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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/030098 filed on 8/12/2025. Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, directed to an apparatus for manufacturing a unit cell as recited in claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 12-21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group.
Drawings
Figure 1A and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claims 5, 7, 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to claim 5: In line 2 “an interval of about 90 degrees”.
Regarding to claim 7: In line 1 “The apparatus of claim [[2]] 6”
Regarding to claim 10: In line 1 “wherein [[an]] the end of the movable part”
Regarding to claim 11: In line 1 “wherein [[an]] the angle of the inclined”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding to claim 8: the limitation of “a sharp shape” is unclear as the specific sharpness is not provided. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets a shape that is adapted to cutting or piercing as “a sharp shape” because Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “sharp” as “adapted to cutting or piercing”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US 20210083313 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Kobayashi et al. disclose an apparatus for manufacturing a bagged electrode (abstract). The apparatus comprises:
a pair of upper and lower long separator materials (41) (equivalent to a first separator and a second separator) configured to move in a longitudinal direction (fig. 5), the pair of upper and lower long separator materials (41) configured to be cut at intervals between adjacent electrode (11) (par. 69, 105, fig. 11, 24);
a second bonding unit (150) including a pair of upper and lower drum-like rotators (151, 152) (the upper drum-like rotator (151) is equivalent to a movable part and the lower drum-like rotator (152) is equivalent to a fixed part) (par. 84, 85 fig. 5, 24) (The upper and lower drum-like rotators (151) and (152) are aligned and position on two sides of the separators in fig. 5.); and
a cutting blade (162) (equivalent to a cutter) integrated into the upper drum-like rotator (151), the cutting blade (162) configured to cut the pair of separator materials (41) (par. 105, fig. 24),
wherein the second bonding unit (150) bonds the pair of long separator materials (41) by a heat-melting method (equivalent to the pair of upper and lower drum-like rotators (151, 152) being heated to a predetermined temperature and perform thermal fusing method) (par. 92) and cut the pair of long separator materials (41) (par. 105, fig. 24).
Regarding to claim 2: Kobayashi et al. disclose each of the upper and lower drum-like rotators (151, 152) rotates while the pair of upper and lower long separator materials (41) pass therebetween (par. 84, 94, fig. 15B, 18B), and the cutting blade (162) protrudes from a surface of the upper drum-like rotator (151) (fig. 18B) to press and cut the pair of upper and lower long separator materials (41) when the upper drum-like rotator (151) rotates (par. 94, 105, fig. 18B, 24).
Regarding to claim 3: Kobayashi et al. disclose a plurality of cutting blades (162) are disposed positioned at regular intervals on the surface of the upper drum-like rotator (fig. 18B).
Regarding to claim 4: Kobayashi et al. disclose two cutting blades (162) are disposed at an interval of about 180 degrees (fig. 18B).
Regarding to claim 6: Kobayashi et al. disclose the shape of the cutting blades (162) in fig. 18B (The shape of the cutting blades (162) comprises opposing symmetrical inclined surfaces, and an end, at which the inclined surfaces, meet to form an edge).
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.
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, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda et al. (US 20020124949 A1) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20210083313 A1).
Regarding to claim 1: Fukuda et al. disclose a method and apparatus for attaching a pouch-shaped separator to an electrode plate of a battery (par. 3). The apparatus comprises:
sheet-like separators (2) (equivalent to a first separator and a second separator) (par. 19, fig. 1) configured to be cut at intervals between adjacent electrode plate (1) (par. 19-22, fig. 1);
a fixed part positioned on a first side of the sheet-like separators (2) (see fig. below);
PNG
media_image1.png
486
861
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a heating plate (11) (equivalent to a movable part) (par. 20, fig. 1) (The heating plate (11) is aligned with the fixed part in fig. 1.) positioned on a second side of the sheet-like separators (2); and
a cutting protrusion (12) (equivalent to a cutter) (par. 20, fig. 1) integrated into the heating plate (11), the cutting protrusion (12) configured to be heated to a predetermined temperature (par. 26), and configured to cut the sheet-like separators (2) (par. 19-22, 26),
wherein the sheet-like separators (2) are configured to be cut by the cutting protrusion (12) and bonding (equivalent to thermally fused) in one process (par. 22).
Fukuda et al. fail to explicitly disclose a first separator and a second separator configured to move in a longitudinal direction. However, Kobayashi et al. disclose an apparatus for manufacturing a bagged electrode (abstract). The apparatus comprises a pair of upper and lower long separator materials (41) (equivalent to a first separator and a second separator) configured to move in a longitudinal direction (fig. 5). it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the moving direction (the longitudinal direction of the separator materials (41)) of Kobayashi et al. as the moving direction of the separators (2) of Fukuda et al. because Kobayashi et al. teach the apparatus for manufacturing a bagged electrode (par. 61).
Fukuda et al. fail to explicitly disclose a fixed part configured to be heated to a predetermined temperature. However, Kobayashi et al. further disclose the apparatus comprises a second bonding unit (150) including a pair of upper and lower drum-like rotators (151, 152) (the upper drum-like rotator (151) is equivalent to a movable part and the lower drum-like rotator (152) is equivalent to a fixed part) (par. 84, 85 fig. 5, 24). The second bonding unit (150) can bond the pair of long separator materials (41) by a heat-melting method (equivalent to the pair of upper and lower drum-like rotators (151, 152) being heated to a predetermined temperature and perform thermal fusing method) (par. 92). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the fixed part of Fukuda et al. heated just like the lower drum-like rotator (152) (equivalent to a fixed part) is heated in Kobayashi reference because Kobayashi et al. teach the separators can be bonded by heating-melting method (par. 92).
Regarding to claim 8: Fukuda et al. disclose the fixed part positioned adjacent the upper sheet-like separator (2) (equivalent to the second separator) (fig. 1) (As the fixed part extends along the width direction of the separator (2), the fixed part defines a bar shape),
the heating plate (11) is disposed on the lower side (equivalent to the second side) of the sheet-like separators (2) configured to be slid toward the sheet-like separators (2) (fig. 1), and
the cutting protrusion (12) is formed integrally to have a sharp shape at an end of the heating plate (11) for cutting separator (2) (par. 21, fig. 1).
Regarding to claim 9: Fukuda et al. disclose the cutting protrusion (12, 20) configured to be dislocated to passes through the sheet-like separators (2) to face a surface of the fixed part and move relative to the fixed part (fig. 1, 3B).
Regarding to claims 10, 11: Fukuda et al. disclose an end of the cutting protrusion (12) is formed so that a first surface facing the fixed part is a flat surface and an second opposing surface is an inclined surface, wherein an angle between the first surface and the second surface is about 90° (see picture above).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20210083313 A1) as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding to claim 5: Kobayashi et al. disclose an apparatus for manufacturing a bagged electrode as described in paragraph 6 above. Kobayashi et al. do not specifically disclose four cutters are disposed at an interval of about 90 degrees. However, four cutters are mere duplication parts of the two cutters. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention can duplicate the cutter to yield multiple cutters with a reasonable expectation of success. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960). Further, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi et al. (US 20210083313 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Oohira et al. (US 20160325448 A1).
Regarding to claim 7: Kobayashi et al. disclose an apparatus for manufacturing a bagged electrode as described in paragraph 6 above. Kobayashi et al. fail to explicitly disclose an angle between both the inclined surfaces of the cutter is 15° or more. However, Oohira et al. disclose a separator slitting apparatus (par. 1). The apparatus comprises a slitting blade (72) (equivalent to the cutter) for cutting a separator (par. 71, fig. 5B). The slitting blade (72) has an angle of 25° (par. 81, fig. 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the angle of the slitting blade (72) of Oohira et al. as the angle of the cutting blade (162) of Kobayashi et al. because Oohira et al. teach the separator slitting apparatus provides a good-quality slit separator (par. 12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717