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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received August 19, 2026:
Claims 1-11 are pending.
The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment. However, the amendment introduces new 112 issues.
The core of the previous prior art rejection has been maintained with a new reference relied upon to render obvious the newly cited claim limitations.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: not having “of the at least one electrode” after “each second electrode” (line 8). Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 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 sets forth (1) “a plurality of first electrodes” (line 2), (2) “at least one second electrode” (line 2), (3) “an initial first electrode” (line 5), and “a second electrode” (line 13). Later portions of claim 1 as well as dependent claims are indefinite for either failing to refer back to the limitation in the initially claimed manner, or for introducing ambiguity as to what is being referred to, as set forth below.
Claim 1 further cites: (1) “at least one first electrode” (lines 17-18) (unclear how this relates to the plurality of first electrodes set forth), and “at least one second electrode” (line 18) (antecedent basis already set forth, thus unclear how this relates – same or different). Thus, the claims are unclear and indefinite. Since claims 2-11 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3 cites: (1) “a first electrode of the plurality of electrodes” (line 2) (which electrodes are meant, first electrode, second electrode, a different electrode?), (2) “the first electrode or the second electrode” (line 3) (which of the plurality of electrodes does the first electrode refer to; does “the second electrode” refer to the same “a second electrode” set forth in claim 1?). Thus, the claims is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 7 cites: (1) sets for the “each first electrode of the plurality of first electrodes” (line 2), but sets forth “the first electrode” (line 4), wherein it is unclear how these two relate (issue propagates through the claim with the seated first electrode); (2) ) sets for the “each second electrode of the plurality of first electrodes” (line 8), but sets forth “the second electrode” (line 10), wherein it is unclear how these two relate, and further how “the second electrode” refers to “a second electrode” given antecedent basis in claim 1 (issue propagates through the claim with the seated second electrode). Thus, the claims is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 8 cites: (1) the first electrode (multiple times) and (2) the second electrode (multiple times). However, there are a plurality of first electrodes (antecedent basis in claim 1), and a second electrode (as associated with the initial first electrode; wherein at least one second electrode is also set forth in claim 1). Thus it is unclear what the first electrode and second electrode refer to. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 9 cites: (1) the first electrode (multiple times) and (2) the second electrode (multiple times). However, there are a plurality of first electrodes (antecedent basis in claim 1), and a second electrode (as associated with the initial first electrode; wherein at least one second electrode is also set forth in claim 1). Thus it is unclear what the first electrode and second electrode refer to. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite. Since claim 10 is dependent upon claim 9, they are rejected for the same reason
Claim 10 cites: (1) the first electrode (multiple times) and (2) the second electrode (multiple times). However, there are a plurality of first electrodes (antecedent basis in claim 1), and a second electrode (as associated with the initial first electrode; wherein at least one second electrode is also set forth in claim 1). Thus it is unclear what the first electrode and second electrode refer to. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim 11 cites: (1) the first electrode (lines 2-3) and (2) the second electrode (line 3). However, there are a plurality of first electrodes (antecedent basis in claim 1), and a second electrode (as associated with the initial first electrode; wherein at least one second electrode is also set forth in claim 1). Thus it is unclear what the first electrode and second electrode refer to. Thus, the claim is unclear and indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20200023853 A (Jung et al.) in view of US 6423449 (Hong et al.).
As to claim 1, Jung et al. teach a method of manufacturing an electrode assembly in which a separator [14], a plurality of first electrodes [11], and at least one second electrode [12] are supplied to a stack table [110], the method, comprising:
stacking an initial first electrode of the plurality of first electrodes [11] and the separator [14];
winding the first electrode [11], with the separator [14] one or more times to form a folded separator; and
stacking a second electrode of the at least one electrode [12] and the initial first electrode [11] with the separator [14], and
forming a stacked object of the separator, the plurality of first electrodes, and the at least one second electrode, wherein the stacked object includes the first electrode being folded and at least one first electrode and at least one second electrode alternatingly disposed between the folded separator (figs. 1-3; para 0011, 0015. 0021, 0025-0026, 0037).
Jung et al. do not teach that the separator is wound around the initial first electrode such that the initial electrode is surrounded by the separator.
However, Hong, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an electrode assembly, where the initial first electrode (bottommost positive electrode in fig. 3) has the separator wound around it so as to surround the initial first electrode.
The combination of the teaching of Hong (regarding the separator being wound around the initial first electrode such that the initial electrode is surrounded by the separator) and Jung et al. would yield the predictable result of providing appropriate separator/electrode structure, wherein each element merely performs he same function as it does separately (i.e. the folded portion functions as it would separately, the wound to surround portion would perform as it would separately). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to combine the separator being wound around the initial first electrode such that the initial electrode is surrounded by the separator with the otherwise folded structure, as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing appropriate separator/electrode structure, wherein each element merely performs he same function as it does separately. “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
As to claim 2, Jung et al. teach wherein the plurality of first electrode [11], the at least one second electrode [12], and the separator [14] are heated when supplied to the stack table [110] (figs. 1-2; para 0011).
As to claim 3, Jung et al. teach gripping a first electrode of the plurality of electrodes [11] or the at least one second electrode [12] stacked on the stack table [110] by using a holding mechanism (gripper [170] – with first gripper [171] and second gripper [172]) and fixing the first electrode [11] or the second electrode [12] to the stack table [110] (figs. 1, 12; para 0069-0075).
As to claim 4, Jung et al. teach a heat-press step of heating and pressing the stacked object (figs. 3-5; para 0029-0032).
As to claim 5, Jung et al. teach wherein the heat-press step of heating and pressing the stacked object comprises:
heating the stacked object by heating a body of the stack table [110] (fig. 6; para 0038); and
surface-pressing the stacked object with a pair of pressing blocks (press unit [180] a pair of pressure blocks [181, 182]) with that moves in directions toward each other along a stack axis (figs. 1-5; para 0021, 0028-0034, 00071-0072).
As to claim 6, Jung et al. teach the separator [14] is unwound from a separator roll and continuously supplied to the stack table [110] while passing through a passageway formed to allow the separator to pass therethrough (pass through the separator heating unit [121] (fig. 2; para 0045).
As to claim 7, Jung et al. teach supplying each first electrode of the plurality of first electrodes to the stack table comprises:
seating the first electrode [11] on a first electrode seating table (first electrode mounting table [131]) before the first electrode [11] is stacked on the stack table [110] (para 0049); and
conveying the seated first electrode [11] to the stack table [110] by sucking the seated first electrode with a vacuum (para 0060), and
wherein supplying each the second electrode to the stack table comprises:
seating the second electrode [12] on a second electrode seating table (second electrode mounting table [141]) before the second electrode [12] is stacked on the stack table [110]) (para 0054); and
conveying the seated second electrode to the stack table by sucking the seated second electrode with a vacuum (para 0065).
As to claim 8, Jung et al. teach stacking the second electrode and the initial firt electrode, forming the stacked object includes (fig. 3; para 0015, 0031), alternatingly performing steps of:
rotating the stack table toward a first side to allow the stack table to face a first electrode stacking part at a time of stacking the first electrode so that the separator is folded in a zigzag manner so as to be positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
rotating the stack table toward a second side opposite the first side to allow the stack table to face a second electrode stacking part at a time of stacking the second electrode (fig. 2; para 0075, 0099-0101, 0108, 0112).
Regarding the initial first electrode being surrounded by the separator; Hong has been relied upon to render this limitation obvious. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 9, Jung et al. teach after stacking the second electrode and the initial first electrode (fig. 3), fixing a first electrode of the plurality of electrodes or the at least one second electrode to the stack table by holding the first electrode or the second electrode by using a holding mechanism (gripper [180] with first gripping [181] and second gripper [182]) at a time of stacking the first electrode or a time of stacking the second electrode (para 0021, 0070-0075, 0080-0083).
Regarding the initial first electrode being surrounded by the separator; Hong has been relied upon to render this limitation obvious. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.
As to claim 10, Jung et al. teach wherein the holding mechanism presses and fixes an upper surface of the first electrode stacked at an uppermost side of the stack table at the time of stacking the first electrode on the stack table and presses and fixes an upper surface of the second electrode stacked at the uppermost side of the stack table at the time of stacking the second electrode on the stack table (para 0021, 0070-0075, 0080-0083; fig. 12).
As to claim 11, Jung et al. teach an electrode assembly (fig. 3; para 0011) manufactured by the manufacturing method according to claim 1 (see the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake), wherein the electrode assembly is configured such that the first electrode and the second electrode are alternatingly disposed between the folded separators (fig. 3), and the initial first electrode at a lowermost end of the electrode assembly [14] (fig. 3).
Regarding being separately surrounded by the separator, Hong has been relied upon to render this limitation obvious. See the rejection to claim 1 for full details, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake. (Note: Hong et al.’s separately surrounded electrode is at a lowermost end of the electrode assembly; fig. 3.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amendment to claim 1 (requiring the separator surrounding the initial first electrode) overcomes the prior art of record.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendment, Hong is relied upon to render thus limitation obvious. Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights