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 .
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-17 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 3, 12 and 17 are 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.
Regarding claims 3 and 12
Claims 3 and 12 recite the limitation “the separator comprises a first separator and/or a second separator” followed by “the second separator and the first separator are located on two sides of the anode plate respectively, and the first separator and the second separator are configured to isolate the anode plate from the cathode plate in the electrode assembly.” The use of “and/or” encompasses embodiments comprising only the first separator, only the second separator, or both. However, the subsequent limitations require the presence of both separators. Accordingly, it is not clear if the claims require both the first and second separators or if they encompass embodiments including only one of the first and/or second separators. For purposes of Examination on the merits, it is interpreted that only one of the first and/or second separators is required by the claims.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Regarding claim 17
The limitation “wherein the method further comprises: stopping winding the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator when the transmit power exceeds a threshold value” is unclear and therefore renders the claim indefinite. Claim 10 requires the heating performed prior to the separator being wound with the anode and cathode plates. The transmission of electromagnetic waves corresponding to said heating step (see instant claim 13). Therefore, it is not clear how the winding is stopped when the transmit power exceeds a threshold value since said transmission of power is performed during a previous step.
One of ordinary skill in the art cannot reasonably ascertain if the claim refers to the transmit of power during the heating step of the separator or if there is a further heating step required.
Appropriate correction and clarification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN101626095A, Li.
Regarding claim 1
Li teaches an apparatus for preparing an electrode assembly [paras. 0027, 0032, 0034 and 0040], comprising:
a heating apparatus configured to heat a separator to be wound (corresponding to oven wherein an entire roll of separator is heat-treated) [paras. 0034 and 0040]; and
a winding apparatus configured to wind an anode plate (corresponding to a negative electrode plate), a cathode plate (corresponding to a positive electrode plate) and the heated separator (the separator is heated before the electrode group winding process) to form an electrode assembly [paras. 0034 and 0040].
Regarding claim 2
Li teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the heating apparatus is located on at least one side of the separator to heat a surface of the at least one side of the separator (the separator is placed in an oven, and therefore the heating apparatus is located on at least one side of the separator to heat a surface thereof) [para. 0040].
Regarding the limitation “to heat a surface of the at least one side of the separator”, it is noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3
Li teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the separator comprises a first separator [paras. 0030 and 0040], the first separator is located between the anode plate and the cathode plate [para. 0030], and the first separator is configured to isolate the anode plate from the cathode plate in the electrode assembly (the separator prevents short circuits between the positive and negative electrodes) [para. 0005].
Regarding claim 4
Li teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the heating apparatus comprises a transmitter, and the transmitter is configured to transmit electromagnetic waves to irradiate a surface of the separator to be heated (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0015 and 0036].
Regarding the limitation “configured to transmit electromagnetic waves to irradiate a surface of the separator to be heated”, it is noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 5
Li teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the electromagnetic waves refer to infrared waves (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0015 and 0036].
Regarding claim 9
Li teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the winding apparatus comprises a winding shaft, and the winding shaft is configured to wind the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator (the electrode winding process is carried out, that is, after separating the positive and negative electrode sheets with a separator, the positive and negative electrode sheets are wound to form the cell electrode assembly of the lithium-ion battery) [paras. 0030, 0034 and 0040].
Regarding the limitation “configured to wind the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator”, it is noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 10
Li teaches a method for preparing an electrode assembly [paras. 0027, 0032, 0034 and 0040], comprising:
heating a separator to be wound (corresponding to oven wherein an entire roll of separator is heat-treated) [paras. 0034 and 0040]; and
winding an anode plate (corresponding to a negative electrode plate), a cathode plate (corresponding to a positive electrode plate) and the heated separator (the separator is heated before the electrode group winding process) to form an electrode assembly [paras. 0034 and 0040].
Regarding claim 11
Li teaches the method as set forth above, wherein heating a separator to be wound comprises: heating a surface of the at least one side of the separator (the separator is placed in an oven, and therefore the heating apparatus is located on at least one side of the separator to heat a surface thereof) [para. 0040].
Regarding claim 12
Li teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the separator comprises a first separator [paras. 0030 and 0040], the first separator is located between the anode plate and the cathode plate [para. 0030], and the first separator is configured to isolate the anode plate from the cathode plate in the electrode assembly (the separator prevents short circuits between the positive and negative electrodes) [para. 0005].
Regarding claim 13
Li teaches the method as set forth above, wherein heating a separator to be wound comprises: transmitting electromagnetic waves to irradiate a surface of the separator to be heated (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0015 and 0036].
Regarding claim 14
Li teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the electromagnetic waves refer to infrared waves (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0015 and 0036].
Regarding claim 15
Li teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises: monitoring transmit power of the electromagnetic waves (the heat treatment is controlled at a temperature of 80-100°C for 5 to 120 minutes) [paras. 0037-0040].
Regarding claim 16
Li teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises: stopping transmitting the electromagnetic waves when the transmit power exceeds a threshold value (the heat treatment is controlled at a temperature of 80-100°C for 5 to 120 minutes) [paras. 0037-0040].
Regarding claim 17
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises: stopping winding the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator when the transmit power exceeds a threshold value (the heat treatment is controlled at a temperature of 80-100°C for 5 to 120 minutes) [paras. 0037-0040].
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108288686 A, Liu et al.
Regarding claim 1
Liu teaches an apparatus for preparing an electrode assembly [paras. 0033-0034 and 0037], comprising:
a heating apparatus configured to heat a separator to be wound (corresponding to heat treatment equipment comprising an oven having an infrared emitter, wherein a separator is heat-treated before winding the separator and the positive and negative electrode sheets) [paras. 0033-0034, 0037 and 0051]; and
a winding apparatus (corresponding to a winding machine) configured to wind an anode plate (corresponding to a negative electrode plate), a cathode plate (corresponding to a positive electrode plate) and the heated separator (the separator is heated before the electrode group winding process) to form an electrode assembly [paras. 0033-0034, 0037 and 0041].
Regarding claim 2
Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the heating apparatus is located on at least one side of the separator to heat a surface of the at least one side of the separator (the separator is placed in an oven comprising an infrared emitter above the winding shaft) [paras. 0034, 0047, 0049 and 0051].
Regarding the limitation “to heat a surface of the at least one side of the separator”, it is noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3
Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the separator comprises a first separator [paras. 0033-0034], the first separator is located between the anode plate and the cathode plate [para. 0005], and the first separator is configured to isolate the anode plate from the cathode plate in the electrode assembly (the separator in a lithium-ion battery serves to electronically isolate the positive and negative electrodes and to allow lithium ions to pass through) [para. 0005].
Regarding claim 4
Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the heating apparatus comprises a transmitter, and the transmitter is configured to transmit electromagnetic waves to irradiate a surface of the separator to be heated (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0015 and 0036].
Regarding the limitation “configured to transmit electromagnetic waves to irradiate a surface of the separator to be heated”, it is noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 5
Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the electromagnetic waves refer to infrared waves (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0047 and 0051].
Regarding claim 9
Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the winding apparatus comprises a winding shaft, and the winding shaft is configured to wind the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator (the winding machine comprises a winding shaft, wherein, during the winding process, the diaphragm is squeezed and stretched by the winding shaft of the winding machine) [paras. 0036-0037, 0041, 0034 and 0049].
Regarding the limitation “configured to wind the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator”, it is noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 10
Liu teaches a method for preparing an electrode assembly [paras. 0033-0034 and 0037], comprising:
heating a separator to be wound (heat treatment equipment comprising an oven having an infrared emitter, heat-treats the separator before winding the separator and the positive and negative electrode sheets) [paras. 0033-0034, 0037 and 0051]; and
winding (via a winding machine) an anode plate (corresponding to a negative electrode plate), a cathode plate (corresponding to a positive electrode plate) and the heated separator (the separator is heated before the electrode group winding process) to form an electrode assembly [paras. 0033-0034, 0037 and 0041].
Regarding claim 11
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein heating a separator to be wound comprises: heating a surface of the at least one side of the separator (the separator is placed in an oven comprising an infrared emitter above the winding shaft) [paras. 0034, 0047, 0049 and 0051].
Regarding claim 12
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the separator comprises a first separator [paras. 0033-0034], the first separator is located between the anode plate and the cathode plate [para. 0005], and the first separator is configured to isolate the anode plate from the cathode plate in the electrode assembly (the separator in a lithium-ion battery serves to electronically isolate the positive and negative electrodes and to allow lithium ions to pass through) [para. 0005].
Regarding claim 13
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein heating a separator to be wound comprises: transmitting electromagnetic waves to irradiate a surface of the separator to be heated (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0047 and 0051].
Regarding claim 14
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the electromagnetic waves refer to infrared waves (the separator is heated by infrared radiation) [paras. 0047 and 0051].
Regarding claim 15
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises: monitoring transmit power of the electromagnetic waves (the temperature is controlled at 40°C to 80°C and the time is controlled at 4h to 24h) [paras. 0011 and 0049].
Regarding claim 16
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises: stopping transmitting the electromagnetic waves when the transmit power exceeds a threshold value (the temperature is controlled at 40°C to 80°C and the time is controlled at 4h to 24h) [paras. 0011 and 0049].
Regarding claim 17
Liu teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the method further comprises: stopping winding the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator when the transmit power exceeds a threshold value (Protective gas is continuously introduced until the heat treatment during winding is completed) [paras. 0011 and 0049].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu as applied to claim1-5 and 9-17 above, and further in view of CN111668556A, Xia.
Regarding claim 6
Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the heating apparatus further comprising monitoring the transmit power of the electromagnetic waves (the temperature is controlled between 40℃ and 80℃, and the time is between 4h and 24h, said heat treatment performed in an infrared oven transmitting infrared rays) [paras. 0036, 0047 and 0051].
Liu is silent to a monitoring module configured to monitor transmit power of the electromagnetic waves.
Xia teaches an apparatus for preparing an electrode assembly [paras. 0009 and 0033], comprising a monitoring module (corresponding to electrical control box comprising a controller), the monitoring module configured to monitor transmit power of the electromagnetic waves (the winding mechanism and heating modules are electrically connected to the controller) [para. 0033].
Liu and Xia are analogous inventions in the field of apparatuses for preparing electrode assemblies. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Liu to comprise a monitoring module, as in Xia, for the purpose of controlling the operation of the heating apparatus.
Regarding the limitation “configured to monitor transmit power of the electromagnetic waves”, it is noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 7
Modified Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the monitoring module is further configured to control the transmitter to stop transmitting the electromagnetic waves when monitoring that the transmit power exceeds a threshold value”, modified Liu teaches a controller electrically connected to the heating apparatus [Xia, para. 0033] and further teaches that the heat treatment is controlled such that temperature is kept within a range of between 40℃ and 80℃ for a period of between 4h and 24h and said heat treatment performed in an infrared oven transmitting infrared rays) [Liu, paras. 0036, 0047 and 0051].
Accordingly, the monitoring module of modified Liu is capable of performing the limitations of the instant claim.
It is further noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 8
Modified Liu teaches the apparatus as set forth above, wherein the monitoring module (controller) is connected to the winding apparatus [Xia, para. 0009], wherein the monitoring module (controller) is further configured to control the winding apparatus to stop winding the anode plate, the cathode plate, and the separator when monitoring that the power exceeds a threshold value (the controller is electrically connected with the winding and heating apparatus) [Xia, para. 0009; Liu, paras. 0036, 0047 and 0051].
It is further noted that 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). Since the structure of the prior art teaches all structural limitations of the claim, the same is considered capable of meeting the functional limitations.
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights