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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [00112] and [00113] of the instant specification recite a “rotation shaft” and a “support part”, respectively. Both features are given the label “122”, which appears to be a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20210030591 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 10/31/2024) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to the previous office action, Requirement for Restriction dated 05/28/2026).
Regarding Claim 1:
Park discloses an apparatus (secondary battery electrode lamination device, 100) for manufacturing a secondary battery which comprises a pressing part (main bonding unit, 120, and unidirectional bonding part, 140) configured to press a stack (stacked body, 1) in which electrodes (negative electrode, 20, and positive electrode, 10) and separators (first separator, 40, and second separator, 30) are stacked (Figure 3, [0002-0003, 0017]). Park further discloses that the pressing part (main bonding unit, 120, and unidirectional bonding part, 140) comprises a main pressing part (main bonding unit, 120) configured to press an entire surface of the stack (stacked body, 1) and a sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) configured to press a partial surface (region S2) of the stack (stacked body, 1) (Figures 1 and 3, [0018, 0029]). Park further discloses that the partial surface (region S2) is formed on an end of the stack (stacked body, 1) along a longitudinal direction (left to right of Figure 1) of the stack (stacked body, 1) (Figure 1, [0029]). Park further discloses that the sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) presses the partial surface (region S2) while moving along the longitudinal direction (left to right of Figure 1) of the stack (stacked body, 1) (Figure 3, [0029]).
Although Park doesn't explicitly disclose the height of the partial surface (region S2) or the entire surface, Park does teach that the electrodes (negative electrode, 20, and positive electrode, 10) protrude from the stack (stacked body, 1) (Figures 1 and 3, [0018]). Thus, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the partial surface (region S2) which is pressed by the sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) includes a region which does not contain the separators (first separator, 40, and second separator, 30), and thus would necessarily have a lower height (i.e., thickness) than the height (i.e., thickness) of the entire surface which does include the separators (first separator, 40, and second separator, 30).
The examiner notes that the term “an entire surface” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
Regarding Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses a moving part (laminated body moving part) configured to move the stack (stacked body, 1) in one direction (left to right as shown in Figure 3) (Figure 3, [0017]). Park further discloses that the sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) presses the partial surface (region S2) while moving along a direction (up and down as shown in Figure 3) perpendicular to the one direction (left to right as shown in Figure 3) (Figure 3, [0029]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
Regarding Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the stack (stacked body, 1) comprises an electrode tab (tab portions) connected to the electrodes (negative electrode, 20, and positive electrode, 10), and the partial surface (region S2) is disposed to correspond to the end of the stack (stacked body, 1), at which the electrode tab (tab portions) is disposed, along the longitudinal direction (left to right as shown in Figure 1) (Figures 1 and 3, [0002, 0029]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
Regarding Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses a heating part (heating unit, 150) configured to apply heat to the stack (stacked body, 1) in which the electrodes (negative electrode, 20, and positive electrode, 10) and the separators (first separator, 40, and second separator, 30) are stacked (Figure 3, [0028]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
Regarding Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) is disposed on a front side (right side, as shown in Figure 3) of the main pressing part (main bonding unit, 120) (see Figure 3).
The examiner notes that terms such as “front” as utilized in the claims do not convey any particular structural requirements other than establishing the location of the components of the apparatus relative to one another within the apparatus. The particular orientation of the apparatus does not provide any structural limitations to the apparatus itself. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Regarding Claim 7 (Dependent Upon Claim 6):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 6 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) presses the partial surface (region S2) of the stack (stacked body, 1) while moving in an outward direction (i.e., moving “upwards” from a “downwards” position as shown in Figure 3) from the inside of the stack (stacked body, 1) (Figure 3).
The examiner notes that the term “an outward direction” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 7 are met.
Regarding Claim 8 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) is disposed on a rear side (right side as shown in Figure 3) of the main pressing part (main bonding unit, 120) (see Figure 3).
The examiner notes that terms such as “rear” as utilized in the claims do not convey any particular structural requirements other than establishing the location of the components of the apparatus relative to one another within the apparatus. The particular orientation of the apparatus does not provide any structural limitations to the apparatus itself. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 8 are met.
Regarding Claim 9 (Dependent Upon Claim 8):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 8 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the sub pressing part (unidirectional lamination part, 140) presses the partial surface (region S2) of the stack (stacked body, 1) while moving in an inward direction (i.e., moving “downwards” from an “upwards” position as shown in Figure 3) from the outside of the stack (stacked body, 1) (Figure 3).
The examiner notes that the term “an inward direction” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of prior art. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 9 are met.
Regarding Claim 10 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the stack (stacked body, 1) is an electrode unit (laminate) comprising a mono-cell (Figure 3, [0017]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 10 are met.
Regarding Claim 11 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above. Park further discloses that the stack (stacked body, 1) is an electrode assembly (laminate) in which a plurality of electrode units (negative electrode, 20, and positive electrode, 10) and a separator sheet (second separator, 30) are stacked (Figure 3, [0017]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 11 are met.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20210030591 A) (disclosed by Applicant on IDS dated 10/31/2024) (citations herein are made in reference to the English machine translation attached to the previous office action, Requirement for Restriction dated 05/28/2026), as applied to Claim 1 above, further in view of Miyahisa et al. (US 2009/0325045 A1).
Regarding Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Park discloses the apparatus of Claim 1 as set forth above.
Park is deficient in disclosing that the sub pressing part comprises: a drum part configured to press the partial surface of the stack while rotating the partial surface of the stack; and a rotation shaft coupled to the drum part to rotate the drum part.
Miyahisa discloses a method of providing an electrode for a secondary battery having increased capacity (Figure 1, [0082]). Miyahisa further discloses that the method involves a pressing part comprising a drum part (groove processing rollers, 30/31) configured to press a surface of a stack (negative electrode active material layer, 13, and core material, 12) while rotating the surface of the stack (negative electrode active material layer, 13, and core material, 12) (Figure 5, [0113]). Miyahisa further discloses that the pressing part further comprises a rotation shaft (roller axis) coupled to the drum part (groove processing rollers, 30/31) to rotate the drum part (groove processing rollers, 30/31) (Figure 5, [0099]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the structure of the sub pressing part of Park, a drum part and a rotation shaft coupled to the drum part, as such a configuration is known in the art as suitable for use as a pressing part to be used to press a stacked electrode configuration for a secondary battery, as taught by Miyahisa. Furthermore, the selection of a known apparatus based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
