Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/939,464

ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103§DP
Filed
Sep 07, 2022
Examiner
RUTISER, CLAIRE A
Art Unit
1751
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
LG Energy Solution, Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
42%
Grant Probability
Moderate
2-3
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
62%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 42% of resolved cases
42%
Career Allow Rate
63 granted / 149 resolved
-22.7% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
64 currently pending
Career history
213
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§103
49.2%
+9.2% vs TC avg
§102
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§112
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 149 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §DP
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 . Status of Claims Claim 1 is amended. Claim 3 is cancelled. Claims 9-12 stand withdrawn. Claims 1-2 and 4-8, as filed 15 September 2025, are examined herein. No new matter is included. Response to Arguments Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that Examiner used incorrect legal reasoning with respect to claim 3, and that equating Heo’s fixing member with Wang’s wrapping separator is unsupported by the art, because the functions and structures of the components differ materially. New citations from Wang, Ryu, and Heo are provided herein. Regarding the Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejections and the Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejection, Applicant argues that the instant amended claims overcome this rejection. This is persuasive. The Nonstatutory Double Patenting rejections are withdrawn. The instant office action is a non-final rejection. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210043881 A) in view of Ryu (US 20070218355 A1). Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches an electrode assembly (Abstract: electrode stack) comprising: a stack in which a plurality of electrodes ([0009] electrode stack including anode and cathode) and a plurality of separators are alternately stacked on each other (FIG. 4C, FIG. 4D separator 405, wrap 410) wherein edges of the separators protrude further outward than the electrodes in a width dimension orthogonal to a stacking dimension of the stack (as shown FIG. 4C, FIG. 4D); and a wrapping separator configured to surround the stack (FIG. 4C, FIG. 4D wrap 410, [0049] the wrapping 410 may fully encase or enclose the electrode stack on all exterior surfaces), Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “surround” does not require every surface to be covered, because a gap in the wrapping at least large enough for tabs is required for successful battery operation. wherein the edges of at least some of the plurality of separators are fused with the wrapping separator to form fused portions ([0054] (emphasis added) “in some embodiments adhesive may be applied on a portion of the wrapping 410, such as on an exterior portion that may constitute a region to be coupled with second surface 429, such as in a window frame type of coverage, for example, although in other embodiments adhesive may be applied in a more uniform pattern along the surface of the wrapping in contact with the electrode stack. Exemplary adhesives may include a variety of adhesive materials that may couple or bond with electrode active materials, current collector materials, and separator materials.”) Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of fused with the wrapping separator to form fused portions” is determined to include laser welding (as disclosed in the instant specification at [0019]), heat fusing, and solvent fusing. All three of these methods result in the joining of two similar materials with at most an insignificant addition of an additional material. Wang at [0054] teaches the use of adhesive on a portion of wrapping 410, to bond to the separator materials, however Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the wrapping separator surrounds the stack such that: a pair of unfused surfaces of the wrapping separator is configured to cover opposing surfaces of the stack in the stacking dimension and a pair of fused 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. Ryu, in the field of (Abstract) thermal welding of separators and separation film, discloses [0009] that the separators of the unit cells are secured to the separation film by thermal welding. At [0016] “Preferably, the thermal welding is performed at one side or opposite sides of each unit cell.” At [0038-0039] and Table 1 Ryu demonstrates that separators welded to the separation film at opposites sides (Example 1) is superior to thermally welding at lower ends of the bicells and superior to no thermal welding, producing fewer short circuits. Ryu at [0042-0043] contemplates that “The present invention has the effect of preventing the electrodes of the stacked electrodes from being separated from the separation film or from being twisted due to external impacts and vibrations, thereby restraining the electrochemical cell from generating heat or catching fire.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to modify Wang’s wrapping separator with the thermal welding at opposite sides of each unit cell of Ryu, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving battery safety during exposure to impacts or vibration. Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Ryu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Wang further teaches wherein the wrapping and the separators comprise the same material. ([0051] “same or a similar material”) Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Ryu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Wang further teaches wherein the fused portions are in contact with or adjacent to ends of at least some of the plurality of electrodes. ([0008] the wrapping may be coupled about an exterior surface of the electrode stack, as shown FIG. 4D) Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Ryu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Wang further teaches wherein a width 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. (As shown FIG. 4D) Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Ryu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above, and Wang further teaches at FIG. 5C and [0063] a wrapping 520 covering the entire length of the cell, thus meeting the instant claim limitation “wherein a length of the wrapping separator in a longitudinal dimension of the stack is greater than or equal to about 0.5 times a length of the stack in the longitudinal dimension, the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension.” Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Ryu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein 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, the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension. Wang at [0056] discloses discontinuous coatings to create a non-uniform coating of the adhesive affording increased porosity and permeability. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210043881 A) in view of Ryu (US 20070218355 A1), as set forth in claim 1, above, and in further view of Heo (US 20200161617 A1). Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Ryu teaches all of the limitations as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly teach wherein 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, the longitudinal dimension being orthogonal to both the width dimension and the stacking dimension. Heo, in the field of [0010] of minimizing or reducing misalignment of the stacked electrode assembly, discloses [0024-0025] a plurality of fixing members, spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the stack, and adhered to a sidewall of the electrode assembly (stack of electrodes), as shown at FIG. 10 (fixing member 205.) At [0027] Heo discloses that the fixing member reduces distortion of the alignment. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the fixing member of Heo and the wrapping separator of modified Wang carry out the same function – to help maintain an aligned state of the stack. The person of ordinary skill is therefore motivated, as of before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to use multiple instances of modified Wang’s wrapping separator spaced apart from each other in a longitudinal direction of the stack, based on Heo’s teaching that multiple fixing members may be used, with a reasonable expectation of successfully maintaining the electrode stack in an aligned state, and reducing the risk of shorting. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE A RUTISER whose telephone number is (571)272-1969. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM M-F. 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. CLAIRE A. RUTISER Examiner Art Unit 1751 /C.A.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1751 /JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 1/9/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 07, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 13, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §DP
Mar 10, 2026
Interview Requested
Mar 17, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 17, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12592374
ELECTRODE FOR SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12562386
METHOD FOR PRODUCING NEGATIVE ELECTRODE ACTIVE MATERIAL FOR LITHIUM SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548816
LIQUID COOLING SYSTEM, BATTERY CASING AND BATTERY PACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12512527
BATTERY PACK AND DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 30, 2025
Patent 12494481
CORE-SHELL COMPOSITE NEGATIVE ELECTRODE MATERIAL, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
42%
Grant Probability
62%
With Interview (+19.9%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 149 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month