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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, drawn to claims 1 and 4-10, in the reply filed on August 26th, 2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 250, 260, and 270. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 310, 320, and 330. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 requires that the surface-patterned rollers may formed by carving a pattern on the roller surfaces. Page 16, lines 16-17 reads: “The method for carving a pattern on the roller surface may be carried out intaglio by engraving a portion having a desired pattern shape, or in relief by embossing a portion having a desired pattern shape”. In view of that passage, an “engraving” or “embossing” process may be interpreted as a carving process. Any prior art that includes an “engraving” or “embossing” process for forming the surface patterns will read on the limitation previously described.
Claim 6 requires that “an area of a pattern on a surface of one of the surface-patterned rollers” must be “1-99% of the total surface area of the surface-patterned roller”. In order for a pattern to exist, there must be lines of some sort that create said pattern which also occupy a portion of the roller’s surface area. For the sake of this Office Action, the “area of a pattern” will be interpreted either as the area enclosed by the lines creating the pattern or the surface area of the roller that contains the lines themselves.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites a Markush grouping with the open transitional term “comprising.” Markush groups require closed language. The claim language originates on page 6, lines 13-17 and on page 17, lines 20-22 in the specification as filed.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (WO 2015/046690 A1) and further in view of Sung (WO 2017/146386 A1; citations are drawn to the translation submitted by the Examiner), Jin (Simple Approach: Heat Treatment to Improve the Electrochemical Performance of Commonly Used Anode Electrodes for Lithium-Ion Batteries), and Lee (US 2002/0160257 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Roh teaches a method of passing a plurality of electrodes and a separator through a pair of rollers. Fig. 1 below shows their depiction of one embodiment of the rolling process.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Item 10 is a roll that contains electrode material and item 40 is a roll that contains the separator material. R1 and R2 are rolls that help feed the electrode and separator material into L1 and L2, a pair of laminators. While Roh does not have a figure that explicitly describes a setup, they describe an embodiment where another electrode material may be supplied [0039], possibly on the side of the separator opposite the electrode material from the roll 10. This would require an electrode supply roll/source (similar to 10) and a roller to feed the material to the side of the separator opposite the material from the electrode supply roll 10.
Roh, however, fails to teach a heat treatment step of the electrodes and separator before the pressing step. Jin is analogous art to Roh because both teach materials used in secondary lithium batteries. Jin teaches that heat treating electrodes results in electrodes that “exhibited enhanced specific capacities, and [their] lithium-ion diffusion was improved in different degrees” (abstract). Furthermore, this heat treatment was applied to fabricated electrodes that had not yet been formed into a battery (Experimental Section), so an appropriate place to include Jin’s heat treatment would be before being laminated by the presses L1 and L2. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the heat treatment taught by Jin to the electrode material of Roh in order to increase the specific capacities of the electrodes and improve the lithium-ion diffusion within said electrodes.
Roh (modified by Jin) also fails to teach the usage of patterned surface rollers. Sung teaches a method include a step of passing electrodes with a first separator under a surface-patterned roller to prepare preliminary electrode assemblies. The usage of a patterned roller ensures that only the surface area enclosed by the pattern’s lines is pressed onto the electrode and separator, creating an “adhesive part in contact with each other [i.e., the separator and the electrode] and a non-adhesive part not in contact with each other” (Sung, [0014]). This allows for the electrolyte solution to move smoothly between the electrode and the separator by the non-adhesive portion (i.e., the area occupied by the lines defining the pattern) while maintaining the adhesive force between the electrode and separator once the battery is formed. The appropriate placement for these rollers would be after electrode material would be after the heat treatment of Jin but before the lamination by lamination presses L1 and L2 in the above figure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the patterned rollers taught by Sung in order to allow electrolyte to flow smoothly between the separator and the electrode.
Roh (modified by Jin and Sung) also fails to teach the steps where the electrode assemblies are disposed on a surface of a second separator such that the preliminary assemblies are wound together such that the second separator is interposed between adjacent preliminary electrode assemblies. Lee is analogous art to Sung because both disclose methods of making components of lithium-ion batteries.
Lee teaches a method of disposing a plurality of preliminary electrode assembles on a surface of a second separator ([0066] and Fig. 7 below, where the electrodes are labelled “17” and the second separator is “19”) and winding the second separator such that the second separator is interposed between electrode assemblies that are adjacent to each other (Fig. 2 below, as required by claim 10).
PNG
media_image2.png
938
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1090
658
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches that this method of assembling electrode assemblies with the second separator interposed between them “provides a cell structure…which is more convenient to manufacture and uses space more efficiently compared to conventional cells” (Lee, [0040]). Lee continues to teach that “the energy density of the battery can be greatly increased to implement a highly integrated battery having maximized space efficiency of active materials” [0051]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the pressed electrode assemblies of Roh (modified by Jin and Sung) using a second separator as taught by Lee in order to make a battery that is more easily manufactured as well as a battery with increased energy density compared to conventional cells.
Henceforth, Roh, modified by Jin, Sung, and Lee, will be referred to as modified Roh.
Regarding claim 4, modified Roh teaches that the pattern portion formed on the surface of the roll member may be formed by being engraved or embossed (Sung, [0012]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Roh teaches that the pattern may be a combination of a triangular pattern and a linear pattern as seen by Sung’s Figure 1 (included below).
PNG
media_image4.png
738
614
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, as seen in Sung’s figure above, the percentage of the total surface area enclosed within the lines of patterns is somewhere between 1 and 99%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Even though it is commonly known that the figures of patent documents are often not to scale, the claimed range regarding the surface area is so broad (1% - 99%) that any roll with some sort of surface pattern will have a surface area percentage that is to either 1% or 99%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 7, modified Roh teaches an electrode assembly obtained by the claimed method (Lee, [0066]).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Roh alone fails to teach an electrochemical device (wherein the electrochemical device is a lithium battery) comprising an electrode assembly enclosed in a casing. However, Lee teaches that the “constituents of the [lithium-ion] battery according to” modified Roh “have a form coinciding with the form of the quadrilateral container” of a prismatic can (as required by claim 8) “so there will be no unused space within the container” in order to have a battery with a maximized space efficiency of active materials (Lee, [0051] and [0052]) Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to include the electrode assembly of modified Roh inside a prismatic can to create a lithium secondary battery with a maximized space efficiency of active materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang (Synthesis and effect of electrode heat-treatment on the superior lithium storage performance of Co3O4 nanoparticles) teaches that a heat treatment step of electrodes “improves binder distribution…[and] ensures high interfacial conductivity” (Zhang, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722