DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-08-14, the following has occurred: Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 have been amended; Claims 4 and 15 have been canceled; Claims 21 and 22 have been added.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Note on Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-19 and 21-22 are directed towards a “stacking device” or apparatus. The claims have several limitations that are debatably method steps, or steps requiring an intention and associated action, rather than unambiguously defined in positive structural feature terms. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F. 3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The manner of operating a device does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The claims have been interpreted broadly to require positive structural features that are capable of the claimed limitations concerning intent, such as, “to deliver,” or “to bond,” or “to heat,” or “to arrange,” etc.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (JP 2019-135699 to Ashida et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Yao (US 2022/0336840 to Yao).
Regarding Claim 1, Ashida teaches:
a stacking device comprising a negative delivery structure 3 to deliver a negative electrode sheet 12, which in some embodiments has adhesive 15 on both sides (Fig. 1, ¶ 0014 and 0034)
PNG
media_image1.png
388
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a separator delivery structure 5 to deliver separators to the two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the separators are attached to the negative electrode sheet 12 by the adhesive after the adhesive is softened via a negative-sheet heater 4 arranged downstream of the negative delivery structure 3 and upstream of the separator delivery structure 5, the negative-sheet heater heating the two sides of the negative electrode sheet to soften the adhesive on the two sides 4a/4b (Fig. 1, ¶ 0014-0018, 0034)
a first heater 6 arranged downstream of the separator delivery structure to heat the negative electrode sheet and the separators (¶ 0011-0016)
wherein a positive sheet is stacked with the negative sheet downstream of the first heater 6, such that it is attached to the separator(s) (¶ 0030)
Ashida does not explicitly show the positive electrode sheet delivery structure, but describes a stacking process. Yao, from the same field of invention, regarding a similar electrode rolling and stacking process teaches:
a stacking device comprising a negative delivery structure 11 to deliver a negative electrode street (Fig. 5, ¶ 0050, 0082)
a separator delivery structure 14/15 to deliver separators to two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the separators are attached to the negative electrode sheet (Fig. 5, ¶ 0056)
a heater 41 downstream of the separator delivery structure to heat the laminated anode and separators (¶ 0065)
a positive delivery structure 20/30/423 arranged downstream of the first heater 41 to deliver positive electrode sheets to the two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the positive electrode sheets are attached to the separators (¶ 0076-0078)
PNG
media_image2.png
400
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to modify or complete the process shown in Ashida with the structures downstream of the separator delivery structure, heater, and roller in Yao, since Ashida does not disclose the rest of the production machinery. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 2, Ashida teaches:
two heating assemblies 6 located on the two sides of the negative electrode sheet and heating the separators on opposite sides of the anode sheet (Fig. 1)
In addition, Yao teaches:
wherein the first heater 131 comprises two first heating assemblies on the two sides of the anode sheet and heating the respective separators (Fig. 5)
Regarding Claim 3, Ashida teaches:
adhesive on the separators, and adhesive on both sides of the anode (¶ 0034)
Yao teaches:
adhesive, or glue, provided on the two sides of each separator to bond the respective electrode sheets (¶ 0060)
It would have been obvious to provide adhesive on the sides of the separators to improve adhesion within the stack. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 5-7, Ashida does not teach:
a second heater to heat the separators before they are attached to the anode
Yao, however, teaches:
wherein the separator delivery structure comprises a second (set of) heater(s) 131 for heating the separator(s) before attachment, heating the sides of the separator being attached to the negative electrode sheet
It would have been obvious to include such heaters to heat the adhesive, also rendered obvious by Yao (see claim 3 above), and to improve adhesion in the laminated assembly.
Regarding Claim 8, Ashida teaches:
a combined heater/roller for pressing the separators to laminate them with the anode (Fig. 1)
Yao, however, teaches:
a first pressing roller 132 situated between the first 41 and second heaters 131 as claimed (Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to separate the function of the heater and the roller, as suggested by Yao, since choosing rolling and heating hardware was a results effective variable known in the electrode lamination arts. Both configurations perform the same function, but are subject to different costs, repair schedules, and the like. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Ashida is silent with respect to:
the positive delivery structure and third heater(s) arranged near it
Yao, however, teaches:
a third set of heaters 421 to heat the cathode sheets before they are attached to the separators (¶ 0065, Fig. 5)
It would have been obvious to use such a configuration since Ashida is silent as to the positive sheet delivery structures. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 11, Yao renders obvious:
a heater that would be expected to heat the entire sheet, and hence both sides, within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase
Regarding Claim 12, Ashida and Yao are silent with respect to:
providing the positive electrode sheets with adhesive
The modified structure of Ashida in view of Yao, however, is capable of working with adhesive provided on the electrode sheets. Providing adhesive was a results effective variable, with predictable results, and would have been obvious in order to ensure adhesion between the cathode and the separator(s) in the laminated stack. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13, Ashida is silent with respect to:
the positive delivery structure comprising a cutter arranged downstream of the third heater
It would have been obvious to provide the cutter downstream of the modified production stream of Ashida in view of Yao, absent evidence of unexpected results. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. A structure or method step that is obvious to try— such as one that is chosen from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The cutter is obviously paired with the cathodes, but depending on space and heating requirements, and how heating affects the cutting process, the cutting could be provided either before or after the heating. It would have been obvious to do either, absent evidence of unexpected results. For evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard, see US 2022/0052372 which teaches cutters after heaters in a similar assembly (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Ashida does not teach:
the positive delivery structure and a second pressing roller
Yao, however, teaches:
a second roller 422 to press the cathode sheets against the separators (¶ 0064)
It would have been obvious to provide a second roller, as taught in Yao, with the motivation to laminate the cathode to the stacked anode and separators. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding Claim 16, Ashida does not teach:
the stacking device downstream
Yao, however, teaches:
a stacking device downstream of the cathode attachment structure comprising a stacker, a stacking platform 51 (¶ 0090-0093), and at least in some embodiments a press 73 (¶ 0106)
arranging the sheets in a laminated manner to form a stacked type structure comprising a plurality of bent segments and a plurality of laminated segments in a laminated manner, each bent segment connecting to two adjacent laminated segments, the platform holding the stack (Fig. 5)
in some embodiments, the press arranged to flatten the bent segments (Figs. 7-9, ¶ 0106)
Although Yao does not explicitly teach a pressing structure in the embodiment in Fig. 5, it would have been obvious to use such a presser to ensure reliable flattening in place of gravity-assisted folding, as was conventional in the art. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). See also CN 11342107 for further evidence of skill in the art, cited below.
Regarding Claim 20, Ashida teaches:
a stacking device comprising a negative delivery structure 3 to deliver a negative electrode sheet 12, which in some embodiments has adhesive 15 on both sides (Fig. 1, ¶ 0014 and 0034)
PNG
media_image1.png
388
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a separator delivery structure 5 to deliver separators to the two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the separators are attached to the negative electrode sheet 12 by the adhesive after the adhesive is softened via a negative-sheet heater 4 arranged downstream of the negative delivery structure 3 and upstream of the separator delivery structure 5, the negative-sheet heater heating the two sides of the negative electrode sheet to soften the adhesive on the two sides 4a/4b (Fig. 1, ¶ 0014-0018, 0034)
a first heater 6 arranged downstream of the separator delivery structure to heat the negative electrode sheet and the separators (¶ 0011-0016)
wherein a positive sheet is stacked with the negative sheet downstream of the first heater 6, such that it is attached to the separator(s) (¶ 0030)
Ashida does not explicitly show the positive electrode sheet delivery structure, but describes a stacking process. Yao, from the same field of invention, regarding a similar electrode rolling and stacking process teaches:
a stacking device comprising a negative delivery structure 11 to deliver a negative electrode street (Fig. 5, ¶ 0050, 0082)
a separator delivery structure 14/15 to deliver separators to two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the separators are attached to the negative electrode sheet (Fig. 5, ¶ 0056)
a heater 41 downstream of the separator delivery structure to heat the laminated anode and separators (¶ 0065)
a positive delivery structure 20/30/423 arranged downstream of the first heater 41 to deliver positive electrode sheets to the two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the positive electrode sheets are attached to the separators (¶ 0076-0078)
It would have been obvious to modify or complete the process shown in Ashida with the structures downstream of the separator delivery structure, heater, and roller in Yao, since Ashida does not disclose the rest of the production machinery. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (JP 2019-135699 to Ashida et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Yao (US 2022/0336840 to Yao), in further view of Yang (CN 111342107 to Yang et al.).
Regarding Claim 17, Ashida and Yao do not explicitly teach:
a press of two rotating portion arranged opposite to each other and rotatably mounted to flatten the bent segments
Yang, however, from the same field of invention, regarding an assembly process for a stacked type cell, teaches rotatable presses for flattening the bent segment on a platform (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
380
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use such a stacker, since it was a known alternative within the art.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (JP 2019-135699 to Ashida et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Yao (US 2022/0336840 to Yao) and Yang (CN 111342107 to Yang et al.), in further view of Yang2 (CN 109524720 to Yang et al.).
Regarding Claim 19, Yao does not explicitly teach:
a driver and two stacking platforms, the driver switches positions of the two stacking platform such that the stacking platforms swap stacking positions
Yang2, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a turret-type battery stacker with a rotating driver, teaches two or more mounting platforms for improving throughput efficiency in the stacking process (Figs., pp1-3, etc.). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to provide a driver with two or more stacking tables to improve efficiency whenever a stack reaches its desired size.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashida (JP 2019-135699 to Ashida et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Yao (US 2022/0336840 to Yao), in further view of Zhou (CN 203578252 to Zhou, the Office cites to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 21, Ashida teaches:
a pressing roller 6 arranged downstream of the separator delivery structures 5 to press the separators against the negative electrode sheet (Fig. 1)
See also Yao for this teaching. Ashida does not, however, teach:
a cleaner including a scraper and a sweeping brush arranged against the first pressing roller to remove adhesive or dust from the roller
Zhou, however, from the same field of invention, regarding an electrode roller, teaches a wiping roller mechanism with a scraper 1 and a wiper, or brush, 24, that wipes or brushes the roller within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim to keep the roller free of fine particles, dust, etc. (pp. 1-2, Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
542
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use a scraper/wiper cleaning mechanism as taught in Zhou with the motivation to keep the roller clean.
Regarding Claim 22, Ashida teaches:
a stacking device comprising a negative delivery structure 3 to deliver a negative electrode sheet 12, which in some embodiments has adhesive 15 on both sides (Fig. 1, ¶ 0014 and 0034)
a separator delivery structure 5 to deliver separators to the two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the separators are attached to the negative electrode sheet 12 by the adhesive after the adhesive is softened via a negative-sheet heater 4 arranged downstream of the negative delivery structure 3 and upstream of the separator delivery structure 5, the negative-sheet heater heating the two sides of the negative electrode sheet to soften the adhesive on the two sides 4a/4b (Fig. 1, ¶ 0014-0018, 0034)
a pressing roller 6 arranged downstream of the separator delivery structures 5 to press the separators against the negative electrode sheet (Fig. 1)
a first heater 6 arranged downstream of the separator delivery structure to heat the negative electrode sheet and the separators (¶ 0011-0016)
wherein a positive sheet is stacked with the negative sheet downstream of the first heater 6, such that it is attached to the separator(s) (¶ 0030)
Ashida does not explicitly show the positive electrode sheet delivery structure, but describes a stacking process. Yao, from the same field of invention, regarding a similar electrode rolling and stacking process teaches:
a stacking device comprising a negative delivery structure 11 to deliver a negative electrode street (Fig. 5, ¶ 0050, 0082)
a separator delivery structure 14/15 to deliver separators to two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the separators are attached to the negative electrode sheet (Fig. 5, ¶ 0056)
a heater 41 downstream of the separator delivery structure to heat the laminated anode and separators (¶ 0065)
a positive delivery structure 20/30/423 arranged downstream of the first heater 41 to deliver positive electrode sheets to the two sides of the negative electrode sheet such that the positive electrode sheets are attached to the separators (¶ 0076-0078)
It would have been obvious to modify or complete the process shown in Ashida with the structures downstream of the separator delivery structure, heater, and roller in Yao, since Ashida does not disclose the rest of the production machinery. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Ashida does not, however, teach:
a cleaner including a scraper and a sweeping brush arranged against the first pressing roller to remove adhesive or dust from the roller
Zhou, however, from the same field of invention, regarding an electrode roller, teaches a wiping roller mechanism with a scraper 1 and a wiper, or brush, 24, that wipes or brushes the roller within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim to keep the roller free of fine particles, dust, etc. (pp. 1-2, Fig. 2). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to use a scraper/wiper cleaning mechanism as taught in Zhou with the motivation to keep the roller clean.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted 2026-08-14 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. In response to the claim amendments, the claims are now rejected over Ashida in view of Yao et al. Zhou is newly cited for teaching a scraper and brusher as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights