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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I, claim(s) 1–9, in the reply filed on 01/09/26 is acknowledged. Claim(s) 10–13 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to for the following informalities:
In claim 2, lines 3 and 4, “the electrode tabs” is suggested to read “the
In claim 5, lines 6 and 7, “the one end and the other end where tabs of the unit cells are formed include a region corresponding to the inclined portion” is suggested to read “each of the one end and the other end where tabs of the unit cells are formed includes a region corresponding to the inclined portion” for clearer syntax and as clearly intended in fig. 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 1–9 is/are 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 “mounting unit cells on the upper surface of a separation film” in line 3 (see similar recitation of “the upper surface of the separation film” in claim 2, line 3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the upper surface” in the claim. Specifically, figs. 1 and 2 envisage a hexahedral separation film, so, absent additional recitation specifying the relative direction along which the unit cells are mounted atop the separation film, it is unclear which of the six surfaces “the upper surface” references.
Fig. 1 as well as p. 5, lines 1–4, depict an upper surface of the separation film as facing a direction extending perpendicular to a longitudinal direction—i.e., a thickness direction, where the “upper surface” faces the direction proceeding out of the page—of the film. Therefore, for this Office Action claim 1’s “upper surface of a separation film” will be interpreted to require an upper surface facing a direction extending perpendicular to the separation film’s longitudinal direction, as appears intended from fig. 1 and p. 5, lines 1–4.
Claim 1 further recites “heat-treating one end of each of the unit cells where tabs of the unit cells are formed, another end of each of the unit cells, and the separation film positioned at a corresponding location thereof, which are positioned in the upper and lower portions of a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the separation film …” in lines 4–7. It is unclear how many tabs are required to be at one end of each unit cell based on the limitation “one end of each of the unit cells where tabs of the unit cells are formed”—i.e., whether the plural “tabs” applies to one end of each unit cell or whether the unit cells collectively include a plurality of “tabs”.
Fig. 1 and p. 5, lines 1–7, describe forming at least two tabs at one end of each of the unit cells. Thus, for this Office Action, claim 1 will be interpreted to require at least two tabs at one end of each of the unit cells, as appears intended by fig. 1 and p. 5, lines 1–7.
Further, is unclear which component(s)—the tabs, the ends of each unit cell, or the ends of the separation film implicitly present—“which are positioned” references. Fig. 1 and p. 5, lines 1–7, depict heat-treating one end of each of the unit cells—where tabs are formed—as well as a longitudinally opposite end of each cell in a direction extending perpendicular to the separation film’s longitudinal direction. Thus, for this Office Action claim 1 will be interpreted to require heat-treating one end of each of the unit cells—where tabs are formed—as well as a longitudinally opposite end of each cell in a direction extending perpendicular to the separation film’s longitudinal direction, as appears intended by fig. 1 and p. 5, lines 1–7.
Claim 2 recites “the electrode tabs having the same polarity are located upward and downward at the same position” in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the electrode tabs having the same polarity” in the claim. Specifically, parent claim 1, in merely reciting “tabs of the unit cells” (line 4), does not specify the polarity of any of the tabs, making it unclear which tabs are required to exhibit the same polarity. Further, as claim 2 recites no relative direction of the tabs’ arrangement, it is unclear the direction relative to which the “tabs having the same polarity are located upward and downward”, rendering the intended scope unclear.
Fig. 1 depicts evenly spaced unit cells so that the tabs of opposite polarity (indicated by gray versus white) appear correspondingly positioned at the “top” of each cell in the direction intersecting the separation film’s longitudinal direction. Further, the portion of the spec. describing this figure (pp. 6 and 7) employs exemplary language (see “according to an embodiment” on p. 6, line 8), and, thus, the tabs do not appear limited to all having the same polarity and being located upward and downward at the same position after winding. Therefore, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 2 will be interpreted to require at least two electrode tabs having the same polarity and being located at the same position “upward” in the “upward-downward” direction (intersecting separation film’s longitudinal direction) after winding.
Claim 3 recites that “the heat-treating of step (b) is performed by heating or hot air” in line 3. Absent special definition of “heating”, parent claim 1’s heat-treating would necessarily include heating, and, thus, the intended scope of claim 3’s “heating” is unclear.
The spec.’s p. 3, line 17, employs exemplary language for the heat-treating of step (b) and includes no special definition of “heating” (see “the heat treatment … may be performed by heating or hot air”). Thus, based on the plain meaning of “heating” under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action, if selecting “heating” from “heating or hot air” in claim 3, the claim will be interpreted to merely require any type of heating, as appears intended from p. 3, line 17.
Claim 5 recites “the electrode included in the unit cells has a flat portion where the thickness of the active material layer is constant and an inclined portion where the thickness of the active material layer decreases from both ends of the flat portion” in lines 3–5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the electrode” and, by extension, “the active material layer” in the claim. Specifically, because claim 5 recites “unit cells” (emphasis added), each of which would necessarily include at least one electrode (see spec. at p. 6, lines 16–18)—and, by extension, at least one active material layer for ion (de)intercalation (as seen at least in fig. 2)—it is unclear which electrode and active material layer “the electrode included in the unit cells” and “the active material layer” reference. Moreover, as the spec. at p. 6, lines 16–18, envisages that each unit cell may be a bi-cell (with two electrodes), a full cell (with two electrodes), or a mono-cell (with one electrode), if a bi-cell or full cell were selected for each of the unit cells, it becomes further unclear which electrode and active material layer within each cell “the electrode” and “the active material layer” reference.
The spec.’s pp. 6 and 7 employ exemplary language for the electrode/active-layer structure including the flat and inclined portions (see “according to an embodiment” on p. 6, line 8, as well as exemplary unit-cell and electrode structures in fig. 2) and, thus, does not appear limited to this structure. Therefore, under the claim’s broadest reasonable interpretation, for this Office Action claim 5 will be interpreted to require that at least one electrode—and coinciding active material layer—included in the unit cells has the recited flat and inclined portions, as appears intended from pp. 6 and 7.
The remaining dependent claims fail to correct these deficiencies and are rejected likewise. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1–4, 7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 20170094916 A, from 07/11/24 IDS, with machine translation from 11/26/25 PTO-892) (Ko) in view of Li et al. (US 20150072202 A1, from 11/26/25 PTO-892) (Li).
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ko discloses (via, e.g., fig. 7) a) unit cells (101, 111) mounted on an upper surface of a separation film (300), b) a heat treatment of one end of the unit cells where a tab of each unit cell is formed (via thermal compression from grippers 160/170; see also, e.g., ¶ 0039), another end of each of the unit cells (via longitudinally opposing gripper), and the separation film positioned at a corresponding location thereof (via grippers’ also clamping separation film 300 spaced with unit cells; see also fig. 6), which are positioned in the upper and lower portions of a direction parallel to a longitudinal direction of the separation film and parallel to a winding direction of the array body (per fig. 7, the longitudinal ends of each unit cell are respectively above and below the direction parallel to the separation film’s longitudinal direction (i.e., conventional x-direction) as well as a direction parallel to a winding direction of the array body (i.e., again, the x-direction), as in instant fig. 1), and c) winding the heat-treated unit cells with the separation film (via mandrel 150, as seen in figs. 1, 6, and 7 and, e.g., ¶ 0019).
As seen in fig. 7, Ko exemplifies opposed tabs at each longitudinal end of the cell yet, while not appearing strictly limited to this arrangement to achieve the desired cells, fails to explicitly disclose multiple tabs at the “one end” of each of the unit cells.
Li, in teaching an electrochemical device such as a battery including stacked electrodes (e.g., Abstract, ¶ 0053), teaches forming a tab on each of the electrodes’ longitudinally opposite ends (fig. 3) or forming multiple tabs on the same longitudinal end (fig. 4). Li and Ko are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries with stack-type electrodes.
As Li recognizes the equivalence of same-side and opposite-side tab positioning, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to routinely incorporate multiple tabs on the same end of each of Ko’s cells, as suggested by Li, with the reasonable expectation of achieving successful electrical output, as suggested by Li.
It is submitted that the above disclosure further reads on claim 3; i.e., the heat-treating of step (b) is performed by heating (via Ko’s thermal compression).
Regarding claim 2, modified Ko discloses the method of manufacturing an electrode assembly according to claim 1, wherein, in step (a), the unit cells are mounted on the upper surface of the separation film so that the electrode tabs having the same polarity are located upward and downward at the same position after winding (note, in Ko’s figs. 7–12, mounting and wrapping so that tabs of same polarity are positioned at corresponding intervals and, thus, appear mounted so that the tabs are at the same position in the upward-downward direction intersecting the separation film’s longitudinal direction; compare to substantially similar instant fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ko discloses the method of manufacturing an electrode assembly according to claim 1 but fails to articulate a heat-treatment temperature and, thus, that the heat-treating of step (b) is performed at 50–200°C.
One skilled in the art, however, would recognize that the heating must be hot enough to sufficiently join each cell to the separation film (Ko, e.g., ¶ 0039 and fig. 7) without risking damaging the cell and/or separation film. To balance these considerations, then, it would have been obvious to arrive at the recited range by routinely optimizing the heating temperature (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ko discloses the method of manufacturing an electrode assembly according to claim 1, wherein the heat-treating in step (b) and the winding in step (c) are performed continuously (as Ko’s thermo-compressive grippers are attached or integrated with the winding mandrel (e.g., figs. 6 and 7), heating would necessarily occur throughout the winding such that (b) and (c) would be continuous).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ko discloses the method of manufacturing an electrode assembly according to claim 1, wherein each of the unit cells is a bi-cell or a full-cell (Ko, ¶ 0023 and 0024).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 20170094916 A) (Ko) in view of Li et al. (US 20150072202 A1) (Li), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Seo (US 20110129701 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ko discloses the method of manufacturing an electrode assembly according to claim 1.
However, in appearing unconcerned with the specific configuration of the tabs relative to the active material layer, modified Ko fails to explicitly disclose that the electrode included in the unit cells has a flat portion where the thickness of the active material layer is constant and an inclined portion where the thickness of the active material layer decreases from both ends of the flat portion, and the one end and the other end where tabs of the unit cells are formed include a region corresponding to the inclined portion.
Seo teaches a similar electrode assembly with a pair of tabs at one end of each cell (fig. 10), where, in each electrode, the active material layer includes a flat portion with constant thickness, as well as an inclined portion where the thickness decreases from both ends of the flat portion (e.g., fig. 3B), and a tab is formed at a region corresponding to the inclined portion (see tabs 136/226 protruding from inclined coating portion in figs. 5 and 6, respectively, and compare to instant fig. 2). Seo teaches that this structure enhances battery characteristics by allowing uniform coating on the electrode current collector (e.g., ¶ 0047, 0062, 0128).
Seo is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely electrode-tab configurations in wound unit cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt Seo’s electrode-tab configuration within each of Ko’s cells—so that in each electrode, the active material layer includes a flat portion with constant thickness, as well as an inclined portion where the thickness decreases from both ends of the flat portion, and a tab is formed at a region corresponding to the inclined portion—with the reasonable expectation of enhancing battery characteristics by allowing uniform coating on the electrode current collector, as taught by Seo.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 20170094916 A) (Ko) in view of Li et al. (US 20150072202 A1) (Li), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Min et al. (US 20130209848 A1) (Min).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ko discloses the method of manufacturing an electrode assembly according to claim 1.
However, in being unconcerned with the winding speed, modified Ko fails to articulate a speed and, thus, that the winding speed of step (c) is 5–30 rpm.
Min teaches a device for manufacturing a stacked/folded electrode assembly with unit cells by winding (Abstract), where the winding jig may be operated at 20–200 rpm (¶ 0047).
Min is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely winding unit cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention's effective filing date, that Ko's winding must necessarily be performed at some speed, and, as demonstrated by Min, the skilled artisan would find it obvious to wind at 20–200 rpm as an appropriate speed. This range overlaps the instant 5–30 rpm such that the skilled artisan could have routinely selected within the overlap with a reasonable expectation of successfully winding at a suitable speed (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al. (KR 20170094916 A) (Ko) in view of Li et al. (US 20150072202 A1) (Li), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Choi et al. (US 20170207481 A1, from 05/11/23 IDS) (Choi).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ko discloses the method of manufacturing an electrode assembly according to claim 1.
However, in appearing unconcerned with the specific configuration of the active material layers within the electrode assembly, modified Ko fails to explicitly disclose that the electrode assembly includes a single-sided electrode in which an active material layer is formed only on the inner side of the electrode located at the outermost portion in a wound state.
Choi teaches a stacked/folded electrode assembly where unit cells are wound about a separation film (Abstract), where the outermost electrodes are single-sided electrodes in which no electrode mixture is applied to the outer surface of a current collector facing the assembly’s outside (¶ 0016). Choi teaches that such prevents shorting that otherwise occurs when active material contacts conductive material such as metal in the casing upon breakage (e.g., ¶ 0005, 0012).
Choi is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely wound electrode assemblies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adopt Choi’s single-sided electrode as the outermost electrode in Ko’s electrode assembly, where an active material layer is only applied to the inner side, with the reasonable expectation of preventing shorting that otherwise often occurs upon the battery’s breaking, as taught by Choi.
Conclusion
The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20130252069 A1: passing unit-cell stack wrapped by separation film through heating chamber, though it is unclear whether the cells are then further wound with the film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST 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 on 571-270-192. 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 2/4/2026