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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/19/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/19/2025 does not place the application in condition for allowance.
In view of the amendment of claims 1, 7, 14 and 16 the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues, related to Claim 16, that Bianchi is not analogous art and therefore cannot be used, however both Ko and Bianchi utilize adhesive placed onto a surface and by using the adhesive application method of Bianchi, Ko would both benefit from a no-contact method of formation of the strands and economical use of material therefore this argument is not found persuasive.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10-11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20160218395A1, in IDS dated 9/26/22), in view of Kim (US20060251962A1) and further in view of Oosawa(US20040067417A1). Supporting evidence by Calhoun (US5738939A).
Regarding claim 1, Ko discloses an electrode assembly, comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (positive electrode 15, negative electrode 17) arranged in a stack along a stacking dimension (Fig. 3) with a respective separator portion positioned between each of the electrodes in the stack (separation film 19), each of the electrodes having an outer perimeter within a plane extending transverse to the stacking dimension, wherein the separator portions each have a respective overhanging portion protruding outwardly in a lateral dimension beyond the outer perimeters of adjacent ones of the electrodes, the lateral dimension being oriented transverse to the stacking dimension such that adjacent ones of the overhanging portions define a respective overhanging space there between, each of the overhanging spaces extending along the lateral dimension beginning from the outer perimeter of the electrode positioned along the stacking dimension between the adjacent overhanging portions and terminating at outermost extremities of the adjacent overhanging portions in the lateral dimension (Fig. 3, see separator protruding from electrode stack with overhanging space there between); and
a connection component extending between and connecting at least two adjacent overhanging portions of the separator portions (Fig. 4, see tape 11 extending down the battery stack along all overhanging portions of the separators in the stack), but does not disclose the connection component comprising a network of strands of material, a plurality of the strands of material crossing over other ones of the strands of material so as to define respective crossing locations, wherein a region of the connection component includes multiple crossing locations spaced apart from one another in the stacking dimension.
Kim, related to tape in an electrode assembly, teaches a fixing tape (250) with multiple strands in a crossing pattern (Fig. 4, ¶[0037]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the mesh of Kim contains crisscrossing strands creating the mesh pattern of Fig. 4 and also taught by Calhoun who teaches a mesh may be understood as a web of strands (Fig. 1, col. 10, lines 22-25 and col. 6, lines 22-25). The strands of adhesive are patterned along in the tape in both the width and length directions thereby providing multiple crossing locations in both dimensions while providing space between them as a plurality of holes(Fig. 4, ¶[0037]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the tape of Kim in place of the tape of Ko provides the advantage of elasticity during the charge/discharge operation (¶[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the tape of Kim to add elasticity to the electrode assembly of Kim.
Ko also does not disclose that at least a portion of the connection component extends into the overhanging space defined between the at least two adjacent overhanging portions.
Oosawa, related to batteries, teaches an electrode stacked body 9 with an insulation film 5 applied with adhesive and adhesive insulation tape 7 along the edge of the stacked body and the extension of the adhesive coated film 5 into the stack eliminates the gap caused by the overhang resulting in improved mechanical strength.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized extending the tape of modified Ko into the gaps in the electrode stack of Ko in the manner taught by Oosawa would lead to improved mechanical strength of the electrode stack.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have extended the tape of modified Ko into the gaps in the electrode stack of Ko in the manner taught by Oosawa to improve mechanical strength of the electrode stack.
Regarding claim 4, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 and Ko further discloses the connection component (tape 11) extends along the lateral side parallel to the stacking direction (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 4 and Ko further discloses in addition to the stacking direction of the electrode assembly the separation film and thus the electrode assembly may be present in an elongated rectangle shape providing a length dimension longer than the width dimension (¶0038]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 4 and Ko further discloses an electrode tab (positive tab 21) protruding outwardly from the stack along a protruding direction transverse to the stacking dimension, wherein the at least one lateral side is oriented along the protruding direction (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 4 and Ko further discloses a separation film which may be folded in a zigzag pattern (¶[0044]) which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as providing a separator such that the elongated separator sheet follows a serpentine path traversing back and forth along the lateral dimension to extend between each of the successive electrodes in the stack.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 and Ko further discloses the connection component is spaced away from the anode and cathode components by the separation film extending further than the electrodes and separation film being present on both the top and bottom of the electrode assembly creating distance from the anode and cathode layers (¶0051], Fig. 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 and Ko further discloses the connection component extends continuously along the side of the electrode assembly (Figs. 2-4) along the outer edge of the overhanging portions of separator film including several intermediate overhanging portions and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize they necessarily connect the overhanging portions after the connection component (tape) is applied.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 and Kim further teaches the connection component contains adhesive material (253, Fig. 4, ¶[0033]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 and Ko further discloses the electrode assembly may be used to create a battery cell (¶[0070]).
Claims 2-3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20160218395A1, in IDS dated 9/26/22), in view of Kim (US20060251962A1) and Oosawa(US-20040067417-A1), in further view of Calhoun (US5738939A).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 but does not teach wherein the strands have a width in a range from 20 µm to 100 µm.
Calhoun, related to tape as a connection component, teaches an adhesive tape (10) with a first adhesive with multiple strands in a crossing pattern (Fig. 1, page 7 col. 1 lines 48-52). The strands of adhesive are patterned along in the tape in both the width and length directions thereby providing multiple crossing locations in both dimensions while providing space for a second adhesive (18, Fig. 1). Calhoun further teaches the depth of the recess are 10 µm to 250 µm which corresponds to the width of the strands.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the structure of the tape of Calhoun in the tape of modified Ko provides the advantage of adhesive flexibility in manufacturing and improved performance (page 6, col. 1 lines 28-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the tape structure of Calhoun to add flexibility in manufacturing and added performance.
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 but does not teach wherein a distance between adjacent strands is in a range from 100 µm to 800 µm.
Calhoun, related to tape as a connection component, teaches an adhesive tape (10) with a first adhesive with multiple strands in a crossing pattern (Fig. 1, page 7 col. 1 lines 48-52). The strands of adhesive are patterned along in the tape in both the width and length directions thereby providing multiple crossing locations in both dimensions while providing space for a second adhesive (18, Fig. 1). Calhoun further teaches the strands may be 1.9 mm apart (example 3, col. 11 lines 44-50, Fig. 1) on the side on one diamond and the strands are overlapping such that the distance between strands goes down to 0 mm apart.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the structure of the tape of Calhoun in the tape of modified Ko provides the advantage of adhesive flexibility in manufacturing and improved performance (page 6, col. 1 lines 28-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the tape structure of Calhoun to add flexibility in manufacturing and added performance.
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). MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 12, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 1 , but does not teach wherein the connection component has a thickness in the lateral dimension in a range from of 100 µm to 600 µm.
Calhoun, related to tape as a connection component, teaches an adhesive tape (10) with a first adhesive with multiple strands in a crossing pattern (Fig. 1, page 7 col. 1 lines 48-52). The strands of adhesive are patterned along in the tape in both the width and length directions thereby providing multiple crossing locations in both dimensions while providing space for a second adhesive (18, Fig. 1). Calhoun further teaches the connection component has a thickness of 0.275 mm (Example 3, col. 11 lines 44-50, Fig. 1) made up of a 0.1 mm film and an adhesive thickness of 0.175 mm.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the structure of the tape of Calhoun in the tape of modified Ko provides the advantage of adhesive flexibility in manufacturing and improved performance (page 6, col. 1 lines 28-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the tape structure of Calhoun to add flexibility in manufacturing and added performance.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20160218395A1) in view of Lee (KR20190071129A) and Kim (US20060251962A1). Supporting evidence by Calhoun (US5738939A).
Regarding claim 7, Ko discloses a plurality of electrodes (positive electrode 15, negative electrode 17) arranged in a stack along a stacking dimension (Fig. 3) with a respective separator portion positioned between each of the electrodes in the stack (separation film 19), each of the electrodes having an outer perimeter within a plane extending transverse to the stacking dimension, wherein the separator portions each have a respective overhanging portion protruding outwardly in a lateral dimension beyond the outer perimeters of adjacent ones of the electrodes, the lateral dimension being oriented transverse to the stacking dimension (Fig. 3, see separator protruding from electrode stack); and
a connection component extending between and connecting at least two adjacent overhanging portions of the separator portions (Fig. 4, see tape 11 extending down the battery stack along all overhanging portions of the separators in the stack),
but does not disclose the connection component extends along the at least one lateral side for a distance of 70% or more of the length dimension thereof, and comprising a plurality of the strands of material crossing over other ones of the strands of material so as to define respective crossing locations, wherein a region of the connection component includes multiple crossing locations spaced apart from one another in the stacking dimension such that electrolyte solution may pass through.
Lee, related to electrode assemblies, teaches deformation preventing tape(120) along the edge of an electrode stack body(110) and the tape may extend along the entire length direction(Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the tape of Lee to the electrode stack of Ko would prevent deformation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have added the tape of Lee to the electrode stack of Ko to prevent deformation.
Kim, related to tape in an electrode assembly, teaches a fixing tape (250) with multiple strands in a crossing pattern (Fig. 4, ¶[0037]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the mesh of Kim contains crisscrossing strands creating the mesh pattern of Fig. 4 and also taught by Calhoun who teaches a mesh may be understood as a web of strands (Fig. 1, col. 10, lines 22-25 and col. 6, lines 22-25). The strands of adhesive are patterned along in the tape in both the width and length directions thereby providing multiple crossing locations in both dimensions while providing space between them as a plurality of holes(Fig. 4, ¶[0037]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the tape of Kim in place of the tape of Ko provides the advantage of elasticity during the charge/discharge operation (¶[0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided the tape of Kim to add elasticity to the electrode assembly of Kim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20160218395A1, in IDS dated 9/26/22), in view of Kim (US20060251962A1) and Oosawa(US20040067417A1). Supporting evidence by Calhoun (US5738939A) as applied to claim 1 and 8 and further in view of Park et. al. (US20150357671A1, in IDS dated 9/26/22).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 8 but does not disclose an outer separator encircling a perimeter of the stack and connection component.
Park, related to an electrode assembly, teaches a zig-zag separator in an electrode stack which continues in length to wrap around the cell stack providing an outer separator which encircles the perimeter of the stack (¶[0032]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the zig-zag separator of Ko could be extended in the form of Park to provide support to the electrode stack and minimize loosening of the stack (¶[0032]). Therefore it would have been obvious to have provided an extended separator to the electrode assembly of Ko to prevent loosening of the stack.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (US20160218395A1) in view of Lee (KR20190071129A), and further in view of Bianchi et. al. (US20160331602A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ko discloses an electrode assembly, comprising:
a plurality of electrodes (positive electrode 15, negative electrode 17) arranged in a stack along a stacking dimension (Fig. 3) with a respective separator portion positioned between each of the electrodes in the stack (separation film 19), each of the electrodes having an outer perimeter within a plane extending transverse to the stacking dimension, wherein the separator portions each have a respective overhanging portion protruding outwardly in a lateral dimension beyond the outer perimeters of adjacent ones of the electrodes, the lateral dimension being oriented transverse to the stacking dimension (Fig. 3, see separator protruding from electrode stack); and
a connection component extending between and connecting at least two adjacent overhanging portions of the separator portions (Fig. 4, see tape 11 extending down the battery stack along all overhanging portions of the separators in the stack),
but does not disclose the connection component comprising a plurality of the strands of material crossing over other ones of the strands of material so as to define respective crossing locations, wherein a region of the connection component includes multiple crossing locations spaced apart from one another in the stacking dimension such that electrolyte solution may pass through and wherein the strands of material comprising the network of strands of the connection component follow circular arc-shaped paths crossing over one another.
Lee, related to electrode assemblies, teaches deformation preventing tape(120) along the edge of an electrode stack body(110) with holes(121) which allow electrolyte to pass(¶[0030], Fig. 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the tape of Lee to the electrode stack of Ko would prevent deformation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have added the tape of Lee to the electrode stack of Ko to prevent deformation.
Bianchi, related to adhesive application, teaches a first glue application in spiral shapes to a surface (¶[0070], Fig. 12a) including arc shaped paths which cross over one another.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have realized the application of a first glue in the spiral shape could provide strands of material comprising the network of strands which follow a circular arc-shaped path and cross over one another and that this application allows no-contact method of formation of the strands and economical use of material (¶[0071]) when applied to the tape of Bianchi and applied to the electrode stack of Ko.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the first material of modified Ko in the spiral shapes of Bianchi to provide a no-contact method of formation and economical use of material.
Regarding claim 17, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the circular arc-shaped paths have diameters in a range between one half and one eighth of a height of the stack along the stacking dimension.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the adhesive application method of Bianchi could provide a variety of dimensions of the circular shaped paths according to the requirements of the product including circular arc-shaped paths having diameters in a range between one half and one eighth of a height of the stack along the stacking dimension.
Furthermore, a change in proportion or relative dimension (such as the diameter of the arc-shaped path) is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, modified Ko discloses an electrode assembly according to claim 16, but does not disclose a plurality of parallel overlapping spirals comprised of loops wherein each loop overlaps the previous loop in the spiral by an amount in the range of one half and one eighth of the diameter of the loop.
One of ordinary skill in the art would realize the application of a first glue in the spiral shape could provide a variety corresponding dimensions including loops within a spiral having an overlap in a range between one half and one eighth the diameter of the loop.
Furthermore, a change in proportion or relative dimension (such as the diameter of the loop) is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm EST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights