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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/21/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the claims
The arguments received on November 28, 2025 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 12-20 and 22-32 are currently pending. This action is a second non-final due to the new ground of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed on November 28, 2025 with respect to the objection to Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the drawing objection has been withdrawn. However, since Applicant’s supplemental argument regarding Drawing objection relies on previously cited objection, Applicant’s arguments with respect to previous Drawing objection are addressed as follows:
On the page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “[F]irst, Applicant maintains its previous traversal of the objection, noting again that this application is a National Stage Entry under 35 USC § 371, and that the MPEP states that “Drawings newly executed according to national standards may not be required during the national phase if the drawings filed with the international application comply with PCT Rule .
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner reproduces its argument below with respect to above argument. Applicant’s arguments filed on November 25, 2024 with respect to the objection to Drawings have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. MPEP 1825 states that drawings newly executed according to national standards may not be required during the national phase if the drawings filed with the international application comply with PCT Rule 11. However, this statement in the MPEP is referring to the formalities of the drawing...size, spacing, material, margins. The statement is not intended to prevent the drawing from being considered for the merits of prosecution.
On the page 9 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that “[A]pplicant maintains its previous traversal of the objection with respect to the limitations “separator” and “processor” not being shown in the drawings. 37 C.F.R.§ 1.81(a) clarifies that “[t]he applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of the invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented” (emphasis added). See also MPEP § 608.02 (“The applicant shall furnish a drawing where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter to be patented” (emphasis added) (citing 35 U.S.C. 113)); MPEP § 1825 (“Drawings are required when they are necessary for the understanding of the invention” (emphasis added) (citing 37 CFR 1.437 and PCT Article 7)). Applicant respectfully submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art ((POSITA”) is capable of readily understanding the claimed aspects of the recited “separator” and “processor” without those particular features being expressly illustrated in the figures.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The above arguments related to “processor” are not considered. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims regardless of obviousness of those elements (see 37 CFR 1.83(a)). Therefore, conventional/well-known elements should also be illustrated.
Applicant’s arguments filed on November 28, 2025 with respect to claims 12-20 and 22-32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12, 13, and 26 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2019/0302189, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses a method for sorting out (para. [0026]: a defect inspection section) faulty electrode assemblies (para. [0029]: battery cell manufacturing process), comprising:
providing an electrode assembly (para. [0003]: a lithium secondary battery is fabricated by manufacturing an electrode assembly composed of a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator, inserting the electrode assembly into a battery case) that is to be used in a galvanic element (para. [0026]: a defect inspection section), the electrode assembly having at least one anode and at least one cathode, and a separator having an open porosity positioned between each anode and cathode (para. [0003]: see above; para. [0004]: a positive electrode and a negative electrode are prevented from being contacted by a porous insulating film (separator));
measuring an impedance (para. [0015]: calculating a leakage current by using time required for the defect inspection section and Cd which is a changed value of the Cs and Ce; para. [0043]: the method for detecting a low voltage expression level of a defective battery cell according to the present invention determines a discharge capacity value with reference to a discharge voltage profile of a normal cell under the assumption that a leakage current is constant in a defective inspection section, note that the above feature of “capacity value” in para. [0015] and [0043] reads on “measuring impedance” because impedance and capacity are inversely related) of the electrode assembly between the at least one anode and the at least one cathode (para. [0003]: a lithium secondary battery is fabricated by manufacturing an electrode assembly composed of a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator, inserting the electrode assembly into a battery case);
comparing the measured impedance with a reference value to determine that the soft short exists (para. [0004]: internal short-circuit) in the electrode assembly such that the electrode assembly is a faulty electrode assembly (para. [0043]: the method for detecting a low voltage expression level of a defective battery cell according to the present invention determines a discharge capacity value with reference to a discharge voltage profile of a normal cell under the assumption that a leakage current is constant in a defective inspection section, note the above feature of “capacity value with reference” and “defective inspection section” in para. [0043] reads on “comparing the measured impedance with a reference value because impedance and capacity are inversely related);
soft short (para. [0004]: internal short-circuit), sorting out the faulty electrode assembly (para. [0029]: battery cell manufacturing process; para. [0039]: defect inspection; para. [0010]: a battery cell defect inspection process, note that the above feature of “battery cell manufacturing process” and “defect inspection process” reads on “sorting out the faulty electrode assembly”); and
discarding or further processing the faulty electrode assembly (para. [0026]: the measuring unit includes a voltage measuring unit of a battery cell and a consumption time measuring unit of a defect inspection section; para. [0029]: battery cell manufacturing process; para. [0039]: defect inspection; para. [0010]: a battery cell defect inspection process, note that the above feature of “inspection section” in para. [0026], “battery cell manufacturing process” in para. [0029], and “inspection process” in para. [0039] reads on “discarding or further processing the faulty electrode assembly” based on inspection result),
wherein the electrode assembly is not laminated (para. [0003]: a lithium secondary battery is fabricated by manufacturing an electrode assembly composed of a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator, inserting the electrode assembly into a battery case), and
the impedance is measured prior to introduction of electrolyte and installation of the electrode assembly into the galvanic element (para. [0039]: (b) measuring an open circuit voltage (OCV) vs of the battery cell at a start of the defect inspection section…(e) calculating a leakage current by using time required for the defect inspection section and Cd which is a changed value of the Cs and C; para. [0043]: the method for detecting a low voltage expression level of a defective battery cell according to the present invention determines a discharge capacity value with reference to a discharge voltage profile of a normal cell under the assumption that a leakage current is constant in a defective inspection section, note that the above feature of “measuring an open circuit voltage (OCV) at a start of the defect inspection section” and “calculating a leakage current for the defect inspection section” reads on “the electrode assembly is not laminated, and the impedance is measured prior to introduction of electrolyte and installation of the electrode assembly into the galvanic element” because impedance and capacity are inversely related).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 12, in addition, Kim teaches the soft short is detected when the measured impedance deviates from the reference value by more than a predetermined tolerance range (para. [0039]: (b) measuring an open circuit voltage (OCV) vs of the battery cell at a start of the defect inspection section…(e) calculating a leakage current by using time required for the defect inspection section and Cd which is a changed value of the Cs and C; para. [0043]: the method for detecting a low voltage expression level of a defective battery cell according to the present invention determines a discharge capacity value with reference to a discharge voltage profile of a normal cell under the assumption that a leakage current is constant in a defective inspection section, note that the above feature of “capacity value with reference” in para. [0043] reads on “measured impedance deviates from the reference” because measured impedance deviates from the reference”).
Regarding claim 26, Kim discloses all the limitation of claim 12, in addition, Kim discloses the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above wherein the electrode assembly is a cell stack or a cell coil (para. [0003]: a lithium secondary battery is fabricated by manufacturing an electrode assembly composed of a negative electrode, a positive electrode, and a separator, inserting the electrode assembly into a battery case, note that the above feature of “inserting the electrode assembly” reads on “cell stack”).
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.
Claims 14, 15, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kang et al. (US 2019/0324089, hereinafter referred to as “Kang”).
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches all the limitation of claim 12. Kim does not specifically teach the separator is a non-woven, and the separator includes fibers formed from a plastic that is selected from a group consisting of: polyimide, polyester, aramid, copolymers, and mixtures thereof.
However, Kang teaches that the separator is a non-woven and the separator includes fibers formed from a plastic that is selected from a group consisting of: polyimide, polyester, aramid, copolymers, and mixtures thereof (see e.g. [0037] in Kang).
Kim and Kang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a battery manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the separator such as is described in Kang into Kim, in order to provide an apparatus and method for inspecting defects of a secondary battery (Kang, para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches all the limitation of claim 12. Kim does not specifically teach the separator has a thickness in a range from 8pm to 25 pm.
However, Kang teaches the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above wherein the separator has a thickness in a range from 8 um to 25 m (see e.g. [0093] in Kang).
Kim and Kang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a battery manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the separator such as is described in Kang into Kim, in order to provide an apparatus and method for inspecting defects of a secondary battery (Kang, para. [0009]).
Regarding claim 25, Kim teaches all the limitation of claim 12. Kim does not specifically teach the electrode assembly has precisely one cathode and one anode having precisely one separator, or the electrode assembly has at least 5 anodes and at least 5 cathodes.
However, Kang teaches the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above wherein the electrode assembly has precisely one cathode and one anode having precisely one separator or the electrode assembly has at least 5 anodes and at least 5 cathodes (see e.g. figs. 1, 5 in Kang).
Kim and Kang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a battery manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the electrode assemble such as is described in Kang into Kim, in order to provide an apparatus and method for inspecting defects of a secondary battery (Kang, para. [0009]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Just et al. (DE 102013216488 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Just”).
Regarding claim 29, it is an apparatus type claim having similar limitations as of claim 12 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 12 above. The additional element of an evaluation module associated memory (page 7, lines 7-10: the monitoring unit has a memory unit), wherein the evaluation module is configured to executed instructions and communication with another device (page 7, lines 7-10: arithmetic unit) to cause the other device to sort out (page 5, lines 32-35: it is also conceivable that other errors are detected, such as short circuits or faulty electrical connections, which could have been caused by faulty joint connections or torn off contacts. The production time and the reject rate in the production of energy storage cells are lowered in this way, so that overall the manufacturing costs decrease; page 7, lines 7-10: the monitoring unit has a memory unit for storing at least one reference value, and wherein the monitoring unit has a comparator unit for comparing the impedance calculated with the arithmetic unit with the at least one reference value stored in the memory unit. It is conceivable that the electrode arrangement is released immediately for further processing as soon as the impedance has reached the reference value or has approached sufficiently) the faulty electrode assembly (page 5, lines 32-35: errors are detected, such as short circuits or faulty electrical connections and manufacturing), taught by Just.
Kim and Just are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of a battery manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the soft short and sorting out the faulty electrode assembly such as are described in Just into Kim, in order to measure the distribution of the electrolyte within the electrode arrangement, a voltage between the electrodes is measured and / or a current between the electrodes is measure (Just, page 6, lines 7-8).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Just further in view of Shah et al. (US 2009/0081552 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Kim teaches all the limitation of claim 12. Kim does not specifically teach the method of providing the electrode assembly such that the at least one anode, the at least one cathode, and the separator are arranged such that they lie loosely on top of one another.
However, Shah teaches the method of providing the electrode assembly such that the at least one anode, the at least one cathode, and the separator are arranged such that they lie loosely on top of one another (para. [0008]: the electrode assembly comprises a cathode of at least a first plate of cathode active material, an anode of at least a first plate of anode active material, and a separator disposed at an intermediate location between the plates of cathode active material and anode active material; para. [0027]: the electrolyte serves as a medium for migration of ions between the anode 24 and the cathode 22 during the electrochemical reactions of the cell, note that above feature of “a medium for migration of ions between the anode 24 and the cathode 22” reads on “they lie loosely on top of one another”).
Kang and Shah are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of an electrochemical cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the providing the electrode assembly such as is described in Shah into Kim, in order to provide an electrochemical cell comprising a conductive casing housing an electrode assembly (Shah, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 32, Kim teaches all the limitation of claim 12. Kim does not specifically teach providing the electrode assembly such that the at least one anode, the at least one cathode, and the separator are held together by static friction between the at least one anode, the at least one cathode, and the separator.
However, Shah teaches providing the electrode assembly such that the at least one anode, the at least one cathode, and the separator are held together by static friction between the at least one anode, the at least one cathode, and the separator (para. [0008]: the electrode assembly comprises a cathode of at least a first plate of cathode active material, an anode of at least a first plate of anode active material, and a separator disposed at an intermediate location between the plates of cathode active material and anode active material; para. [0027]: the electrolyte serves as a medium for migration of ions between the anode 24 and the cathode 22 during the electrochemical reactions of the cell, note that above feature of “a medium for migration of ions between the anode 24 and the cathode 22” reads on “static friction between the at least one anode, the at least one cathode, and the separator”).
Kim and Shah are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of an electrochemical cell. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the providing the electrode assembly such as is described in Shah into Kim, in order to provide an electrochemical cell comprising a conductive casing housing an electrode assembly (Shah, para. [0008]).
Claims 16-20, 22-24, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kim et al. (WO2019/093687, hereinafter referred to as “Kim`687”).
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches all the limitation of 12. Kim does not specifically teach the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above wherein the separator has a thickness in a range from 10 pm to 15 pm.
However, Kim`687 teaches the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above wherein the separator has a thickness in a range from 10 pm to 15 pm (see e.g. [0152] (or page 16, lines 5-11) in Kim`687).
Kim and Kim`687 are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of an electrode performance evaluation system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of testing the electrode assembly such as is described in Kim`687 into Kim, in order to provide an electrode performance evaluation method of an electrode performance evaluation system (Kim`687, page 6, lines 33-34).
Regarding claims 17-20 and 22-24, Kim teaches all the limitation of claim 12. Kim does not specifically teach the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above that includes the at least one cathode and the at least one anode.
However, Kim`687 teaches the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above that includes the at least one cathode and the at least one anode (para. [0163] (or page 16, lines of 38-42) in Kim`687). Kim`687 teaches to have the electrode surface area of 1.5 cm2 ( [0163] (or page 16, lines of 38-42) in Kim`687). The surface area of the electrode is considered an arbitrary and selecting a particular surface area of the electrodes would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the surface area of the electrodes between 800-800000 mm2, since the applicant has not disclosed that a particular surface area of the electrode solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the electrodes disclosed in the prior arts.
Regarding claims 27-28, Kim in view of Kim`687 teaches all the limitation of claim 17.
Kim does not teaches the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above wherein an AC current or an AC voltage having a frequency in the range from 500 Hz to 1.5 kHz is used for measuring the impedance.
However, Kim`687 teaches the method of testing the electrode assembly as described above wherein an AC current or an AC voltage having a frequency in the range from 500 Hz to 1.5 kHz is used for measuring the impedance (see e.g. [0162] (or page 16, lines of 35-37) in Kim`687).
Kim and Kim`687are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of an electrode performance evaluation system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of testing the electrode assembly such as is described in Kim`687 into Kim, in order to provide an electrode performance evaluation method of an electrode performance evaluation system (Kim`687, page 6, lines 33-34).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Just and Hald et al. (US 2003/0154593).
Regarding claim 30, Kim in view of Just teaches a production line for galvanic elements (Just, page 5, lines 32-35: it is also conceivable that other errors are detected, such as short circuits or faulty electrical connections, which could have been caused by faulty joint connections or torn off contacts. The production time and the reject rate in the production of energy storage cells are lowered in this way, so that overall the manufacturing costs decrease), comprising:
electrode assembly (Just, page 5, lines 32-35:see above); and
the other device (Just, page 7, lines 7-10: the monitoring unit has a memory unit for storing at least one reference value, and wherein the monitoring unit has a comparator unit for comparing the impedance calculated with the arithmetic unit with the at least one reference value stored in the memory unit. It is conceivable that the electrode arrangement is released immediately for further processing as soon as the impedance has reached the reference value or has approached sufficiently) configured to sort out the faulty electrode assembly responsive to the communication from the test stand (Just, page 5, lines 32-35: it is also conceivable that other errors are detected, such as short circuits or faulty electrical connections, which could have been caused by faulty joint connections or torn off contacts. The production time and the reject rate in the production of energy storage cells are lowered in this way, so that overall the manufacturing costs decrease; page 6, lines 19-21: it is provided that it is determined as a function of the difference between the impedance and the reference value whether the mounting of the electrode arrangement can be interrupted and the electrode arrangement is suitable for further processing).
Kim and Just do not specifically teach test stand according to claim 29.
However, Hald teaches test stand according to claim 29 (see e.g., fig. 1 in Hald).
Kim and Hald are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of manufacturing galvanic elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the test stand such as is described in Hald into Kim, in order to allow galvanic elements to be tested during manufacturing, for example, by measuring the voltage, capacitance, and resistance (Hald, para. [0007])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DANDL et al. (US 2021/0396817 A1) teaches a method for detecting abnormal self-discharge in a battery system by monitoring the balancing charge for each cell and a battery system which is configured to use this method are provided. The method makes it possible to predict the probability of the occurrence of a safety-critical state, for example, an internal short circuit, with the result that suitable countermeasures can be taken in good time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858