Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 15, 2026
Application No. 18/036,836

METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY FOR ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE, ELECTRODE ASSEMBLY OBTAINED BY SAME METHOD, AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 12, 2023
Examiner
DOMONE, CHRISTOPHER P
Art Unit
1725
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Lg Energy Solution, LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
497 granted / 592 resolved
+19.0% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
610
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
§112
14.1%
-25.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 592 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 § 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. Claims 1, 3-5, 9, 11, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattia et al. (EP 3420606 (as cited in 01/08/2025 IDS)). Considering Claim 1, Mattia disclose a method of manufacturing an electrode assembly for an electrochemical device (method of manufacturing separator and electrode assembly for a battery [0001, 0048, 0049]), the method comprising: preparing a porous polymer film member having a porosity in a range of 40 to 70 vol% (separator is polymeric [0014], Comparative Example 1 represents a prepared uncalendared separator material [0038, 0037, 0048] which has a porosity of 66% to 70% [Table 2]); preparing a separator for the electrochemical device by pressing the porous polymer film member to form a porous separator substrate (a separator is prepared by calendaring the material film with pressure, and the separator substrate remains porous [0048, Table 5]); and manufacturing the electrode assembly comprising the separator, a cathode, and an anode (lithium battery prepared by inserting separator layer in between each cathode and anode pair [0049]), wherein after the preparing of the separator, a thickness of the porous separator substrate is 90% or less compared to a thickness of the porous polymer film member which is not yet pressed (Inventive Example 2 of lithium battery has a thickness range of 18 to 21 µm [Table 2], Comparative Example 1 which represents a prepared uncalendared separator material has a thickness of 43 to 48 µm [Table 2], so the thickness of the porous separator substrate is less than 90% compared to the uncalendared thickness). Considering Claim 3, Mattia discloses that after the preparing of the separator, the porous separator substrate has a porosity in a range of 30 to 60 vol% (maximum porosity of formed separator is 45%, preferably 40%, more preferably 35%, and most preferably 30% [0014], such as 37% or 30% [Table 5]). Considering Claim 4, Mattia discloses that the preparing of the separator is performed using a pressing roller (made with supercalendar rolls [0040, 0048]). Considering Claim 5, Mattia discloses that the preparing of the separator is performed by hot pressing (roll pressing is heated to increase the effect of the pressure [0024]). Considering Claim 9, Mattia discloses an electrode assembly obtained by the method of claim 1 (lithium battery prepared by inserting separator layer in between each cathode and anode pair [0049], see claim 1), wherein the separator comprises the porous separator substrate (a separator is prepared by calendaring the material film with pressure, and the separator substrate remains porous [0048, Table 5]). Considering Claim 11, Mattia discloses a method of manufacturing an electrochemical device comprising the electrode assembly obtained by the method of claim 1 (method of manufacturing separator and electrode assembly for a battery [0001, 0048, 0049], lithium battery prepared by inserting separator layer in between each cathode and anode pair [0049], see claim 1), wherein the separator comprises the porous separator substrate (a separator is prepared by calendaring the material film with pressure, and the separator substrate remains porous [0048, Table 5]). Considering Claim 12, Mattia discloses that the electrode assembly is prepared by disposing and laminating the separator between the cathode and the anode (batteries prepared by making a stack of alternating anodes and cathodes with separator layers in between [0049]). Considering Claim 14, Mattia discloses an electrochemical device manufactured by the method of claim 11 (lithium battery prepared by inserting separator layer in between each cathode and anode pair [0049], see claim 11). 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. Claims 2, 7, 10, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattia et al. (EP 3420606 (as cited in 01/08/2025 IDS)) and further in view of Park et al. (WO2020/013671 (corresponding US PGPub 2021/0210818 used for citation purposes)). Considering Claims 2, 10 and 13, Mattia discloses that the separator comprises the porous separator substrate (a separator is prepared by calendaring the material film with pressure, and the separator substrate remains porous [0048, Table 5]). The separator may be coated with a ceramic spray for example that accord certain properties. However, Mattia is silent to a product and method of forming a composite coating layer containing inorganic particles and a binder resin on one side or both sides of the porous separator substrate. Park discloses a separator for an electrochemical device including a porous substrate made of a porous polymer material [Abstract]. On at least one surface of the porous substrate, an inorganic coating layer is formed which includes inorganic particles and a binder resin [0014]. The separator is used to make and provide a battery [Abstract, 0122]. This provides a separator with excellent durability to prevent damages caused by external impact to ensure low resistance and high ion conductivity, and thus can provide improved output characteristics [0021]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separator of Mattia with the inorganic coating of Park in order to provide the separator with excellent durability to prevent damages caused by external impact to ensure low resistance and high ion conductivity, and thus can provide improved output characteristics [0021]. Considering Claim 7, Mattia discloses that the fibers may be made from longstanding fiber manufacturing methods such as wet spinning and slurry processing from a wet method [0030, 0032]. The fibers may comprise polyolefins [0016]. However, Mattia is silent extracting a pore-forming agent. Park discloses a separator for an electrochemical device including a porous substrate made of a porous polymer material [Abstract]. The separator is used to make and provide a battery [Abstract, 0122]. The porous substrate is obtained by a method of a wet process [0058]. A pore-forming agent is removed [0058] from a polyolefin polymer resin [0059, 0061]. This process improves air permeability while maintaining the strength of the separator [0061] so as to provide the separator with excellent durability to prevent damages caused by external impact to ensure low resistance and high ion conductivity, and thus can provide improved output characteristics [0021]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separator method of Mattia with the wet manufacturing method of Park in order to improve air permeability while maintaining the strength of the separator [0061] so as to provide the separator with excellent durability to prevent damages caused by external impact to ensure low resistance and high ion conductivity, and thus can provide improved output characteristics [0021]. Considering Claim 15, Mattia discloses an electrochemical device manufactured by the method of claim 11 (lithium battery prepared by inserting separator layer in between each cathode and anode pair [0049], see claim 11). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattia et al. (EP 3420606 (as cited in 01/08/2025 IDS)) and further in view of Ikemoto et al. (PGPub 2011/0262814). Considering Claim 6, Mattia is silent to a pressing pressure range of 3.0 to 8.0 MPa. Ikemoto discloses a battery separator [0036]. The microporous film is compressed in order to absorb minute thickness unevenness [0016]. Pressure may be performed at 5 MPa [0046, 0129]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separator method of Mattia with the compression pressure of Ikemoto in order to absorb minute thickness unevenness [0016]. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattia et al. (EP 3420606 (as cited in 01/08/2025 IDS)) and further in view of Zhang et al. (PGPub 2024/03113347). Considering Claim 8, Mattia discloses that the fibers may be made from longstanding fiber manufacturing methods such as melt spinning [0030, 0032]. However, Mattia is silent to a dry manufacturing method in which pores are formed by melting and extruding a polymer resin and subsequently stretching the extruded polymer resin. Zhang discloses a battery separator that comprises a microporous membrane having one or more layers of polyolefin resin [Abstract, 0023]. As an alternative to the wet process, a dry process is employed that comprises melting a mixture, extruding the melt into a sheet, orienting the sheet, and stretching the sheet to form micropores [0023, 0033, 0041, 0042]. The separator exhibits improved resistance [0007] as well as improved compression resistance, rebound, or both [0009]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the separator method of Mattia with the dry manufacturing method of Zhang in order to provide the separator with improved resistance [0007] as well as improved compression resistance, rebound, or both [0009]. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE whose telephone number is (571)270-7582. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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. /CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner Art Unit 1725
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 12, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 19, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600858
ION SELECTIVE MEMBRANES FOR ORGANIC ELECTROCHEMICAL PROCESSES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12603340
ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12586801
COMPRESSOR AND COMPRESSOR CONTROL METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580278
BATTERY CELL AND ELECTRIC APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580268
BATTERY ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+25.1%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 592 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

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

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month