the order of separator/cathode/separator/anode/separator/cathode/separator (Fig. 4 (b)) in which a separator is disposed between the outer negative electrode and the first inner electrode (para. 47, Fig. 4 (b)). Further, a separator is disposed between the first inner electrode and the second electrode (para. 47, Fig. 4(b)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Kwon et al. to include the inner electrode structure of Jung et al. Specifically, the electrode assembly can be modified in which separators are disposed between the outer electrode and the first inner electrode, and between the first inner electrode and the second inner electrode of the stacked structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Jung et al. useful in developing an electrode assembly having improved productivity and position alignment between electrodes (Jung et al., para. 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. and Jung et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. Specifically, the electrode assembly of Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. to include independent positive electrodes. The electrode assembly of Kwon et al. is further modified by Jung et al. to include the first positive inner electrode. Therefore, as the first inner electrode and the independent electrode are positive electrodes, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the first inner electrode will have the same polarity (first polarity) as the independent electrode. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Kwon et al. is modified by Cho et al. and Jung et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. As applied to Claim 7 above, Jung et al. teaches the outer electrode and the second inner electrode being an anode or negative electrode. Therefore, as the outer electrode and the second inner electrode are negative electrodes, it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the outer electrode will have the same polarity (second polarity) as the second inner electrode. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights