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/Restriction
Applicant’s election of Claims 1-13 and 20 in the reply filed on 07/30/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it is advised to correct Paragraph [0044] of the instant specification such that the entity “AP” corresponds to the negative electrode plate and “CP” corresponds to the positive electrode plate in order to maintain clarity of the anode and cathode respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (WO 2022/031037 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 20, Yoo teaches a winding core for an electrode assembly for winding an anode, separator, and cathode (Paragraphs [0002]-[0004]) wherein the winding core has a first winding core member having a semicircular shape and second winding core member that forms a cylindrical shape when coupled with the first winding core member and has an uneven surface formed along the longitudinal direction such that protrusions and grooves interlock with each other on the joint surface with the first winding core member (Paragraph [0014]), and the first core member and second core member are connected to a support member (Paragraph [0043]; Fig. 3) wherein the first and second winding members of Yoo are analogous to the pair of “clamps” of the instant claims, and the support member of Yoo is analogous to the “base” of the instant claims.
Claim 20 includes apparatus and article language with regards to the recitation of winding a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate, omitting the separator of Claim 1. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed apparatus is the same as what is taught by the prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP §2114(II). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed apparatus appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although used for a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed apparatus and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP §2113.
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon teaches an end (separator) of a sheet-type laminate may be interposed between the joint surface of the first winding core member and the second winding core member (Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoo does not teach the concavity of peripheral regions compared to the protrusions. However, a relative concavity of peripheral regions is inherent when a protrusion, which is convex by common definition and state of understanding in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, exists. The burden is upon the Applicant to prove otherwise. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977); see also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoo teaches that the corners of a protrusion can be formed to be rounded (Paragraph [0053]).
Regarding Claims 5-8, Yoo teaches that the at least two protrusions can be arranged spaced apart from each other (Paragraph [0055]; Fig. 2). Yoo does not teach the exact spacing or distance of the protrusions with respect to each other and the clamp ends.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Yoo to optimize the spacing or distance of the protrusions with respect to each other and the clamp ends to arrive at the claimed configurations since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the spacing or distance of the protrusions with respect to each other and the clamp ends by the desire to avoid catching or damaging the separator during the forward and backward operation of the first and second core members to separate the electrode assembly from the core, as taught by Yoo (Paragraph [0054]).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoo teaches that the width and height of a protrusion can be formed to be 50% or less of the diameter of the core Paragraph [0052]). Yoo does not teach the exact length or height of the protrusions.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Yoo to optimize the length and height of the protrusions to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the length and height of the protrusions by the desire to avoid protrusion deformation and damage to the separator interposed between the joint surfaces as taught by Yoo (Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoo teaches that the first and second core members may be formed with asymmetric shapes on both side in the longitudinal direction (Paragraph [0047]) and the volume of the cores may be formed at 50 to 60% for the relatively large member and 40 to 50% for the relatively small member (Paragraph [0048]). Yoo does not teach a height ratio of the first and second core members.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings of Yoo to optimize the height ratio of the first and second core members to arrive at the claimed configuration since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the height ratio of the first and second core members by the desire to avoid strain on the relatively smaller core member as taught by Yoo (Paragraph [0048]). Furthermore, while Yoo teaches the dimension of volume in regards to the size ratio between the first and second core members instead of height, it is understood from the geometric configurations of the winding core members in Figs. 2 and 4 of Yoo and Figs. 3 and 4a-b of the instant application that the “amount” of each asymmetric core member is a significant variable and cross-sectional height is but one metric by which to measure it within the constant spatial volume of the combined core.
It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the parts or configuration of Yoo to arrive at the claimed invention, since “first” and “second” core members are merely an arrangement of parts which can be interchanged by rotation due to the nature of the circular cross-section to yield a different configuration, and thus the ratio of the instant application can be met by routine optimization as discussed above. For example, Fig. 6 in Yoo shows the first core member (Item 110) as the top piece as smaller than the second core member (Item 120) as the bottom piece, but rotating the embodiment 180⁰ yields an inverted configuration which may be arbitrarily assigned part identification of “first” and “second” core members to the top and bottom pieces respectively, with a different height ratio from the initial configuration. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) in MPEP §2144.04.
Regarding Claim 11, Yoo teaches that the joining surface of the first core member and the second core member can be formed to be inclined at 0 to 1⁰ along both sides in the longitudinal direction (Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoo teaches a circular cross-section of the combined first and second core members (Paragraph [0014]; Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoo teaches an embodiment in which the left round part of a first clamp has greater curvature than that of the right round part of the first clamp, and the left round part of a second clamp has smaller curvature than that of the right round part of the second clamp, and the inner and outer surfaces of each clamp are connected in a rounded manner (Fig. 6b, Embodiment 3) wherein the first and second core members of Yoo are analogous to the first and second “clamps” of the instant claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights