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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 08/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/25/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters:
“170”, “171”, and “172” have all been used to designate a holding mechanism (page 50, 2nd full paragraph) in Fig. 2
“51” and “190” have both been used to designate both a heating unit and a gripper (page 54, 3rd full paragraph) in Fig. 4
“190” and “191” have both been used to designate both a heating unit (page 50, 2nd full paragraph) and an induction heating coil (page 35, 1st paragraph) in Fig. 2
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the gripper (page 54, last paragraph; ref. 510) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 4, ref. 181 and Fig. 4, ref. 182. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/116846 A1) in view of Shim et al. (WO 2020/197246 A1). For prior art discussion see machine translations of WO 2020/116846 A1 and WO 2020/197246 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kim ‘846 discloses a method for manufacturing a secondary battery (title) comprising an electrode assembly (Page 1, paragraph 5, lines 11-14). The method comprises alternately stacking a plurality of electrodes (Page 4, paragraph 1, lines 1-3; Fig. 2, ref. 11), and therefore a first and second electrode, as well as separators (Fig. 2, ref. 12) along a stacking axis. Kim ‘846 further describes the process involving the application of heat from a first heating roller source (Page 8, 5th to last paragraph, lines 44-49; Fig. 6, ref. 121a), a second heating source (Fig. 6, ref. 121d), and a third heating source which comprises the combination of two rollers (Fig. 6, ref. 121b and 121c). The first heating source roller 121a and second heating source roller 121d each apply heat and pressure (Page 4, 4th to last paragraph, lines 41-43) to the entire stack. Therefore, the first heating source applies heat to the first portion of the stack comprising the center of the electrode stack. Additionally, the second heating source roller 112d applies heat and pressure simultaneously to the entire stack and hence to the second portion of the stack comprising the top portion of the stack. Kim ‘846 also teaches an example of the first, second, and third heating sources being independently controllable, as heating roller 121a is set to 50 °C, heating roller 121b is set to 60 °C, heating roller 121c is set to 70 °C, and heating roller 121d is set to 80 °C (Page 8, 4th and 5th to last paragraph, lines 40-49).
Kim ‘846 further discloses that the third heating source rollers 121b and 121c apply heat and pressure (Page 4, 4th to last paragraph, lines 41-43) to the entire electrode assembly stack. However, Kim ‘846 fails to teach that the first electrode includes a first electrode tab and that the third source of heat applies heat to the first electrode tab.
Shim teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly (title) comprising a plurality of separators (Page 4, paragraph 6, lines 17-23; Fig. 1, ref. 20a and 20b) arranged alternately between electrodes (Fig. 1, ref. 10a and 10b) where the electrodes comprise electrode tabs (Page 3, 3rd to last paragraph, lines 49-52; Fig. 1, ref. 33) and therefore the electrode assembly stack must include a first electrode tab as claimed.
Furthermore, Shim teaches that the electrode tabs of the electrode is a part connected to an external terminal (Page 3, 3rd to last paragraph, lines 49-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an electrode tab in the electrode of Kim ‘846 as taught by Shim to allow for connection of the electrode assembly of Kim ‘846 to an external terminal in a secondary battery.
Regarding claim 2, Kim ‘846 further teaches that there is a predetermined time period between the application of heat from the first heating source, roller 121a, to the application of heat from the second heating source, roller 121d during the lamination process when the electrode assembly is transported via through the heating rollers via the conveying roller (Page 4, 6th to last paragraph, lines 36-37; Fig. 1, ref. 110). Heating rollers 121a and 121d both apply heat to the entire stack along the stacking axis and hence to both the first and second portions of the stack meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘846 discloses an example where all four of rollers 121a, 121b, 121c, and 121d are set to 70 °C (Page 9, 5th to last paragraph, lines 41-45) resulting in a temperature-time plot revealing the surface temperature of the electrode as the laminate is conveyed through the heated rollers (Fig. 9). Furthermore, the predetermined time period between application of heat by the first source, 121a, and the second source, 121d is approximately 5 seconds (Fig. 9), anticipating the claimed range of 3 seconds to 60 seconds. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim ‘846 and Shim teach that the step of applying heat from the third source to the entire electrode assembly along the stacking axis, and hence to the first electrode tab via heating rollers 121b and 121c, occurs between the step of applying heat to the electrode assembly via heating rollers 121a, the first heating source, to the first portion of the stack and 121d the second heating source, to the second portion of the stack.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim ‘846 and Shim teach the application of heat to the first electrode tab from the third source, comprising heating rollers 121b and 121c, after stopping the application of heat via the first heating source, heating roller 121a, for a predetermined amount of time of a little over 1 second as (Fig. 9 of Kim ‘846).
13. Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (WO 2020/116846 A1) and Shim et al. (WO 2020/197246 A1) in view of Kim et al. (WO 2021/118197 A1). For prior art discussion see machine translations of WO 2020/116846 A1, WO 2020/197246 A1 and WO 2021/118197 A1.
Kim ‘846 and Shim are relied upon as described above.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the combination of Kim ‘846 and Shim teach that the first source of heat, 121a, and third source of heat, 121b and 121c apply heat to the entire electrode assembly and hence to the first electrode tab and first portion of the stack. However, the combination of Kim ‘846 and Shim fail to teach that the first and third sources of heat are induction heating coils.
Kim ‘197 teaches a method of manufacturing an electrode assembly (title) comprising a stack (Page 3, 2nd full paragraph, lines 9-13; Fig. 4, ref. 10) including electrodes (Fig. 4, ref. 11) and a separator (Fig. 4, ref. 12). Furthermore, the first roller (Page 3, 3rd full paragraph, lines 15-16; Fig. 4, ref. 110) is heated by at first heater (Page 6, 5th full paragraph, lines 25-36; Fig. 7, ref. 170’) which may be an induction heating coil (Fig. 7, ref. A2).
Furthermore, Kim ‘197 teaches that using an induction heating method allows the entire roller to be heated simultaneously so that temperature deviation can be maintained within a predetermined range, as well as allow for fast heating time and to prevent overheating (Page 6, 5th full paragraph, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an induction heating coil as taught by Kim ‘197 in the heated rollers 121a, 121b, 121c and 121d of Kim ‘846 to reduce heating time and improve temperature control to improve the efficiency and consistency of the electrode assembly process of Kim ‘846 and Shim.
Regarding 8, Kim ‘846 further discloses that the step of applying heat from the second source of heat, heating roller 121d, occurs via direct heating of the electrode assembly through the lamination apparatus (Page 9, 9th paragraph, lines 28-32) and hence through conduction, to the entire electrode assembly along the stacking axis and hence to the second portion of the stack as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, Kim ‘846 discloses an electrode assembly comprising a second portion which includes the top portion of the electrode assembly stack and a first portion which includes the center of the stack. Therefore, Kim ‘846 teaches the claimed limitation, a second portion of the electrode assembly which is at least one of the top and bottom portion of the stack along the stacking axis and a first portion which is in the central portion of the stack disposed between the top and bottom portions along the stacking axis.
Regarding claim 10, Kim ‘846 further discloses that the step of applying heat from the third source of heat, comprising heating rollers 121b and 121c, takes place over a time span of nearly four seconds from the point in time at which heat is first applied from the third source (Fig. 9), anticipating the claimed range of 1 second to 60 seconds. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
Double Patenting
14. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
15. Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, of copending Application No. 18/403,361, herein referred to as the ‘361 application, in view of Kim et al. (WO 2020/116846 A1) and further in view of Shim et al. (WO 2020/197246 A1). For prior art discussion see machine translations of WO 2020/116846 A1 and WO 2020/197246 A1.
Regarding claim 1 of the present application, claim 1 of ‘361 claims a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly comprising stacking a first electrode, a separator, and a second electrode into a stack along a stacking axis. Claim 1 of ‘361 further claims applying heat from a first source of heat to a first portion of the stack and applying heat from a second source of heat to a second portion of the stack while applying pressure to stack, wherein the first and second sources of heat are controllable independently of one another.
However ‘361 fails to claim a first electrode including a first electrode tab and a third source of heat, which is independently controllable from the first and second source, applying heat to the first electrode tab.
Kim ‘846 teaches a process for manufacturing an electrode assembly (Page 1, paragraph 5, lines 11-14) involving the application of heat from a first heating roller source (Page 8, 5th to last paragraph, lines 44-49; Fig. 6, ref. 121a), a second heating source (Fig. 6, ref. 121d), and a third heating source which comprises the combination of two rollers (Fig. 6, ref. 121b and 121c). Additionally, Kim ‘846 teaches an example of the first, second, and third heating sources being independently controllable, as heating roller 121a is set to 50 °C, heating roller 121b is set to 60 °C, heating roller 121c is set to 70 °C, and heating roller 121d is set to 80 °C (Page 8, 4th and 5th to last paragraph, lines 40-49). Kim ‘846 further discloses that the third heating source rollers 121b and 121c apply heat and pressure (Page 4, 4th to last paragraph, lines 41-43) to the entire electrode assembly stack.
Furthermore, Kim ‘846 teaches that using a plurality of heating rollers allows for a gradual increase in temperature of the electrode assembly which helps prevent deformation and damage to the separator (Page 1, 2nd to last full paragraph, lines 34-40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used three heating sources, or four heating rollers, instead of one or two to avoid damaging the separator during the lamination process of ‘361.
However, the combination of ‘361 and Kim ‘846 fail to teach a first electrode tab and that the third source of heat applies heat to the first electrode tab.
Shim teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly (title) comprising a plurality of separators (Page 4, paragraph 6, lines 17-23; Fig. 1, ref. 20a and 20b) arranged alternately between electrodes (Fig. 1, ref. 10a and 10b) where the electrodes comprise electrode tabs (Page 3, 3rd to last paragraph, lines 49-52; Fig. 1, ref. 33) and therefore the electrode assembly stack must include a first electrode tab as claimed.
Furthermore, Shim teaches that the electrode tabs of the electrode is a part connected to an external terminal (Page 3, 3rd to last paragraph, lines 49-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included an electrode tab in the electrode of Kim ‘846 as taught by Shim to allow for connection of the electrode assembly of ‘361 and Kim ‘846 to an external terminal in a secondary battery.
Regarding claim 2 of the present application, claim 2 of ‘361 claims the process further comprising stopping the application of heat to the first portion of the stack for a predetermined time period between the step of applying heat to the first portion of the stack and the step of applying heat to the second portion of the stack.
Regarding claim 3 of the present application, claim 3 of ‘361 claims the predetermined time period is in a range from 3 seconds to 60 seconds.
Regarding claim 4 of the present application, Kim ‘846 further teaches that the step of applying heat from the third source to the entire electrode assembly along the stacking axis, and hence to the first electrode tab via heating rollers 121b and 121c, occurs between the step of applying heat to the electrode assembly via heating rollers 121a, the first heating source, to the first portion of the stack and 121d the second heating source, to the second portion of the stack.
Regarding claim 5 of the present application, Kim ‘846 further teaches the application of heat to the first electrode tab from the third source, comprising heating rollers 121b and 121c, after stopping the application of heat via the first heating source, heating roller 121a, for a predetermined amount of time of a little over 1 second as (Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 6 and 7 of the present application, claim 4 of ‘361 teaches the first source of heat is an induction heating coil, such that the step of applying heat from the first source of heat to the first portion of the stack comprises applying induction heating from the induction heating coil to the first portion of the stack.
However ‘361 fails to teach that the third source of heat is also an induction heating coil.
Kim ‘197 teaches that using an induction heating method allows the entire roller to be heated simultaneously so that temperature deviation can be maintained within a predetermined range, as well as allow for fast heating time and to prevent overheating (Page 6, 5th full paragraph, lines 33-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an induction heating coil as taught by Kim ‘197 in the heated rollers 121a, 121b, 121c and 121d of Kim ‘846 to reduce heating time and improve temperature control to improve the efficiency and consistency of the electrode assembly process of ‘361, Kim ‘846 and Shim.
Regarding claim 8 of the present application, claim 5 of ‘361 claims the step of applying heat to the second portion of the stack comprises applying direct heating by conduction and/or radiation to the second portion of the stack.
Regarding claim 9 of the present application, claim 6 of ‘361 claims the second portion of the stack is at least one of the top portion and the bottom portion of the stack along the stacking axis, and the first portion of the stack is a central portion of the stack disposed between the top and bottom portions along the stacking axis.
Regarding claim 10 of the present application, Kim ‘846 further teaches that the step of applying heat from the third source of heat, comprising heating rollers 121b and 121c, takes place over a time span of nearly four seconds from the point in time at which heat is first applied from the third source (Fig. 9), anticipating the claimed range of 1 second to 60 seconds. MPEP § 2131.03 I.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ANDREW JON MCMULLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0127. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/N.A.M./
Nathan A McMullen
Examiner, Art Unit 1788
09/25/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
