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 of Group I, Species IA, claims 1-8 and 11 drawn to Fig. 5, in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…a pressing process of sequentially pressing the cell with pressing rolls”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, “pressing rolls” is interpreted as a device that fully rotates to roll over a surface, or performing the action of pressing and rolling.
Claim 11 recites “an aging process of allowing the cell to age for a predetermined time, wherein the pressing process is performed during the aging process”. Aging a cell is the process of allowing a charged cell to stand for a predetermined time. However, no amount of time is specified and the limitation teaches pressing while aging. Therefore, using the broadest reasonable interpretation if charging is not continued and gas is not discharged from the pouch while pressing, it will be interpreted as aged during pressing.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "…the pair of pressing rolls" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this limitation will interpreted as the pressing rolls comprises a pair of pressing rolls.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki et al. (US 2014/0352140).
Regarding claim 1, Tasaki teaches a method for manufacturing a secondary battery, the method comprising:
an accommodation process ST105 of accommodating an electrode assembly, in which electrodes and separators are alternately stacked, an electrolyte, and one end portion of each of a plurality of electrode leads connected to the electrodes, in a pouch, or laminate film, to form a cell (P21-25.54; Fig. 1.5);
an activation process ST111 of charging the cell to activate the cell (P54-55; Fig. 5);
after the activation process ST111 a pressing process ST106 of sequentially pressing the cell with pressing rolls, wherein a roll press sequentially provides rolls from one end to the other down the body of the cell (P41.54.61); and
after the pressing process ST111, a degassing process ST107 of discharging an internal gas of the cell to an outside of the pouch (P54.59; Fig. 5),
wherein, during the pressing process, a body of the pouch, in which the electrode assembly is accommodated, is pressed so that a portion of the body, except for an edge of the body, or not including gas accumulation section 8, is pressed (P40-42.54.61; Fig. 1(a)).
Tasaki teaches during the pressing process the electrode laminate is roll pressed so that gas generated within the body is moved from an inside of the electrode laminate 5 to within the gas accumulating section 8 by rolling from the portion with one terminal to an opposing end (P39-42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that only the electrode laminate 5 is pressed when forming, to push the gas into the gas accumulating section 8. “[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP 2144.01
Regarding claim 2, Tasaki teaches the pouch, or laminate film, comprises: the body in which an accommodation part, in which the electrode assembly 5 is accommodated, is formed; and a gas pocket part 8 extending from the accommodation part 5, the gas pocket part 8 being configured to collect the internal gas generated in the accommodation part 5, wherein another end portion of each of the plurality of electrode leads 7a/b protrudes to the outside of the pouch, and the gas pocket part 8 extends in a full-width direction of the cell 5, which is perpendicular to a protrusion direction of each of the plurality of electrode leads 7a/b (P26.30; Fig. 1(a)).
Regarding claim 11, Tasaki teaches after charging a cell, and prior to discharging the gas from the cell, a rolling process is performed wherein gas that has accumulated in the cell from the charging step is moved (P40-41.54.62)
Therefore, although Tasaki does not explicitly teach an aging process of allowing the cell to age for a predetermined time, wherein the pressing process is performed during the aging process, the process of pressing takes a predetermined amount of time and accumulated gas is moved.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that the rolling process takes an amount of time and thus an aging process necessarily occurs.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasaki as applied to at least claim 2 above, and further in view of Yasooka et al. (US 2015/0013720).
Regarding claim 3, Tasaki is silent in teaching the pair of pressing rolls sequentially press two opposite surfaces of the cell simultaneously; however, Yasooka, related to a method of forming a pouch cell, teaches simultaneously pressing the opposite surfaces of a cell between a pair of pressing rolls to evenly press the gas out of the region of the flat surface of the battery cells (P42-43; Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a pair of pressing rolls in Tasaki to sequentially press two opposite surfaces of the cell simultaneously to uniformly press both surfaces of a cell, as taught by Yasooka.
Regarding claim 4, Tasaki teaches during the pressing process, a roll press is performed in a full-length direction of the cell, which is a protrusion direction of each of the plurality of electrode leads, or from a side where the terminal 7 and tape 11 are disposed toward the other end section (P40-41.61-62; Fig. 1).
Although Tasaki is silent in explicitly teaching the full-length of the cell is roll pressed, Yasooka, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches pressing in a full-length direction of the cell, which is a protrusion direction of each of the plurality of electrode leads to uniformly push gas out from the cell allowing electrolyte to be impregnated (P42.61; Fig. 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the roll press performed in a full-length direction of the cell of Tasaki to allow all the gas to be pushed out of the direct flat cell structure, as taught by Yasooka.
Regarding claim 5, modified Tasaki in view of Yasooka teaches during the pressing process the pressing is performed on the portion of the body except for the edge of the body in the full-width direction of the cell (P42.61; Fig. 3.5-6 – wherein roller 60/602 is formed in contact only with flat portion of cell 14 and not angled edges, also shown wherein cleaning roller 102 and pressing rollers 60/602 have the same size/surface pressing and this matches with the size of adhesive sheet 136 used to clean roller (P38.85-86; Fig. 5.11) )
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Tasaki in view of Yasooka as applied to at least claim 5 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (WO 2017/052283A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tasaki in view of Yasooka teaches using pressing rollers to over the flat surfaces of the battery cell (P61).
Modified Tasaki is silent in teaching each of the pressing rolls are formed so that a diameter of each of two opposite side portions thereof is smaller than a diameter of a central portion thereof; however, Yoon, related to pressing rollers, teaches when pressing an electrode assembly pressing rolls should be formed so that a diameter of each of two opposite side portions thereof is smaller than a diameter of a central portion thereof in order to reduce thickness variation in an assembly (P43.53.55; Fig. 4.6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the pressing rollers of Yoon, formed so that a diameter of each of two opposite side portions thereof is smaller than a diameter of a central portion, in modified Tasaki to make sure the laminate remains a desired thickness with reduced variation when pressed.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Yoon is considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. In this case, both Yoon and the instant application are concerned with solving problems associated with damage that can occur from a pressing roll. It has been held that a reference is analogous art if it is reasonable pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. MPEP 2141.01 (a)
Regarding claim 7, modified Tasaki in view of Yoon teaches the two opposite side portions of each of the pressing rolls is formed to have a diameter that is-gradually smaller decrease from the central portion toward an-respective opposite ends thereof (P22.28.43-55; Fig. 4.6).
Regarding claim 8, modified Tasaki in view of Yoon teaches an outer surface of each of the two opposite side portions of each of the pressing rolls has a curvature that is rounded from the central portion toward the respective opposite ends thereof (P22.43-55; Fig. 4.6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752