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/Restrictions
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected manufacturing method of an electrode assembly, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/24/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and 17, drawn to an electrode assembly and lithium secondary battery in the reply filed on 04/24/2026 is acknowledged.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zama (US 20200243895 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Zama discloses an electrode assembly for lithium secondary battery which includes the lithium secondary battery [0038], comprising (See Figs. 1-17 [0031]-[0065]):
a plurality of anode plates (200 [0031]);
a plurality of cathode plates (100 [0031]); and
a separator (300 [0031]) disposed between the plurality of cathode plates and the plurality of anode plates,
wherein the separator (300 [0031]) is folded in a zigzag shape, and the plurality of anode plates (200 [0031]) and the plurality of cathode plates (100 [0031]) are alternately stacked in a section between folded portions of the separator to form a stack (See Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 18), and
an anode plate (200 [0031]) is disposed on an uppermost portion and a lowermost portion of the stack (See Figs. 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, and 18).
Regarding claim 2, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Zama discloses wherein the separator externally finishes the stack by winding around an outer edge of the stack (see Figs. 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 18).
Regarding claim 3, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Zama discloses wherein the separator winds around an outer edge of the stack along a stacking direction of the stack (see Figs. 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 18).
Regarding claim 4, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Zama discloses wherein an end of the separator is fixed to a side surface of the stack (see Figs. 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, and 18).
Regarding claim 5, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Zama discloses wherein an end of the separator is fixed to a side surface of the stack by an adhesive (402 [0052]/401 [0051]/411 [0078]/410 [0077]/415 [0094] adhesive tape contains adhesive).
Regarding claim 6, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Zama discloses wherein a separator of two or more layers is located under the stack (See Figs. 3 and 5).
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.
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) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zama (US 20200243895 A1) as applied to claims 1-6 and 17 above and in further view of Naoki (JP 2019197632 A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 10, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Zama discloses wherein the width of the plurality of anode plates are greater than the width of the plurality of cathode plates, respectively (see Fig. 3 [0048]), and wherein the length and the width of the section between folded portions of the separator are greater than the length and the width of the plurality of anode plates (See Figs. 3 and 4 300 shows larger area than 200), respectively, wherein the length and the width are a length-direction dimension and a width-direction dimension of the stack, wherein the width-direction is a direction in which the separator is folded, and wherein the length-direction is perpendicular to the stacking direction of the stack and the width-direction.
However, Zama does not explicitly disclose that the length of the anode is larger than the length of the cathode.
Naoki discloses that the area of negative active electrode material (60, see Figs. 3A, 3B) should be larger than the area of positive electrode material (50, see Figs. 3A, 3B) to prevent the formation of dendrites and further shows that this can be accomplished by having a smaller length and width dimension of the positive electrode are (see Figs. 3A, 3B [0101]-[0104]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the length dimension of the negative electrode to be smaller than the positive electrode length dimension of Zama because doing so will allow for the suppression of dendrites.
It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, modified Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Zama discloses that the separator covers areas between and in the width direction of the positive and negative electrodes ([0050]).
Furthermore Naoki discloses that areas of negative and positive electrodes overlapping that are not separated by a separator can result in dendrites ([0101]).
However, Zama does not disclose the following:
a length-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates and the plurality of cathode plates is larger than a width-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates and the plurality of cathode plates,
wherein a length of the section between folded portions of the separator and a length-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates are larger than a width of the section between folded portions of the separator and a width-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates,
wherein the length-direction gap is a distance difference from the center of the anode plates, the cathode plates, and the section between folded portions of the separator to one length-direction end of each of the anode plates, the cathode plates, and the section between folded portions of the separator, and
wherein the width-direction gap is a distance difference from the center of the anode plates, the cathode plates, and the section between folded portions of the separator to one width-direction end of each of the anode plates, the cathode plates, and the section between folded portions of the separator.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the width and length gaps between the positive and negative electrodes of modified Zama to have and meet the claimed dimensions above because doing so will allow for prevention of short-circuit and the prevention of dendrites.
It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zama (US 20200243895 A1) in view of Naoki (JP 2019197632 A, Machine Translation) as applied to claims 7-10 above and in further view of Airey (US 20030170533 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Airey discloses that the width and length gap between the anode and cathode is 2mm and between the anode and length gap between separator and anode is also 2 mm ([0018]).
In addition, Zama discloses that the separator covers areas between and in the width direction of the positive and negative electrodes ([0050]).
Furthermore Naoki discloses that areas of negative and positive electrodes overlapping that are not separated by a separator can result in dendrites ([0101]) and that ratios between areas can be adjusted to achieve this result ([0102]).
However, modified Zama does not disclose:
wherein a length-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates and the plurality of cathode plates is 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm,
wherein a width-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates and the plurality of
cathode plates is 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm,
wherein a length of the section between folded portions of the separator and a length-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates are 2.0 mm to 5.0 mm, and
wherein a width of the section between folded portions of the separator and a width-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates are 0.5 mm to 2.0 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the length-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates and the plurality of cathode plates, the length of the section between folded portions of the separator and the length-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates and the width of the section between folded portions of the separator and the width-direction gap of the plurality of anode plates of modified Zama to be within the claimed range given the millimeter scale of the dimensions disclosed by Airey and to prevent short-circuits and to prevent the formation of dendrites as noted by Zama and Naoki.
It is also noted that according to MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the portion of the prior art's range which is within the range of applicant's claims because it has been held to be obvious to select a value in a known range by optimization for the best results. As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights