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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 14, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-17 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 “a sub pressing part comprising a drum part configured to press a partial surface of the stack, on which an edge part of an electrode active material layer provided on each of the electrodes is disposed, on the entire surface of the stack”.
However, it is unclear how the drum part is configured to press a partial surface of the stack while also pressing an entire surface of the stack.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “a sub pressing part comprising a drum part configured to press a partial surface of the stack, on which an edge part of an electrode active material layer provided on each of the electrodes is disposed, of the entire surface of the stack” in light of Fig. 6 of the instant specification.
Claims 2-17 are dependent on Claim 1 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the edge part of the electrode active material layer has a curved surface that gradually decreases in height towards an end thereof, and the drum part is configured to press the edge part and the separator so that the edge part of the electrode active material layer and the separator, which correspond to each other, are bonded to each other”.
However, Claim 1 sets forth a plurality of electrodes comprising an edge part of an electrode active material layer and a plurality of separators and therefore it is unclear which electrode and which separator of the plurality of electrodes and the plurality of separators Claim 2 is referencing.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the edge part of the electrode active material layer of one of the electrodes has a curved surface that gradually decreases in height towards an end thereof, and the drum part is configured to press the edge part of the electrode active material layer of the one electrode and one of the separators so that the edge part of the electrode active material layer of the one electrode and the one separator, which correspond to each other, are bonded to each other”.
Claims 3-5 and 15-16 are dependent on Claim 2 and therefore are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the stack comprises an electrode tab connected to the electrode, and the sub pressing part is connected to the electrode tab to press the partial surface of the stack, on which the edge part of the electrode active material layer provided on the electrode is disposed”.
However, Claim 1 sets forth a plurality of electrodes and therefore is unclear which electrode of the plurality of electrodes Claim 10 is referencing.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the stack comprises an electrode tab connected to one of the electrodes, and the sub pressing part is connected to the electrode tab to press the partial surface of the stack, on which the edge part of the electrode active material layer provided on the one electrode is disposed”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the edge parts are provided on both ends of the electrode active material layer provided on the electrode, respectively”.
However, Claim 1 sets forth “an edge part” and therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the edge parts”.
Furthermore, Claim 1 sets forth a plurality of electrodes and therefore is unclear which electrode of the plurality of electrodes Claim 14 is referencing.
For purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “wherein the edge partis provided on each of both ends of the electrode active material layer provided on each of the electrode, respectively” in light of Claim 13.
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, 6, 10-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2021-0030591 A, see also the previously provided English translation) and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2021-0108758 A, see also the provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses in Figs. 1-4 an apparatus (100) for manufacturing a secondary battery ([0001]), which comprises a pressing part (120) configured to press a stack (1) in which electrodes (10, 20) and separators (30, 40) are alternately disposed ([0017]),
wherein the pressing part (120) comprises:
a main pressing part (120) configured to press an entire surface of the stack (1) ([0018]-[0019]).
However, Park does not disclose a sub pressing part comprising a drum part configured to press a partial surface of the stack, on which an edge of an electrode active material layer provided on each of the electrodes is disposed, of the entire surface of the stack, wherein the drum part comprises: a body part having a rotational shaft.
Kim teaches an apparatus that prevents the problem of breakage of an electrode during pressing ([0019], [0040]-[0041]). Specifically, Kim teaches in Figs. 1-2 an apparatus (100) comprising a pressing part (50, 30) comprising:
a main pressing part (30) configured to press an entire surface of an electrode (10) ([0032]); and
a sub pressing part (50) comprising a drum part (51, 52) configured to press a partial surface of the electrode (10), on which an edge of an electrode active material layer (12) provided on the electrode (10) is disposed, of the entire surface of the electrode (10) ([0043]);
wherein the drum part (51, 52) comprises:
a body part having a rotational shaft (53) ([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pressing part of Park to include a sub pressing part comprising a drum part configured to press a partial surface of the stack of Park, on which an edge of an electrode active material layer provided on each of the electrodes is disposed, of the entire surface of the stack, wherein the drum part comprises: a body part having a rotational shaft, as taught by Kim, in order to prevent the problem of breakage of the electrodes of Park during pressing by the main pressing part of Park.
Furthermore, modified Park does not disclose wherein the drum part comprises an elastic part provided on an outer circumferential surface of the body part and configured to press the partial surface of the stack.
Though, modified Park discloses wherein a drum part may be formed to comprise an elastic part provided on an outer circumferential surface of a body part and configured to press a surface of the stack in order to prevent damage to sharp corners of the electrodes ([0022] of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the drum part of modified Park to comprise an elastic part provided on an outer circumferential surface of the body part and configured to press the partial surface of the stack of modified Park, as disclosed by modified Park, in order to prevent damage to sharp corners of the electrodes of modified Park.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) is deformed in shape only when the partial surface is pressed (Fig. 2 of Kim, [0022] of Park, wherein the elastic part is made of an elastic material and therefore is necessarily and inherently deformed in shape when the partial surface is pressed).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the stack (1 of Park) includes an electrode tab connected to one of the electrodes (10, 20 of Park, corresponding to 10 of Kim) (Fig. 1, [0002] of Park, e.g. see also uncoated portion 14 of Kim that functions as an electrode tab), and
the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) is connected to the electrode tab to press the partial surface of the stack (1 of Park), on which the edge of the electrode active material (16 of Kim) provided on the one electrode (10, 20 of Park, corresponding to 10 of Kim) is disposed (Fig. 2 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) is disposed on at least one of a front or rear side of the main pressing part (120 of Park, corresponding to 30 of Kim) (Fig. 2 of Kim).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses a heating part (150 of Park) configured to apply heat to the stack (1 of Park) in which the electrodes (10, 20 of Park) and separators (30, 40 of Park) are stacked (Fig. 3, [0028] of Park), and wherein the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) is disposed behind the main pressing part (120 of Park, corresponding to 30 of Kim) (Fig. 2 of Kim).
However, modified Park does not disclose wherein the heating part is disposed behind the pressing part, wherein the sub pressing part is disposed between the heating part and the main pressing part.
Though, modified Park discloses discloses wherein it is desirable to apply heat to the stack (1) during pressing in order to achieve more effective bonding (e.g. [0018], [0028] of Park).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to dispose a heating part behind the pressing part, such that the sub pressing part is disposed between the heating part and the main part, in order to apply heat to the stack prior to pressing the partial surface of the stack so as to achieve more effective bonding, as desired by modified Park.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the edge part is provided on each of both ends of the electrode active material layer (12 of Kim) provided on each of the electrodes (10, 20 of Park, corresponding to 10 of Kim), and
the drum part (51, 52 of Kim) is provided in a pair, which press the partial surfaces of the stack (1 of Park), on which the edge parts provided on both ends of the electrode active material layer (12 of Kim) are disposed, respectively (Fig. 2, [0044] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the edge part is provided on each of both ends of the electrode active material layer (12 of Kim) provided on each of the electrodes (10, 20 of Park, corresponding to 10 of Kim), and
the drum part (51, 52) is configured to press a surface comprising the partial surface of the stack (1 of Park), on which the edge part provided on both ends of the electrode active material layer (12 of Kim) is disposed (Fig. 2, [0044] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) is provided in a pair (e.g. 51, 52 of Kim), which are disposed corresponding to upper and lower portions of the partial surface of the stack (1 of Park) to press the upper and lower portions of the partial surface of the stack (1 of Park) at the same time (Fig. 2, [0044] of Kim).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2021-0030591 A, see also the previously provided English translation) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2021-0108758 A, see also the provided English translation), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Inose et al. (US PGPub 2010/0028767 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the drum part (51, 52 of Kim) is configured to press one edge part of one of the electrodes (10 or 20 of Park, corresponding to 10 of Kim) (Fig. 2 of Kim).
Specifically, modified Park discloses wherein the one electrode (10 or 20 of Park) is stacked with one of the separators (30 or 40 of Park) and therefore modified Park discloses wherein the drum part (51, 52 of Kim) is configured to press one edge part of one of the electrodes (10 or 20 of Park, corresponding to 10 of Kim) and one of the separators (30 or 40 of Park) so that the edge part of the electrode active material layer of the one electrode (10 or 20 of Park) and the one separator (30 or 40 of Park), which correspond to each other, are bonded to each other (Figs. 1-3 of Park and Fig. 2 of Kim).
However, modified Park does not disclose wherein the edge part of the electrode active material layer of the one electrode has a curved surface that gradually decreases in height towards an end thereof.
Inose teaches in Fig. 2C an electrode comprising an electrode active material layer (13), wherein an edge part (13D) of the electrode active material layer (14) of the electrode has a curved surface that gradually decreases in height towards an end thereof in order to more firmly attach the electrode active material layer ([0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the edge part of the electrode active material layer of the one electrode of modified Park to have a curved surface that gradually decreases in height towards an end thereof, as taught by Inose, in order to more firmly attach the electrode active material layer.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the elastic part is provided to be elastically deformable ([0022] of Park, wherein the elastic part is made of an elastic material and therefore is necessarily and inherently elastically deformable).
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2021-0030591 A, see also the previously provided English translation) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2021-0108758 A, see also the provided English translation) and Inose et al. (US PGPub 2010/0028767 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Yasuda (JP S53107786 A, cited on the IDS dated May 14, 2025, see also the provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the elastic part is provided to be elastically deformable in order to prevent damage to sharp corners of the electrodes (10, 20 of Park) ([0022] of Park).
However, modified Park does not disclose wherein the elastic part has an inner space, and air or fluid is filled into the inner space to maintain a preset pressure.
Yasuda teaches a pressing part that effectively applies pressure to a material to be bonded while enabling easy and precise control of the pressure (P2, L2-5).
Specifically, Yasuda teaches in Figs. 2-3 wherein the pressing part (8, 9) comprises a drum part comprising an elastic part provided on an outer circumferential surface of the body part, wherein the elastic part has an inner space, and air is filled into the inner space to maintain a preset pressure (P3, L11-16).
Yasuda further teaches wherein the elastic part is provided to be elastically deformable (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form drum part of modified Park such that the elastic part has an inner space, and air is filled into the inner space to maintain a preset pressure, as taught by Yasuda, in order to effectively apply pressure while enabling easy and precise control of the pressure, wherein such achieves an elastic part that is elastically deformable and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the stack of modified Park while preventing damage to sharp corners of the electrodes of modified Park, as desired by modified Park.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) further comprises an injection part (26a of Yasuda) configured to inject the air into the inner space of the elastic part through the body part (P4, L7-10 of Yasuda).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2021-0030591 A, see also the previously provided English translation) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2021-0108758 A, see also the provided English translation) and Inose et al. (US PGPub 2010/0028767 A1), as applied to Claim 3, and further in view of Gozdz et al. (US Patent No. 5,840,087 A).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the elastic part is made of a deformable synthetic resin in order to prevent damage to sharp corners of the electrodes (10, 20 of Park) ([0022] of Park).
However, modified Park does not disclose wherein the synthetic resin is provided as silicon rubber.
Gozdz teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a secondary battery comprising pressure rollers having deformable surfaces made of a deformable synthetic resin, wherein the synthetic resin is provided as silicon rubber (C1, L28-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize silicon rubber as the synthetic resin of modified Park, as taught by Gozdz, as such is a known deformable synthetic resin in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation that such would successfully prevent damage to sharp corners of the electrodes of modified Park, as desired by modified Park.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2021-0030591 A, see also the previously provided English translation) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2021-0108758 A, see also the provided English translation), as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Zuo et al. (CN 209656087 U, see also the provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a pressure is applied to the partial surface of the stack (1 of Park) by the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) (Fig. 2 of Kim).
However, modified Park does not disclose a pressure detection part configured to detect a pressure applied to the partial surface of the stack by the sub pressing part.
Zuo teaches a pressure detection part configured to detect a pressure applied by a pressing part in order to detect the real-time pressure applied to a stack ([0010]). Based on the real-time detection and display of the applied pressure, the pressing part can be adjusted, thereby improving the quality of stack fabrication ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a pressure detection part in the apparatus of modified Park, as taught by Zuo, in order to detect a pressure applied to the partial surface of the stack of modified Park by the sub pressing part of modified Park in real-time, thereby improving the quality of stack fabrication.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the pressure detection part comprises:
a sensor part (22 of Zuo) configured to sense a pressure ([0023] of Zuo);
a display part (30 of Zuo) configured to display the pressure sensed by the sensor part (22 of Zuo) ([0023]-[0024] of Zuo).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the sensor part (22 of Zuo) is disposed to face the sub pressing part (50 of Kim) with the partial surface of the stack (1 of Park) therebetween (Fig. 1, [0023]-[0024] of Zuo and Fig. 2 of Kim, e.g., wherein the sensor part 22 is disposed on the outer surface of the drum part).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 2021-0030591 A, see also the previously provided English translation) and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2021-0108758 A, see also the provided English translation), Inose et al. (US PGPub 2010/0028767 A1) and Yasuda (JP S53107786 A, see also the provided English translation), as applied to Claim 4, and further in view of Li et al. (CN 202013524 U, see also the provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Park discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the amount of air filled into the interior space of the elastic part may be controlled in order to adjust the applied pressure (P4, L7-10 of Yasuda) and therefore modified Park suggests a desire to measure a pressure of the air filled into the interior space of the elastic part.
However, modified Park does not disclose a pressure sensor configured to measure a pressure of the air filled into the interior space of the elastic part.
Li teaches a pressure sensor capable of measuring air pressure ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a pressure sensor, as taught by Li, in the apparatus of modified Park, wherein the pressure sensor is configured to measure a pressure of the air filled into the interior space of the elastic part of modified Park, in order to control the amount of the air filled into the interior space of the elastic part so as to adjust the applied pressure of the sub pressing part of modified Park, as desired by modified Park.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights