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 (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 4/14/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 10-13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group (Group II), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-9 are under examination.
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 4 and 6 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 4 recites “the binder composition is provided at an end portion in a direction in which an electrode tab of the unit cell is disposed.” It is not clear whether “an end portion” of Claim 4 corresponds to “at least one end portion” of Claim 1, or if Claim 4 is reciting another end portion. For
the purpose of this action, “an end portion” of Claim 4 will be examined as “the end portion” of Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recites “the binder composition is provided in a region at a distance of 0.15 W from an end of the folding separator when a width of the folding separator is W.” Is the region of Claim 6 formed by the “providing a binder composition” method step in Claim 1, or is “a region” of Claim 6 reciting another binder region? Additionally, the definition of the claimed region is unclear:
Interpretation #1: Is the claimed region defined as an end of the folding separator to an interior point “0.15 W?” If so, the region of Claim 6 is consistent with the requirements of Claim 1, which has the binder composition provided to “at least one end portion.” This interpretation will be used for this office action.
Interpretation #2: Is the claimed region required to start at a distance of “0.15 W” away from the end portion of the separator (i.e., leave an uncoated “gap” width of 0.15 W at the end portion)? This interpretation appears to conflict with Claim 1, which requires the binder be provided to the end portion.
The limitation “0.15 W” is also unclear. Examiner’s best understanding of the limitation “0.15 W” is “15% of the width (W) of the folding separator.” Further clarification of this limitation is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al., US 20160293994 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses a method of preparing an electrode assembly ([0020-0025]), the method comprising:
disposing a plurality of unit cells on a first surface of a folding separator (cells 210-213 are placed on the coating layer 226 of folding separator sheet 220” [0078-0082], Figs. 10-11);
fixing the unit cells on the first surface of the folding separator (cells 210-213 are arranged on coating layer 226, coating layer 226 comprises a binder [0076-0082]);
providing a binder composition to at least one end portion of a second surface of the folding separator (coating layer 228 formed on lower surface of separator [0076-0082], 228 extends to separator end portion 221, see Fig. 10); and
stacking the unit cells by folding the folding separator ([0006, 0050, 0076-0083], Fig. 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi – Annotated Fig. 10 (L) and Fig. 11 (R)
Regarding Claim 3, Choi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Choi discloses the binder composition is provided along a longitudinal direction of the folding separator (coating layer 228 applied to separator fabric 227 [0078], see Annotated Fig. 10 in Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Choi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Choi discloses the binder composition is provided at an end portion (coating layer 228 is present at end 221 of folding separator sheet [0074], see coating layer 228 also present at tape 225, Fig. 11). Regarding the binder composition being present “in a direction in which an electrode tab of the unit cell is disposed,” Choi discloses the coating layer overlaps with an electrode assembly in a height direction before stacking (Fig. 10), and the coating layer also overlaps with all assemblies once stacked (Fig. 11). Choi also discloses the separator has a larger width than the unit cells, but does not overlap so significantly to prevent access to the electrode tabs ([0059, 0064 0097]).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Choi discloses the binder region (coating layer 228) is formed on the bottom surface of the separator fabric 227, extending to the end portion 221 of the separator (see Fig. 10). Choi’s binder (228) is applied to a portion of the separator including the claimed “region at a distance of 0.15 W from an end of the folding separator when a width of the folding separator is W.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al., US 20170237110 A1.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Choi discloses the fixing of the unit cells is performed by lamination (the cells are disposed on the separator, followed by lamination [0026, 0101]). Choi does not specifically disclose the lamination process includes “heating and pressing” the unit cells to the separator as claimed. However, a lamination step comprising heating and pressing is taught by Chen et al.
Chen teaches heating and pressing an electrode group will adhere the electrode group to a
separator, which creates a more stable laminated cell that can be later stacked in a cell pack ([0046, 0061-0064]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to heat and press each unit cell to the separator, in the method of Choi, as Chen teaches heating and pressing will adhere an electrode group to a separator, and thereby create a more stable cell.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Choi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Choi does not disclose a method including “after stacking of the unit cells, further comprising heating and pressing the electrode assembly in which the unit cells are stacked” (Claim 8) and also does not disclose “the heating is performed at a temperature of 50°C to 150°C, and the pressing is performed under a pressure condition of 10 kPa to 300 kPa” (Claim 9). However, these limitations are also taught by Chen.
Chen teaches heating and pressing a cell pack will adhere each stacked electrode group to a separator, which prevents movement of the individual electrode groups ([0061-0063]). Chen teaches the heating and pressing operations should be performed with a temperature range of 50° C to 200° C and a pressure range of 0.1 MPa to 1.5 MPa ([0062]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to heat and press the electrode assembly after stacking the unit cells, in the method of Choi, as Chen teaches heating and pressing will prevent movement of the individual electrode groups in the laminated pack.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kinoshita et al., US 20150050541 A1.
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, Choi discloses all limitations as set forth above. Choi does not disclose the binder application amount is “in a range of 0.1 g/m2 to 1.0 g/m2” (Claim 5), and also does not disclose the binder composition “comprises an aqueous binder” (Claim 7). However, these limitations are taught by Kinoshita.
Kinoshita teaches an inorganic porous material coating layer can be applied to a separator surface ([0060-0073]). Kinoshita teaches the coating layer comprises inorganic filler particles, which provide electric insulation and heat resistance, and an aqueous binder is used to bind the inorganic filler particles and/or function as a thickening agent ([0040, 0069-0073]). Kinoshita teaches the coating weight should be within a range of 0.3 g/m2 to 2 g/m2 to ensure the coating layer has sufficient strength without negatively affecting internal resistance of energy density of the battery ([0070]).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the inorganic porous material coating layer of Kinoshita, as the binder composition of Choi, in order to obtain electrical insulation and heat resistance properties in the separator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
