DETAILED ACTION
Claim Analysis
The present application contains one active independent claim(s) (claim 1) and fifteen active dependent claims (claims 2 - 16). Claims 17 and 18 are currently withdrawn.
Examiner’s Comments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Column and line (or Paragraph Number) citations have been provided as a convenience for Applicants, but the entirety of each reference should be duly considered. Any recitation of a Figure element, e.g. “Figure 1, element 1” should be construed as inherently also reciting “and relevant disclosure thereto”.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 16) in the paper filed January 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 17 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 4 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the folding unit being capable of S-folding the electrode assembly sheet without cutting, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Specifically, the specification is clear that this is the inventive feature/concept of the claimed apparatus (see as-filed specification, pages 5 – 6) as the contribution over the prior art apparatuses. As such, the Examiner deems that these aspects must be included in the claims. Claim 3, while not positively reciting ‘S-folding’ or ‘without cutting’ as discussed in the specification is deemed to clearly articulate the concept of S-folding and would overcome this rejection if included in claim 1 (the additional aspects/limitations of claim 2 are not required in this case).
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.
(g)(1) During the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
Claims 1, 2, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a()2) as being anticipated by Nakakuki et al. (U.S. Patent App. No. 2014/0237808 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakakuki et al. disclose an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode assembly (Title; Abstract; Figures), the apparatus comprising: a folding unit (see Figure 1 and relevant disclosure thereto) comprising a pair of folding guides facing each other (elements 8 and 9), wherein the folding guides are configured to alternately fold an electrode assembly sheet being continuously supplied to thereby form an electrode stack having a predetermined size (as shown in Figures; noting that the clamps 8 and 9 secure the assembly such that the rest of the folding occurs via the motion shown in the Figures, especially Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Figures 1(j) – 1(l) illustrate a “magazine” that holds (fixes) the end portion and accommodates the folded electrode assembly. As discussed relative to elements 8 and 9, these elements (taken as the ‘first and second folding guides’) are movable and rotatable and disposed at alternative/opposite sides of the “magazine” that holds the folding electrode assembly (see Figures 1(b) versus 1(d), for example, as well as Paragraphs 0034 – 0047).
Regarding claim 14, Nakakuki et al. disclose rolls unwinding the electrode assembly meeting the claimed hanging and ‘guide roller’ limitations (as shown in Figures; e.g. element 7 and relevant disclosure related to this aspect).
Regarding claim 16, Nakakuki et al. disclose cutting the assembly once the desired amount has been formed from the feed (roll hanger) (at least Paragraph 0060). The Examiner notes that the claimed location is implied in Figures 1(j) – 1(l) as the ‘cut’ is illustrated between the feed roll and where the folding occurs (folding unit).
Claims 1 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a()2) as being anticipated by Bohm (U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0229360 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bohm disclose an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode assembly (Title; Abstract; Figures), the apparatus comprising: a folding unit (Folding device 10; Figures 6 and 7; and at least Paragraphs 0034 - 0038) comprising a pair of folding guides facing each other (Paragraphs 0030 - 0034), wherein the folding guides are configured to alternately fold an electrode assembly sheet being continuously supplied to thereby form an electrode stack having a predetermined size (as shown in Figures and discussed in above citations).
Regarding claim 2, Figure 6 illustrate a “magazine” that holds (fixes) the end portion and accommodates the folded electrode assembly (e.g. elements 25 – 27). As discussed relative to gripper units with gripper arms, Bohm discloses that these are movable, rotatable and disposed at alternative/opposite sides of the “magazine” that holds the folding electrode assembly (at least Paragraphs 0030 – 0032 and 0034).
Regarding claim 3, Bohn discloses the electrode sheet being folded by the grippers into S-shaped (Z-shaped) patterns (Figures 1-5) which necessarily requires the gripper arms to perform the claimed steps (see Paragraphs 0032 – 0038).
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 of this title, 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Regarding numbers (1), (2) and (4), see the rejection(s) provided below. Regarding the level of ordinary skill in the art, the general level of skill is taken as a highly skilled technician having at least a BS, MS, or PhD in the relevant field and 3-5 years experience.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 12 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakakuki et al. as applied above, and further in view of Nam (U.S. Patent App. No. 2019/0131659 A1).
Nakakuki et al. is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 14 and 16, while the Examiner maintains that Nakakuki et al. anticipates the claimed limitations for the reasons set forth above, the Examiner acknowledges that the folded “electrode assembly sheet” is just the separator that is folded, with the positive and negative electrodes being plates that are fed intermittently into the folds (see Figure 1 and relevant disclosure to elements 3 and 4). The Examiner deems that this is still anticipatory because “electrode assembly sheet” does not require the specifics of claim 12 and, as such, the sole separator is deemed sufficient to read on this term.
However, should it be shown that “electrode assembly sheet” is somehow art recognized to mean all of a ‘positive electrode sheet’, ‘negative electrode sheet’ and ‘separator’ tri-layered structure, the Examiner notes that the present claims would still be deemed obvious over the prior art because Nam teaches that a similar folding apparatus can be used for S-type (Z-type) folds for electrode assemblies comprising all three layers recited above (Figures and at least Paragraphs 0046 – 0055).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Nakakuki et al. to use the folding apparatus to fold the tri-layered ‘electrode assembly sheet’ comprising at least a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator therebetween as taught by Nam, as this would simplify the process by not needing separate cutting of the electrodes 3 and 4, as they would already be part of the sheet being folded, as taught by Nam above.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, neither Nakakuki et al. nor Nam disclose the specifics of how the end is fixed (held). However, the Examiner deems that a skilled artisan would we well versed in means to fix/hold ends of the electrode sheets and the presently claimed “pressing unit” is broad and generic to be covered by any sort of clamping means, for example. As such, the only modification to the apparatus of Nakakuki et al. would be to use a separate element 8 as the end fixing clamp and a distinct element 8 to do the folding. The Examiner deems this would have been obvious to a skilled artisan as it would have ensured that the end would not move during subsequent folds as it would be fixedly held at all times. A clamp necessarily has a ‘gap’ and a ‘gripper’ per claim 8 that meet the claimed limitations as fixedly holding the sheet.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Nam discloses the claimed limitations when using a solid electrolyte sheet as the separator, etc. (see Nam citations above).
Regarding claim 15, while Nakakuki et al. is silent about assist ‘helper grippers’, the Examiner deems this would be routine and obvious modification well within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art if the unrolling needed extra ‘help’ or ‘assistance’ for whatever reason (static build up, etc). I.e. a skilled artisan would have clearly recognized the use of ‘helper grippers’ to help/assist in the unrolling of the feed sheet if the sheet needed it. As such, the Examiner does not find anything novel about this added limitation when viewed through the eyes of a skilled artisan, even if not explicit in the prior art teaching above.
Claims 4, 7 – 9, and 12 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bohn as applied above, as evidenced by Nam (‘659 A1).
Bohn is relied upon as described above.
Regarding claim 4, Bohn discusses positioning the cathodes and anodes by gripper arms (Paragraphs 0030 0032), but does not disclose the arms when talking about the grippers that hold the sides of the sheet for the folding (at least Paragraphs 0034 – 0038).
However, the Examiner deems that for the grippers to hold and move the sheets to form the S-type (Z-type) folds as shown in Bohn (Figures), it would have been a matter of routine selection to use gripper arms meeting the claimed limitations in order to facilitate the ability to move the sheets as desired. I.e. the Examiner does not find the use of ‘arm members’ that are movable and rotatable as novel to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicants’ invention to modify the device of Bohn to include gripper arm members meeting the claimed limitations as these are conventional aspects of movable grippers that are not deemed novel when viewed through the eyes of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bohn fails to disclose the specifics of how the end is fixed (held). However, the Examiner deems that a skilled artisan would we well versed in means to fix/hold ends of the electrode sheets and the presently claimed “pressing unit” is broad and generic to be covered by any sort of clamping means, for example. As such, the only modification to the apparatus of Bohn would be to use a separate fixing/holding element as the end fixing clamp within the housing 25. The Examiner deems this would have been obvious to a skilled artisan as it would have ensured that the end would not move during subsequent folds as it would be fixedly held at all times. This could be as simple as a clamp, since a clamp necessarily has a ‘gap’ and a ‘gripper’ per claim 8 that meet the claimed limitations as fixedly holding the sheet.
Regarding claim 9, Bohn discloses the opening into which the sheet is folded and a skilled artisan would readily appreciate that alignment of the folded sheets is critical to prevent shorts in the battery. As such, the use of an ‘alignment unit’ meeting the claimed limitations is deemed obvious and conventional to a skilled artisan as a skilled artisan would clearly recognize that mis-alignment of the stacked sheets would adversely impact the quality of the batteries produced.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Nam discloses the claimed limitations when using a solid electrolyte sheet as the separator, etc. (see Nam citations above).
Regarding claim 14, Bohn fails to disclose how the electrode sheet is fed into the apparatus shown. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that ‘roll hangers’ and ‘guide rollers’ (feed rollers) are well known in the art to provide electrode sheets into a folding apparatus1. As such, the claimed limitations would have been a routine and obvious modification to the Bohn disclosure as such limitations are conventional in the arts.
Regarding claim 15, while Bohn is silent about assist ‘helper grippers’, the Examiner deems this would be routine and obvious modification well within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art if the unrolling needed extra ‘help’ or ‘assistance’ for whatever reason (static build up, etc). I.e. a skilled artisan would have clearly recognized the use of ‘helper grippers’ to help/assist in the unrolling of the feed sheet if the sheet needed it. As such, the Examiner does not find anything novel about this added limitation when viewed through the eyes of a skilled artisan, even if not explicit in the prior art teaching above.
Regarding claim 16, Bohn fails to disclose how the electrode sheet is cut once the desired number of folds is reached. However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that ‘cutter units’ meeting the claimed limitations are well known in the art to provide electrode sheets of the correct size2. As such, the claimed limitations would have been a routine and obvious modification to the Bohn disclosure as such limitations are conventional in the arts.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claim 5 requires rolling elements at an end of each of the first and second folding guides. The Examiner deems that this is clearly not taught in Nakakuki et al. as they disclose ‘clamps’ to secure the portions as their ‘folding guides’. Bohn is less clear as they disclose gripper elements, but talk about how ‘delicate’ they are (Paragraph 0034) and how they must grip to pull tension. The Examiner deems that there is insufficient specificity or guidance in the art to meet the claimed limitations relative to claim 5 (and, by dependency, claim 6) for this reason. Regarding claim 10, neither reference teaches a specific ‘alignment unit’, much less an alignment unit that meets the claimed limitations. As such, claim 10 (and, by dependency, claim 11) are deemed novel over the prior art teachings.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M BERNATZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1505. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (variable: ~0600 - 1500 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/KEVIN M BERNATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
March 30, 2026
1 For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, one need only look at the other 102 art applied to Nakakuki et al. and the feeder (guide) rolls disclosed therein (Figures, at least element 7 and relevant disclosure thereto).
2 For support of the Examiner’s position of Official Notice, one need only look at the other 102 art applied to Nakakuki et al. and the cutter unit disclosed therein (Figures, at least element 13 and relevant disclosure thereto).
Prosecution Insights