2,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 1-15 in the reply filed on 08/05/2026, is acknowledged.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 & 13-15 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 § 102
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 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)(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 & 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Young (US20240304848).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Applicants’ claims are directed to a method and an apparatus, respectively.
Regarding Claims 1 & 4-6, Young discloses the method for manufacturing an electrode assembly, comprising: A). stacking a first electrode, a separator, and a second electrode into a stack along a stacking axis (See [0033] electrode 11, electrode 13; separator 14 or 15 & [0038] stacking); B) 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 (See [0044]-[0050] & [0074-0082] induction heater and heating controller).
Regarding Claim 4, Young discloses the method of claim 1, wherein 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 (See[0049} Induction heating coil).
Regarding Claim 5, Young discloses the method of claim 4, wherein 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 (See [0044]-[0051] heating is performed via induction to the first portion and second portion of the stack).
Regarding Claim 6, Young discloses the method of claim 5, wherein 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 wherein the first portion of the stack is a central portion of the stack disposed between the top and bottom portions along the stacking axis (See Figure 2 See stack in Figure in the induction heater).
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 2, 3, 7, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US20240304848).
Applicants claims are directed to a method.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, & 11, Young discloses the method of Claim 1, 2, & 4, respectively except wherein, the method of Claim 1 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, the method of Claim 2, wherein the predetermined time period is in a range from 3 seconds to 60 seconds, or the method of claim 4, wherein the step of applying induction heating is performed for a time period in a range from 1 second to 60 seconds.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Claim 1 to further comprise 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, into the method of Claim 2, wherein the predetermined time period is in a range from 3 seconds to 60 seconds, and into the method of claim 4, wherein the step of applying induction heating is performed for a time period in a range from 1 second to 60 seconds because according to Young, the cell stack induction heating can be independently controlled in [0049]-[0050], and duration of time recited in the instant claims, would have been obvious to one skilled in the art depending on the materials used for the electrodes and separators, to bind to each other in the induction process.
Regarding Claim 7, Young discloses the method of claim 5, except wherein 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 occur concurrently.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate into the method of Claim 5, wherein 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 occur concurrently as one of a few options as the stack moves through the induction heater (apply heat to the top separately, apply heat to the bottom separately, or apply heat concurrently).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young (US20240304848) in view of Joo (US11302902).
Applicants claim is directed to a method.
Regarding Claim 12, Young discloses an apparatus for manufacturing an electrode assembly, comprising: a stack table on which a first electrode, a separator, and a second electrode are configured to be stacked into a stack (conveyor belt); a heating and pressing unit configured to apply heat and pressure to the stack, the heating and pressing unit including a heat source for applying at least some of the heat to the stack (See Figure 1, Item 110 & See [0029; lamination part combines heat and pressure); and an induction heating unit configured to apply induction heating to the stack (See [0025] Figures 1 & 2).
Young does not disclose that the heating and pressing unit uses a non-inductive heat source.
Joo discloses a lamination unit that uses a non-inductive heat source (See Figures 2 & 3 Item 60; heat pressing role).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace/incorporate the heat pressing roll from Joo into the lamination unit Young in order place the electrodes into a bag formed by the separator sheets (See Joo Column 3 lines 5-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBY RAMDHANIE whose telephone number is (571)270-3240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
