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/Restrictions
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/22/2023, 09/09/2024, 01/02/2025 and 09/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 06/22/2023 and 04/01/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10 are amended, and Claims 1-10 are pending. The amendment to the specification and the drawings are accepted.
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 1-4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadowaki et al. (US 20100132308 A1), hereinafter "Kadowaki" in view of Park et al. (WO2014042424A1 - Machine Translation cited for reference), hereinafter "Park". Kadowaki and Park et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely manufacturing electrode assemblies.
In regard to Claims 1 and 9, Kadowaki et al. discloses a manufacturing device for an electrode assembly, the device comprising: an electrode supply unit configured for supplying an electrode (Kadowaki, [0109]), a separator supply unit configured for supplying a separator in first and second directions and a guide roller configured for switching a direction (reciprocating) in which the separator is supplied (Kadowaki, [0107-0108]). Kadowaki also discloses and embodiment wherein the electrode supply unit and the separator supply unit are located relative to each other such that one surface of the electrode supplied from the electrode supply unit is perpendicular to one surface of the separator supplied from the separator supply unit when the electrode is supplied from the electrode supply unit and the separator is supplied from the separator supply unit (Kadowaki, [0154]).
Further, Kadowaki et al. discloses wherein the electrode supply unit is further configured for moving the electrode or a stacked body including the electrode such that the separator is bent while being pressed during movement of the respective one of the electrode or the stacked body and such that the bent separator covers one surface of the electrode. (Kadowaki, [0121-0122, 0126]), which would also reasonably increase the adherence of the separator to the electrode. While Kadowaki discloses that the reciprocating guide roller is in continuous contact with the separator sheet and thereby facilitates it being folded and subsequently pressed (Kadowaki, [0102, Claim 2]), Kadowaki is silent as to the guide roller itself performing the pressing.
Park et al. discloses a manufacturing device for an electrode assembly, the device comprising electrode and separator supply units which supply the materials wherein the surfaces of the materials are perpendicular to each other and the separator is bent by while being pressed by a heated guide roller (pressing roll) during movement of the respective one of the electrode and such that the bent separator covers one surface of the electrode (Park, [12, 33]) with an advantage of this configuration being taught as greatly reducing the production cost to maximize the commercialization and improving the performance and safety of the cell stack (Park, [23-25]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a manufacturing device which uses a guide roller comprising a heating roller to perform pressing while the separator is being folded as taught in Park as a variation of the simultaneous pressing and folding already disclosed in Kadowaki as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Park and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claims 2-3, Kadowaki in view of Park et al. discloses the manufacturing device according to claim 1. Kadowaki et al. also discloses wherein: the electrode supply unit is further configured for supplying the respective one of the electrode or the stacked body from one side of the separator supply unit to the other side, thereby pressing the separator and wherein the guide roller is configured such that, when the electrode or the stacked body is moved, the guide roller rotates at a prescribed position to thereby switch the direction in which the separator is supplied (Kadowaki, [0122]).
In regard to Claim 4, Kadowaki in view of Park et al. discloses the manufacturing device according to claim 1. Kadowaki et al. also discloses wherein: the guide roller includes a first roller and a second roller located on one side of the separator when the separator is being supplied by the separator supply unit, the manufacturing device is configured for moving the electrode or the stacked body in a third direction to press the separator, the first roller and the second roller switches directions so that the separator is supplied in the third direction, and the third direction is perpendicular to the first and the second directions (Kadowaki, [0102, 0111]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadowaki et al. (US 20100132308 A1), hereinafter "Kadowaki" in view of Park et al. (WO2014042424A1 - Machine Translation cited for reference), hereinafter "Park" as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and further in view of Yano et al. (US 20120175406 A1), hereinafter "Yano". Kadowaki, Park and Yano et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely manufacturing electrode assemblies.
In regard to Claim 5, Kadowaki in view of Park et al. discloses the manufacturing device according to claim 4. While Kadowaki et al. discloses the first roller and the second roller are disposed separately from each other (roller pair), it uses adsorption to position the electrode at the separator for folding and pressing and thus is silent to the respective one of the electrode or the stacked body passes between the first roller and the second roller when supplied by the electrode supply unit.
However, a variation of this configuration is well known to the skilled artisan and is disclosed in Yano et al. which uses a pair of rollers (drums) disposed separately with a predetermined gap between them wherein a separation distance between the first roller and the second roller is determined according to the thickness of the material which then provides the electrode to be conveyed to that gap to be stacked (Yano, Abstract, [0050-0057, 0084]) with the benefit of this configuration taught as being able to be produced quickly in a continuous manner (Yano, [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide the first and second rollers in a configuration wherein the electrode passes between the rollers on the path to be stacked with the separator as taught in Yano as doing so would be an obvious variation that would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Yano and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadowaki et al. (US 20100132308 A1), hereinafter "Kadowaki" in view of Park et al. (WO2014042424A1 - Machine Translation cited for reference), hereinafter "Park" as applied to claims 1 and 4 above and further in view of Ashburner et al. (US 4484905 A), hereinafter "Ashburner". Kadowaki, Park and Ashburner et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely manufacturing assemblies.
In regard to Claims 7-8, Kadowaki in view of Park et al. discloses the manufacturing device according to claim 4. While Kadowaki et al. discloses a first and second guide roller (roller pair 60D) located on the other side of the separator (Figure 1) which switch the direction of the separator in alternating directions (reciprocate) and a third roller (60U) which is part of the reciprocating unit (Kadowaki, [0102]) and thus functions to switch the direction of the separator as an electrode presses the separator and facilitate a folding operation it is silent as to a configuration with a fourth roller which also facilitates switching and folding of the separator.
However, the skilled artisan of Kadowaki would be aware of such a configuration as is disclosed in Ashburner et al. which uses a 4 roller combination located on each side of a sheet like material wherein the sets of rollers facilitate folding of the sheet like material in opposite directions resulting in a zig zag folded sheet member (Ashburner, Abstract, Pgs. 5-6, Col 2-3). Ashburner et al. also discloses that one roller in each set is mounted on a pivotal arm (25 and 33) which would reasonable allow adjustable spacing and tension between the rollers as the skilled artisan would be capable of determining the optimized spacing without undue experimentation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a configuration of 4 rollers which are capable of switching the direction and folding the separator sheet as taught in Ashburner as the roller assembly which switches the direction and folds the separator sheet as disclosed in Kadowaki et al. as doing so would be an obvious variation to try for the skilled artisan and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights