DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This is the first application on the merits for application 18/561,012 filed November 15, 2023.
This is a 371 national stage filing for PCT/KR2022/013735, also claiming priority to a pair of foreign priority documents.
After a preliminary amendment, claims 1-3, 5-13, and 15-28 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I, claims 1-3, and 5-12 in the reply filed on July 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13, and 15-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 22, 2026.
Claims 1-3, and 5-12 are considered on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 states “the second area is disposed to extends to an edge of the electrode assembly”, yet this language lacks clarity. It is unclear if the Applicant is seeking to state the second area extends to an edge, is disposed at the edge, a combination or a different intention. Moreover, it would be less common for an area of assigned lower height (per claim 3) to be disposed (synonymous with placed) in a particular region, and more common for disposal or placement of the correcting tape. For this reason, the claim is unclear, and the Applicant is encouraged to make clear their intended claim limitation and meaning.
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) 1-3, 5-7, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al (US PG PUB 2022/0246974), in view of YOON et al (WO2020/226320A1, wherein US PG PUB 2021/0408572 is cited as the machine English translation herein).
Regarding claim 1, PARK et al teaches a method for manufacturing a secondary battery (abstract), the method comprising:
Manufacturing a plurality of unit cells (unit cells, [0009]), each unit cell including an electrode and a separator (electrode and separator, [0009], see figure 1), respectively;
Folding the plurality of unit cells (110) and a separator sheet (120) alternately stacked with one another to manufacture an electrode assembly ([0009]), and
Pressing the electrode assembly ([0009]).
PARK et al shows curvature of the stack in figures 3 and 4, but PARK et al fails to address “correcting a height difference formed on an outer surface of the electrode assembly; and wherein, in the correcting step, a correction sheet is disposed on an area formed with a relatively low height with respect to the inside of the electrode assembly to correct the height difference formed on the outer surface of the electrode assembly.”
YOON is directed to the fabrication of a stacked electrode assembly in [0011], just as in PARK et al. YOON further describes curvature (C) and flat portions (N) can suffer from inconsistencies of thickness (figure 2) due to regions with less active material, as discussed in [0027]. YOON teaches adding tape to offset the difference in thickness (less active material, less height) to compensate for the difference in thickness ([0031]). Figure 6 teaches the application of tape to either electrode (10 or 20) relative to a higher thickness of the alternate electrode. More specifically, figure 4 shows an application of tape (T) on an exterior electrode to accommodate a difference in thickness (figure 6). Paragraph [0023] teaches maintaining uniform thickness across both electrodes allows for suppressed deterioration of battery performance and life, improving performance and commercial value of the battery.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the correction tape of YOON to reduce thickness variation over the unit cell electrodes of PARK et al, so as to suppress deterioration of battery performance and life and improve performance and commercial value of the battery.
Regarding claim 2, modified PARK et al teaches the height difference is corrected so that the outer surface of the electrode assembly has a uniform height (see figure 6 wherein tape is used to accommodate thickness differences and maintain uniformity [0023], YOON).
Regarding claim 3, modified PARK et al teaches the electrode assembly comprises: a first area having a first height; and a second area having a second height less than the first height, wherein, in the correcting step, the correction sheet is disposed on the second area to correct the height difference between the first area and the second area. (Figure 6 of YOON discusses the application of tape to accommodate differences in height between comparative locations.).
Regarding claim 5, modified PARK et al teaches the second area is disposed to extends to an edge of the electrode assembly (While this language is unclear, consistent with the 35 USC 112 rejection above, the limitation is interpreted as requiring the lower height region to extend to an edge. Figure 4 of YOON shows the tape area (area correlating to lower height) as being present to extend toward each top and down edge, fulfilling the claim as written.).
Regarding claim 6, modified PARK et al teaches the electrode assembly comprises an electrode tab connected to the electrode ([0037], PARK et al, [0047], YOON) and the second area is disposed to align with an area on which the electrode tab of the electrode assembly is disposed ([0054], [0047] YOON).
Regarding claim 7, YOON teaches the correction sheet is made of an insulating material (“insulating tape”, [0054]).
Regarding claim 11, PARK et al teaches the unit cell and the separator sheet each have a respective first surface, the first surfaces of the unit cell and the separator sheet having corresponding surface areas (the separator follows the path of the unit cells (see figure 2), rendering the same corresponding contact between the separator and the unit cell surfaces).
Regarding claim 12, modified PARK et al teaches the correction sheet is disposed above the separator sheet (see figure 3 of YOON and when considered in the device of PARK et al, adjustment of an electrode thickness of PARK et al would necessarily have the separator present above at least one portion of the separator. The assignation of “above” lacks finite boundary and is therefore broadly interpreted to be fulfilled when a separator is disposed exterior to the electrode.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al, in view of YOON et al and CHOI (US PG PUB 2021/0203048).
Regarding claim 8, YOON teaches an insulating correcting tape but fails to detail the sheet comprises a synthetic resin or an adhesive material.
CHOI teaches a step difference compensation tape within a battery decrease thickness differences ([0042]), just as in modified PARK et al. CHOI further teaches the use of polymer resin adhesive layers as being effective height compensation material in paragraph [0042], including polypropylene tape.
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to utilize the polypropylene adhesive material of CHOI, as the step material of modified PARK et al, so as to provide the desired step compensation thickness.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al, in view of YOON et al, CHOI and KIM et al (US PG PUB 2015/0372337).
Regarding claim 9, while teaching polypropylene tape (CHOI above) and the use of gel electrolytes ([0047], PARK et al), modified PARK et al is silent to the use of cast polypropylene tape (CPP) tape.
KIM et al teaches a folded battery cell, as in modified PARK et al, as shown in the abstract. KIM et al further teaches the use of cast polypropylene tape which is inert to electrolyte in [0036].
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the cast polypropylene tape of KIM et al, as the polypropylene tape of modified PARK et al, so as to maintain the adhesive capabilities while ensuring no interaction with the electrolyte.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PARK et al, in view of YOON et al and NISHINO et al (US PG PUB 2021/0050586).
Regarding claim 10, YOON teaches the changes in active material loading correlate to differences in thickness ([0017]), but fails to detail “an electrode slurry is applied on the electrode, and the height difference is formed by a thickness difference of the applied electrode slurry”.
NISHINO et al teaches stacked battery layers ([0006]), just as in modified PARK et al. NISHIO further teaches the application of active material to electrode layers via slurry ([0034] and [0046]), rendering layers with thickness inconsistency ([0024]).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize slurry deposition to apply the active material of YOON, as in NISHINO et al, as use of a known method of electrode formation would render the same predictable result of active material application. Moreover, upon application of the active material slurry, as in NISHINO et al, to form the active material layers of YOON would obviously render inconsistences in thickness (NISHINO et al and YOON), fulfilling the limitations including “an electrode slurry is applied on the electrode, and the height difference is formed by a thickness difference of the applied electrode slurry”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
KWON et al (US PG PUB 2014/0234682) is substitutable for the teaching of PARK et al included herein in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOURTNEY SALZMAN CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5117. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-3PM EST M-F.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721 9/30/2026
