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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 11th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 2 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New grounds of rejection is made in view of Yoo (WO 2022/031037 A1).
The applicant argues, regarding claim 1, that the addition of "the longitudinal direction being a lengthwise direction along a respective longitudinal axis of each of the first elongated protrusion and the first elongated groove” is sufficient to overcome the previous Office Action’s rejection. The examiner appreciates the applicant’s consideration to the suggestion. However, the examiner points that the it was previously understood that the longitudinal direction is the length across the furthest of the two ends of the respective protrusion or groove. Concern is raised as to what specific direction the angle of the slope is oriented. In the instance of Yoo, the disclosed protrusions or grooves running across a longitudinal direction, as stated in page 2, paragraph 50. Yoo’s figure 2 clearly depicts the protrusions and grooves running across said direction. Yoo further teaches, in figure 6a, example 2, a tapered protrusion and sloped groove by illustrating a front cross-sectional view of the proposed embodiment. In this instance, a protrusion with a length having a taper running across the longitudinal direction is akin to having a protrusion having a taper from one end to the other, see image 1 below. The same concept can be
PNG
media_image1.png
201
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Image 1: Triangular Prism corrosponding to a protrsion with a taper extending along a longitudinal length (depicted y the letter 'l'))]understood regarding a groove with sloped surfaces on both ends.
The examiner once again acknowledges that this is a broader interpretation than Applicant’s. However, examiners are not only allowed to apply broad interpretations, but are required to do so, as it reduces the possibility that the claims, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. MPEP §2111. Patentability is determined by the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP §2111), not the narrowest reasonable interpretation. And Applicant does not have an explicit lexicographical statement in line with MPEP §2111.01 subsection IV requiring a specific interpretation of the relevant phrases which forces the examiner to interpret them only one way.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the taper surfaces and sloped surfaces of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 limitations of the taper surfaces and sloped surfaces are not properly described within the specification. For this reason, the examiner relies on the filed drawings to understands the scope of the invention. The drawings fail to depict a tapered surface on the elongated protrusion. Regarding the sloped surface of the elongated groove, it is unclear whether the depiction of a sloped surface is present. The examiner suggests providing a longitudinal cross-sectional view of both the groove and the protrusion.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in WO 2022/031037 A1 (US 2023/0275254 A1 used for translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses a core assembly for winding a secondary battery separator film (Fig. 5, mandrel 100), the core assembly comprising:
an upper core having a first elongated protrusion disposed on a lower surface thereof (Fig. 5, first mandrel member 11, 110); and
a lower core spaced apart from the upper core and having a first elongated groove disposed on an upper surface thereof (Fig. 5, second mandrel member 12, 120),
wherein the first elongated protrusion includes tapered surfaces respectively disposed at a first end and at a second end thereof and the first elongated groove includes sloped surfaces respectively disposed at a first end portion and at a second end portion thereof (Fig. 6, example 2 depicting a tapered and sloped protrusion and groove), the tapered surfaces being inclined in a longitudinal direction of the first elongated protrusion and the sloped surfaces being inclined in a longitudinal direction of the first elongated groove, the longitudinal direction being a lengthwise direction along a respective longitudinal axis of each of the first elongated protrusion and the first elongated groove (Pg. 3, ¶62; Fig. 6, example 2),
wherein, when the secondary battery separator film is wound, the upper core and the lower core are configured to move toward against each other, such that the upper core and the lower core are fastened to each other by the first elongated protrusion and the first elongated groove, the secondary battery separator film is located between the first elongated protrusion of the upper core and the first elongated groove of the lower core, and the core assembly is configured to rotate to wind the secondary battery separator film thereon (Pg. 1, ¶6-8), the upper core having a first rotary fixture disposed at one end thereof and the lower core having a second rotary fixture disposed at one end thereof, each of the first and second rotary fixtures being configured to receive a rotating body for rotating the core assembly(Fig. 1; Pg. 1, ¶7; Pg. 45, ¶45, support member 20 corresponding to first and second rotary fixtures).
While the tapered and slopped protrusions of Yoo are inversely placed, as seen in figure 6, example 2, it would have still been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a first elongated protrusion disposed on a lower surface and a first elongated groove disposed on an upper surface, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167. Further, Yoo describes various examples and comparative examples of concave-convex parts according to the present invention thus making it obvious to one skilled in the art to reverse the arrangement of the sloped and tapered elements.
Regarding claim 2, Yoo discloses wherein the upper core includes a second elongated protrusion disposed on the lower surface of the upper core (Fig. 5, protrusion 131), the lower core includes a second elongated groove disposed on the upper surface of the lower core (Fig. 5, groove 133), and each of the first and second elongated protrusions is insertable into a corresponding one of the first and second elongated grooves (best depicted in Fig. 5).
While Yoo discloses a tapered protrusion and a sloped groove in a different embodiment, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pair of protrusions and pair of grooves to be tapered and sloped to form a pair of gentle inclines configured to enable smooth and sliding engagement and disengagement between the upper and lower cores.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references refer to secondary battery winding mandrels which comprise a plurality of protrusions, grooves, and other shapes which assist in holding the membrane. The cited references prove pivotal to the rejection as they provide the teachings and understandings to one skilled in the art that the protrusions and grooves of a winding mandrel vary in shapes and dimensions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERMIA E MELIKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00 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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached at (313) 446-4858. 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.
/ERMIA E. MELIKA/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654