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 .
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 1-2 and 4-8 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 claim(s) 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.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites “wherein width of the fused portions in a direction parallel to width direction of the stack is irregularly bent or curved along a stacking dimension of the stack”. The Examiner notes that this limitation appears to require a width of the fused portions to be irregularly bent or curved. Although the instant specification supports that widths of the fused portions may be variable along a stacking direction [0050], and that the edges of the plurality of separators may be irregularly bent or curved [0056], the instant specification does not appear to support that a width of the fused portions is irregularly bent or curved, which appears to require a special definition of the term width (i.e. one which allows for a “width” include curved shapes). As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected as introducing new matter.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 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 1 recites “wherein width of the fused portions in a direction parallel to width direction of the stack is irregularly bent or curved along a stacking dimension of the stack” (emphasis added). As an initial matter, it appears that prepositions are missing before the limitations “width of the fused portions” and “width direction of the stack”, and these limitations should likely recite “a width”. Additionally, the following clarity issues are noted:
First, the term “irregularly” in Claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “irregularly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes an “irregularly bent” shape in comparison to a “regularly bent” shape, and Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, any bent shape will be interpreted as reading on “irregularly bent”.
Second, the Examiner notes that a “width” is understood to refer to a horizontal measurement, as evidenced by the Merriam Webster Dictionary. However, the recited limitation requires the width of the fused portions to be “irregularly bent or curved”, which appears to require a special definition of the term “width” which allows for a width to include curved structures. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. The term “width” is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. As such, Claim 1 and dependent Claims 2 and 4-8 are rejected as being indefinite. Since the instant specification indicates that it is the edges of the plurality of separators (not a width of the fused portions) which have an irregularly bent or curved shape [0056], For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that this limitation refers to the edges of the plurality of separators are bent or curved along a stacking dimension of the stack, as supported by the instant specification (Fig. 5; [0056]) and Applicant’s arguments (filed 04/13/2026; see Pgs. 6-7).
Claim 5 recites “wherein a width of the fused portions” (emphasis added). However, Claim 1 has been amended to recite “width of the fused portions”, and therefore it is unclear whether Claim 5 is intended to recite a different width than that recited in Claim 1, or whether Claim 5 should read “the width of the fused portions”. As such, Claim 5 is rejected as being indefinite. The intended interpretation of Claim 5 is complicated by the clarity issues of Claim 1 (noted above). For the sake of compact prosecution, it will be interpreted that Claim 5 refers widths of the fused portions, as supported by the instant specification [0050].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US-20070218355-A1) in view of Gu et al. (KR-20150036926-A; see also attached English translation for citations).
Regarding Claim 1, Ryu discloses an electrode assembly (electrochemical cell 200, Fig. 7; [0032]) comprising (see annotation of Ryu Fig. 7, below):
a stack in which a plurality of electrodes and a plurality of separators are alternately stacked on each other (see Figs. 4-5; [0032, 0038]), wherein edges of the separators protrude further outward than the electrodes in a width dimension orthogonal to a stacking dimension of the stack (see annotation of Ryu Fig. 7, below); and
a wrapping separator (separation film 310, Fig. 7) configured to surround the stack [0011, 0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
823
1520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ryu Fig. 7.
Ryu discloses that the separators are thermally welded to the wrapping separator (separation film) at opposite sides (see arrows in Fig. 7; [0038]). Therefore, although Ryu does not explicitly disclose fused portions, it is understood the process of thermally welding the wrapping separator (separation film) to the separators inherently results in the formation of fused portions as evidenced by the instant specification [instant specification: 0020, 0039, 0047-0048]. See MPEP 2112.01, I. Here, “fused” is interpreted, absent a special definition, as “to become blended or joined by or as if by melting together” as evidenced by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Therefore, it is understood that “the edges of at least some of the plurality of separators are fused with the wrapping separator to form fused portions”.
Ryu further discloses that the wrapping separator surrounds the stack such that:
a pair of unfused surfaces (i.e. top / bottom surfaces) of the wrapping separator is configured to cover opposing surfaces of the stack in the stacking dimension; and
a pair of fused surfaces (i.e. side surfaces) of the wrapping separator is configured to cover opposing sides of the stack in the width dimension and connect the pair of unfused surfaces to each other (see annotation of Ryu Fig. 7, below),
wherein the fused portions are formed along the fused surfaces.
PNG
media_image2.png
980
1567
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ryu Fig. 7.
Ryu discloses that the wrapping separator (separation film) is wrapped around the unit cells in a zigzag fashion, and that the separators are thermally welded to the wrapping separator [0013, 0032, 0038]. Ryu does not explicitly teach that the edges of the plurality of separators are bent or curved along a stacking dimension of the stack (see 112(b) rejection and interpretation, above).
Gu teaches a similar electrode assembly wherein a plurality of electrodes are alternately stacked with a plurality of separators which have a larger area [0015]. Gu teaches that when the edges of the separators are irregularly folded (see Fig. 1), a short circuit can occur [0040]. Advantageously, by folding the separators in the same direction (see Fig. 3), a short circuit can be prevented [0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have folded the edges of the separators in the same direction as taught by Gu, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrode assembly with a reduced chance of short circuit. By folding the separator edges in the same direction, modified Ryu is interpreted as reading on the recited limitations of Claim 1 (see 112(b) rejection and interpretation, above).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Ryu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu discloses that the wrapping separator and the separators comprise the same material [0038].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Ryu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu discloses that the separators are thermally bonded to the wrapping separator [0038]. Therefore, it is understood that the resulting fused portions are in contact with or adjacent to ends of at least some of the plurality of electrodes.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Ryu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the edges of the separators are bent in the same direction and then thermally welded to the wrapping separator to form fused portions (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Accordingly, it is understood that widths of the fused portions in the width dimension parallel to the width dimension of the stack are not uniform along a stacking direction of the stack (see 112(b) rejection and interpretation, above), since the folded portions of the separators will necessarily create thicker fused portions, and the intervening spaces between the folded portions will be thinner.
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, modified Ryu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Ryu discloses that the wrapping separator (separation film 310) extends the length of the stack in the longitudinal direction (see annotation of Fig. 8, below; [0009-0011, 0013, 0038]). Therefore, Ry discloses that a length of the wrapping separator in a longitudinal dimension of the stack is greater than or equal to 0.5 times a length of the stack in the longitudinal dimension (i.e. the lengths are equal), the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension as required by Claim 6. Additionally, since Ryu discloses that the sides of the wrapping separator are thermally welded to the plurality of separators (see rejection of Claim 1 above; [0027, 0032, 0038]), it is understood that a length of each of the fused portions in the longitudinal dimension less than or equal to a length of the wrapping separator in the longitudinal dimension (i.e. the lengths are equal), the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension, as required by Claim 8.
PNG
media_image3.png
419
1159
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Ryu Fig. 8
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (KR-20150036926-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Ryu et al. (US-20070218355-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Gu discloses an electrode assembly (100; [0022]) comprising:
a stack in which a plurality of electrodes and a plurality of separators are alternately stacked on each other [0015, 0022], wherein edges of the separators protrude further outward than the electrodes in a width dimension orthogonal to a stacking dimension of the stack (see Fig. 6; [0026]); and
a wrapping separator (fixing tape; [0015, 0022]) configured to surround the stack (see Fig. 6).
Gu discloses that the wrapping separator (fixing tape) is designed to wrap at least the side of the electrode assembly to fix the relative position of each layer forming the electrode assembly, and prevent short circuits between the electrodes [0017, 0022, 0041]. Gu also contemplates using heat to fuse ends of the wrapping separator (fixing tape) together, thereby preventing the wrapping separator from falling off the electrode assembly [0037]. Additionally, Gu contemplates fusing the ends of some of the separators together [0054]. Gu does not specifically disclose that the edges of the plurality of separators are fused with the wrapping separator.
Ryu teaches a similar electrode assembly configuration wherein the edges of a plurality of separators are wrapped with a separation film (reads on wrapping separator) [0008-0009, 0032, 0038]. Ryu teaches that opposite ends of the separation film are thermally welded to the separators (see arrows in Fig. 7), thereby preventing the electrodes from being separated from the separation film or from being twisted due to external vibration or impact [0008, 027, 0032, 0037, 0043]. Advantageously, such a configuration ensures the structural stability of the cell is maintained even when temperature is increased or the volume is increased due to the generation of gas [0008, 0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have thermally welded opposite sides of the wrapping separator to the plurality of separators of Gu with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful electrode assembly with improved structural stability. By thermally welding the sides of the wrapping separator to the plurality of separators, modified Gu thereby renders obvious that “the edges of at least some of the plurality of separators are fused with the wrapping separator to form fused portions”.
Modified Gu further discloses that the wrapping separator surrounds the stack such that (see annotation of Gu Fig. 6, below):
a pair of unfused surfaces (i.e. top and bottom surfaces) of the wrapping separator is configured to cover opposing surfaces of the stack in the stacking dimension; and
a pair of fused surfaces (i.e. left and right surfaces) of the wrapping separator is configured to cover opposing sides of the stack in the width dimension and connect the pair of unfused surfaces to each other,
wherein the fused portions are formed along the fused surfaces.
PNG
media_image4.png
316
814
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Gu Fig. 6.
Gu discloses that the edges of the plurality of separators are bent or curved along a stacking dimension of the stack (see Fig. 6). Therefore, the limitations of Claim 1 are interpreted as being met (see 112(b) rejection and interpretation, above).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Gu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the fused portions are in contact with or adjacent to ends of at least some of the plurality of electrodes (see rejection of Claim 1, above).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Gu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the edges of the separators are folded and thermally welded to the wrapping separator to form fused portions (see rejection of Claim 1, above). Accordingly, it is understood that widths (see 112(b) rejection and interpretation, above) of the fused portions in the width dimension parallel to the width dimension of the stack are not uniform along a stacking direction of the stack since the folded portions of the separators will necessarily create thicker fused portions, and the intervening spaces between the folded portions will necessarily be thinner.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (KR-20150036926-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Ryu et al. (US-20070218355-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Hamano et al. (US-6124061-A).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Gu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu teaches that the wrapping separator (fixing tape) can be made of a polymer material [0027]. Gu does not teach the material of the separators, and therefore does not teach that the wrapping separator and the separators comprise the same material.
Hamano teaches that an adhesive resin layer can be applied to a porous polypropylene sheet (trade name Cell Guard) to form a successful separator which can be adhered to an electrode (Col. 8: line 45 – Col. 9: line 15; Col. 10: line 44 – Col. 11: line 4). The Examiner notes that polypropylene is a polymer material. Additionally, Ryu teaches that separators and a separation film (reads on wrapping separator) can both be made of Cell Guard [0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the wrapping separator (fixing tape) of Gu to be formed of polypropylene (trade name Cell Guard) coated with an adhesive resin, and to have formed the separators of Gu to be polypropylene (trade name Cell Guard) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in successful wrapping separators and separators (MPEP 2143, A). Accordingly, the wrapping separator and the separators comprise the same material (i.e. polypropylene).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (KR-20150036926-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Ryu et al. (US-20070218355-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Ku et al. (US-20140272507-A1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 8, modified Gu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Gu discloses that the wrapping separator (fixing tape) is designed to wrap at least the side of the electrode assembly to fix the relative position of each layer forming the electrode assembly, and prevent short circuits between the electrodes [0017, 0022, 0041]. Although Gu contemplates various configurations of the wrapping separator (i.e. fixing tape; see “T” in Figs. 4, 6 and 7), Gu does not specifically teach the longitudinal dimension of the wrapping separator.
Ku teaches a similar electrode assembly [0010, 0012, 0015, 0036-0037]. Ku teaches that the electrode assembly includes a fixing part (corresponds to fixing tape of Gu) for wrapping the electrode stack to fix the electrode stack more stably [0053]. The fixing part can have a sheet shape which is formed to wrap the electrode stack (see Fig. 12; [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the wrapping separator (fixing tape) of modified Gu to surround the electrode stack as taught by Ku with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful wrapping separator capable of stably fixing the electrode assembly (MPEP 2143, A). Accordingly, the length of the wrapping separator in a in a longitudinal dimension of the stack is greater than or equal to 0.5 times a length of the stack in the longitudinal dimension (i.e. the lengths are equal; see Ku: Fig. 12), the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension as required by Claim 6. Additionally, since modified Gu renders obvious that the sides of the wrapping separator are thermally welded to the plurality of separators, it is understood that fused portions extend the length of the wrapping separator. As such, it is understood that a respective length of each of the fused portions in a longitudinal dimension of the stack is less than or equal to a length of the wrapping separator in the longitudinal dimension (i.e. the lengths are equal), the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension as required by Claim 8.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (KR-20150036926-A; see also attached English translation for citations) in view of Ryu et al. (US-20070218355-A1) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Jung et al. (US-20150072241-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Gu renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although Gu contemplates various configurations of the wrapping separator (i.e. fixing tape; see “T” in Figs. 4, 6 and 7), Gu does not specifically teach that the wrapping separator is provided in a plurality.
Jung teaches a similar electrode assembly [0006, 0041-0042]. Jung teaches that a fixing part (corresponds to fixing tape of Gu) is applied to the electrode stack to prevent gaps and secure the stacking stability of the electrode assembly [0085]. Jung teaches that the fixing part may include a polymer tape [0088], and that the fixing part can have various configurations (see Figs. 23-34), including being provided as a plurality of fixing parts spaced apart from one another (see Fig. 33; [0096-0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the wrapping separator of modified Gu in a plurality as taught by Jung, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful wrapping separator capable of successfully securing the electrode assembly (MPEP 2143, A). Accordingly, modified Gu renders obvious that the wrapping separator is provided in a plurality, and the plurality of wrapping separators are spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal dimension of the stack (see Jung: Fig. 33), the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been carefully considered, but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 8/11/2026
Prosecution Insights