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 office action addresses pending claims 1-12 and 14-20. Claims 1-7 were previously withdrawn. Claims 8 and 20 were amended and claim 13 was cancelled in the response filed 2/4/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daidoji et al. (US 2008/0060189) in view of Wu et al. (CN 108906969, see machine translation), Seo (US 2011/0129701), and Yanagihara et al. (US 2008/0292952).
Regarding claim 8, Daidoji discloses a method for production of a stacked battery having a plurality of positive electrode current collection tabs and a plurality of negative electrode current collection tabs drawn out from a stacked member (abstract). In a [third] embodiment, the positive electrode current collection tabs 7 are divided into groups 7A/7B in the direction in which the positive electrodes of the stack member are laid ([0069], Fig 5).
Every other positive electrode current collection tab 7 (the second, the fourth, and the sixth positive electrode current collector tab) are taken and laid one on the other to form the first group 7A ([0070]). Similarly, the other current collect tabs (the first, the third, and the fifth) are taken and laid one on the other to form the second group 7B ([0070]). The positions of the groups of current collection tabs are displaced from each other ([0022]).
That is, Daidoji teaches alternating one A-type electrode and one B-type electrode and forming an electrode stack by sequentially stacking the plurality of electrodes, wherein the at least one A-type electrode comprises a first electrode tab at a first location relative to the at least one A-type electrode, and wherein the at least one B-type electrode comprises a second electrode tab at a second location, different from the first location, relative to the at least one B-type electrode.
However, Daidoji does not explicitly disclose the method also comprising: supplying an electrode sheet toward a processing machine; forming, via the processing machine, a plurality of electrode tabs on the electrode sheet, and dividing the electrode sheet into a plurality of electrodes each having a predetermined size and having a respective electrode tab on the plurality of electrode tabs, wherein the plurality of electrodes includes the at least one A-type electrode and the at least one B-type electrode.
Wu discloses a pole piece die cutting mechanism with pole piece cutter comprising a pole piece for the tab die cut bat for adjusting the cutting tab die cut tab suitable for different size electrode plate adjusting mechanism (abstract). The die-cutting system 10 includes a die-cutting mechanism 700 and a cutting mechanism 800 for detecting defects of the cut die (page 5). The die-cutting mechanism includes an adjusting mechanism 710 (that adjusts in the X direction 711, and Y direction 712), cutting tab die 720, and cutting die 730 (page 5). At least two moulds are used for the cutting tab die 720 (pages 5-6, Figs 7-9); that is, there are multiple cutting tab dies in the processing machine. A cutting mechanism 800 [dividing] is downstream of the cutting tab dies 720 to cut and separate the electrode plates from each other (page 6, Figs 1-2 and 7-9, see vertical line at end which designates where cutting to separate occurs in Figs 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pole piece die cutting mechanism (including cutting tab dies and cutting mechanism) of the mechanism and method of Wu with the method of making the electrodes of Daidoji for the purpose of having a continuous system to make the electrodes.
With regards to the method of producing both an A-type electrode and B-type electrode from an electrode sheet (having electrodes at different positions), Seo teaches an electrode plate 310 [electrode sheet] having electrode tabs 320 placed at different locations relative to the adjacent unit electrode segments 310a (Figs 7A-B). That is, Seo teaches an A-type electrode and a B-type electrode adjacent one another in an electrode sheet where the electrode tabs are in different relative locations. Therefore, Seo establishes that it is known within the art to position electrode tabs of an electrode sheets at different locations relative to the unit segment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of different relative electrode tab placement of adjacent unit electrodes on an electrode sheet of Seo with the method of making an electrode stack with cutting mechanisms of Daidoji in view Wu for the purpose of producing one electrode sheet with necessary the electrodes.
However, while Daidoji discloses welding the electrode tabs 7 of groups 7A and 7B to a lead terminal ([0062]-[0063], Fig 5), modified Daidoji does not explicitly disclose after welding the plurality of electrode tabs of the sequentially stacked plurality of electrodes, welding the plurality of electrode tabs to a lead terminal.
Yanagihara discloses a secondary battery 100 with superior durability (abstract). The battery comprises a battery element 10 formed by stacking a plurality of electrode structures 14 (cathodes 12 and anodes 13) with an electrolyte layer 15 interposed between such electrode structures ([0024], Figs 1-2). Cathode bonding tabs 30a and anode bonding tabs 30b are respectively bonded [welded] to the cathodes 12 and anodes 13 ([0032], Figs 1-2). The cathode bonding tabs 30a are extended from the battery element 10 and are overlapped, and then are bonded [welded] to each other, while the anode bonding tabs 30b are extended from the battery element 10 and are overlapped, and then are bonded [welded] to each other ([0032]). Then, the bonded cathode bonding tabs 30a and the bonded anode bonding tabs 30b are respectively bonded to the cathode tab 40a and the anode tab 40b which conduct electricity generated in the battery element 10 external of the exterior member 50 ([0032], Figs 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine bonding [welding] the bonding tabs together before bonding [welding] the tabs to the electrode tab of Yanagihara with the welding of collection tabs and lead terminals of Daidoji for the purpose of overlapping, aligning, and holding the tabs before welding to the terminal.
Regarding claim 9, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu teaches that the a cutting mechanism cuts and separates the electrodes from the electrode sheet downstream of the formed electrodes (page 6, Figs 1-2 and 7-9, see vertical line at end which designates where cutting to separate occurs in Figs 7-9). Therefore, the dividing is considered concurrently because the cutting is part of the mechanism or is considered non-simultaneously because the cutting is downstream of the tab cutting, with the forming of the plurality of electrode tabs.
Regarding claim 10, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Seo teaches alternatively producing the A-type electrode and B-type electrode (Figs 7A-B), and Daidoji teaches alternatively stacking the A-type electrodes and B-type electrodes (Fig 5).
Regarding claim 11, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Daidoji teaches the electrode current collection tabs are bonded under predetermined welding conditions in the groups ([0063], [0099]). As the embodiment has the electrode tabs in two groups with alternate positive electrodes positioned in the opposite group, Daidoji has the electrode stacked and conformed to a predetermined stacking order.
Regarding claim 14, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Wu discloses two cutting tab dies 720 [a cut part], and thereby discloses at least two of a downstream cut part, a midstream cut part, and an upstream cut part configured to process the plurality of electrode tabs, where the upstream and midstream cut parts are located upstream with respect to the downstream cut part, and where the midstream and downstream cut parts are located downstream with respect to the upstream cut part in the flow direction, modified Daidoji does not explicitly disclose a third cutting tab.
However, Wu teaches that at least two cutting tab dies are used (page 6). Therefore, Wu is open to potentially more cutting tab dies.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add additional cutting tab dies (including having a total of three cutting tab dies) of Daidoji modified by Wu for the purpose of processing the electrode sheet in greater numbers. Thereby having an upstream cut part, a midstream cut part, and a downstream cut part in the flow direction of the electrode sheet.
Regarding claims 15-16, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitations of “wherein a sum of a width of the downstream cut part and a width of the upstream cut part is equal to a width of the midstream cut part” and “wherein the width of the downstream cut part and the width of the upstream cut part are equal to each other”, modified Daidoji does not explicitly disclose these limitations.
However, Daidoji modified by Wu suggests three cutting tab dies which cuts three electrode tabs at once, with Wu further teaching that each cutting tab die 720 cuts out around the electrode tab (see Figs 7-9) [thereby cutting out a part of an electrode tab], and Daidoji teaches electrode tabs that are displaced from each other in a stack ([0022]) and the tabs have the same width ([0096, and see Figs 5 and 10). As each cutting tab dies cuts out part of the respective tab in the upstream, midstream, and downstream; there are three tabs that are cut, with the midstream tab fully cut out, and the upstream and downstream tab partly cut out.
As all the tabs are the same width (Daidoji [0096]), the sum of the width of the upstream and downstream tabs equal the midstream tab that is cut because the full tab in the midstream is fully cut out while the upstream and downstream are only partly cut out (claim 15). Further, the sections that cut out the upstream and downstream part are equal to each other (claim 16).
Regarding claims 17-19, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. With regards to the limitations of (claim 17) wherein a distance between the downstream cut part and the midstream cut part is different from a distance between the midstream cut part and the upstream cut part; (claim 18) wherein the distance between the downstream cut part and the midstream cut part is greater than the distance between the midstream cut part and the upstream cut part; and (claim 19) wherein the distance between the downstream cut part and the midstream cut part is less than the distance between the midstream cut part and the upstream cut part: consider the following.
Daidoji modified by Wu suggests three cutting tab dies which cuts three electrode tabs at once, and Seo teaches alternating A-type electrode and B-type electrodes with different electrode tab positions. Further, the distance between the electrode tabs as shown in Seo Figure 7B satisfies the (claim 17) distance inequality, (claim 18) the downstream and midstream greater than upstream, and (claim 19) the downstream and midstream less than upstream (see annotated Fig 7B of Seo).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu teaches a conveying mechanism 900 which adjust the electrode sheet to the die-cutting mechanism 700 and cutting tab dies 720 (page 5, see Figs 1-2). Therefore, the operating [cutting of tabs] occurs after the electrode sheet is moved into the correct position for cutting the electrode tabs at the first portion [downstream part], the second portion [midstream part], and third portion [upstream part].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daidoji et al. (US 2008/0060189) in view of Wu et al. (CN 108906969, see machine translation), Seo (US 2011/0129701), and Yanagihara et al. (US 2008/0292952), as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (WO 2022/055317, see English language equivalent US 2023/0330885) and Holl et al. (US 2014/0053383).
Regarding claim 12, modified Daidoji discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. However, Daidoji does not explicitly disclose wherein the determining whether the stacking order of the at least A-type electrode and the at least one B-type electrode conforms to the predetermined stacking order is performed via visual inspection.
Kim teaches an electrode assembly manufacturing apparatus wherein an inspection member 215 is coupled with a cutter 210 ([0022], [0065]). A vision camera (visual inspection) may be used as the inspection member 215 ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the inspection member/vision camera of Kim with the method of manufacturing of Daidoji.
While modified Daidoji does not explicitly disclose using the inspection/vision camera as part of stacking, consider the following:
Holl discloses a method of producing electrode windings (abstract). In the manufacture, sensors are used to determined relative positioning of collector lugs relative to one another, as well as determining distances or variation between ([0011]). If the sensors 208a-d determines that an item is not in the correct position, the system is re-corrected ([0066]). That is, it is known within the art to use sensors in locations to determine if elements are properly aligned.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position a sensor (vision camera) as taught by Holl and Kim as part of the stacking process of Daidoji to determine whether the elements are properly aligned and stacked.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB BUCHANAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 PM (ET).
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JACOB BUCHANAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights