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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) dated July 23, 2024, October 7, 2024, October 7, 2024, January 23, 2025, and May 27, 2025 have been considered.
The Examiner notes that copies of the cited foreign patent documents and non-patent literature documents cited on the IDS dated July 23, 2024 are found within the file wrapper of parent application 17/945,295.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: L3-4 of the claim should recite “the method further comprising the steps of” in order to set forth correct antecedent basis for Claim 4.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: L7 of the claim should recite “seating the second electrode with the third adhesive layer applied to the lower portion of the second electrode on the second section of the separator sheet” in order to have correct antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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 9 recites “and wherein the adhesive layer is dissolved in the electrolytic solution”.
However, Claim 9 depends on Claims 1 and 8, which set forth a first adhesive layer and a second adhesive layer. Therefore, it is unclear which adhesive layer of the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer the limitation is referring to.
For purpose of examination the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “and wherein either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are dissolved in the electrolytic solution”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 2012-0023367 A, cited on the IDS dated May 27, 2025, see also the English translation obtained from Global Dossier provided with this Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses in Figs. 4-6 a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly (10) ([0076]), the method comprising the steps of:
seating a separator sheet (10) on a table (200) along a separator guide (300) ([0025]);
arranging a first electrode (22) on the separator sheet (10) ([0025]);
applying a first adhesive layer to at least a part of a first section of the separator sheet (10) ([0026]);
seating a lower portion of a first electrode (22) on the first section of the separator sheet (10) ([0026]);
applying a second adhesive layer to at least a part of a second section of the separator sheet (10) ([0026]); and
folding the separator sheet (10) so that the second section of the separator sheet covers an upper portion of the first electrode (22) (Figs. 5-6, [0026], e.g. zigzagging the separator sheet 10).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the separator sheet (10) covers the first electrode (22) arranged on the first section with the second section of the separator sheet (10) with the second adhesive layer arranged between the first electrode (22) and the second section (Figs. 5-6, [0026], e.g. zigzagging the separator sheet 10).
Regarding Claim 7, Kim discloses an electrode assembly (20) manufactured by the method set forth above ([0025]).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PGPub 2011/0104567 A1, cited on the IDS dated July 23, 2024) and further in view of Ban (KR 2020-0092760 A, cited on the IDS dated May 27, 2025, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses in Figs. 1-2 a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly ([0064]), the method comprising:
seating a separator sheet (31) along a separator guide (44) ([0068]);
arranging a first electrode (20) on the separator sheet (31) ([0073]);
applying a first adhesive to at least a part of a first section of the separator sheet (31) ([0073]);
seating the lower portion of the first electrode (20) on the first section of the separator sheet (31) ([0073]);
applying a second adhesive layer to at least a part of a second section of the separator sheet (31) ([0073]);
folding the separator sheet (31) so that the second section of the separator sheet (31) covers an upper portion of the first electrode (20) ([0073]).
However, Lee does not disclose wherein the separator sheet (31) is seated on a table.
Ban teaches an electrode assembly manufacturing system that folds a separator sheet in a zigzag manner (e.g. Z-shaped folded separator) ([0009]).
Specifically, Ban teaches in Fig. 1 seating a separator sheet (1) on a table (30) along a separator guide (45) in order to allow for stacking of electrodes in the electrode assembly ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to seat the separator sheet of Lee on a table, as taught by Ban, in order to allow for stacking of electrodes in an electrode assembly, as desired by Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses wherein the separator sheet (31 of Lee) covers the first electrode (20 of Lee) arranged on the first section with the second section of the separator sheet (31 of Lee) with the second adhesive layer arranged between the first electrode (20 of Lee) and the second section (Fig. 2 and [0073] of Lee).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses wherein the separator sheet (31 of Lee) is folded in a zigzag manner (e.g. Z-shaped folded separator) (Fig. 2 and [0067] of Lee).
Moreover, modified Lee discloses a first adhesive applicator (35 of Lee) that applies the first adhesive layer (Fig. 2 and [0073] of Lee).
However, modified Lee does not disclose wherein the separator guide and a first adhesive applicator are moved along a first direction relative to a stacking table and/or the stacking table is moved along the first direction relative to the separator guide and the first adhesive applicator while applying the adhesive and/or while folding the separator sheet.
Ban further teaches wherein the stacking table (30) is moved along a first direction relative to the separator guide (45 of Ban) while folding the separator sheet (1) in order to achieve the separator sheet (1) folded in a zigzag manner (Fig 1 and [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the stacking table along a first direction relative to the separator guide of modified Lee and the first adhesive applicator of Lee while folding the separator sheet of Lee, as further taught by Ban, in order to achieve the separator sheet folded in a zigzag manner, as desired by modified Lee.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Lee discloses an electrode assembly (1 of Lee) manufactured by the method set forth above ([0064], [0076] of Lee).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PGPub 2011/0104567 A1, cited on the IDS dated July 23, 2024) in view of Ban (KR 2020-0092760 A, cited on the IDS dated May 27, 2025, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US PGPub 2012/0196167 A1)
Regarding Claim 3, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses wherein the second adhesive layer is applied from a first upper nozzle (35 of Lee) (Fig. 2, [0073] of Lee).
Specifically, modified Lee discloses wherein the first adhesive layer is also applied from the first upper nozzle (35 of Lee) (Fig. 2, [0073] of Lee) and consequently modified Lee does not disclose wherein the first adhesive layer is applied from a first lower nozzle.
However, the Examiner notes mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a first lower nozzle in the method of modified Lee, such that the first adhesive layer of modified Lee is applied from the first lower nozzle, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully apply the first adhesive layer to the first section of the separator sheet of modified Lee, as desired by modified Lee.
Modified Lee further discloses the method comprising the steps of:
seating a second electrode (20 of Lee) on the second section of the separator sheet (31 of Lee) (Fig. 2 and [0067], [0073] of Lee); and
folding the separator sheet (31 of Lee) so that a third section of the separator sheet (31 of Lee) covers the second electrode (20 of Lee) (Fig. 2 and [0067], [0073] of Lee).
Specifically, modified Lee discloses wherein an adhesive is applied to the separator sheet (31 of Lee) in order to prevent misalignment of the first electrode (20 of Lee) and the second electrode (20 of Lee) during manufacturing of an electrode assembly (1 of Lee) ([0005]-[0006], [0009], [0073], [0077] of Lee).
However, modified Lee does not disclose applying the adhesive to the second electrode and consequently does not disclose the method comprising the steps of:
applying a third adhesive layer to a lower portion of a second electrode from the first lower nozzle or a second lower nozzle;
seating a second electrode with the third adhesive layer applied to the lower portion of the second electrode on the second section of the separator sheet;
applying a fourth adhesive layer to an upper portion of the second electrode from a second upper nozzle.
Kim teaches in Fig. 11 a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly that folds a separator sheet in a zigzag manner (e.g. Z-shaped folded separator) ([0048]).
Specifically, Kim teaches applying an adhesive layer to an electrode and then folding a separator sheet so as to alternately stack a first electrode and a second electrode while interposing a separator therebetween ([0048]-[0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a third adhesive layer to a lower portion of the second electrode of modified Lee, as taught by Kim, from the first lower nozzle of modified Lee or a second lower nozzle, as such is a known configuration in the art and for adhering an electrode to a separator sheet and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully adhere the second electrode to the separator sheet of modified Lee, thereby preventing misalignment of the second electrode during manufacturing of an electrode assembly, as desired by modified Lee.
Thus, modified Lee discloses applying a third adhesive layer to a lower portion of the second electrode (20 of Lee) from the first lower nozzle or a second lower nozzle ([0048]-[0053]) and seating the second electrode (20 of Lee) with the third adhesive layer applied to the lower portion of the second electrode (20 of Lee) on the second section of the separator sheet (31 of Lee) (Fig. 2 and [0067], [0073] of Lee).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a fourth adhesive layer to an upper portion of the second electrode of modified Lee, as taught by Kim, from a second upper nozzle, as such is a known configuration in the art and for adhering an electrode to a separator sheet and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully adhere the second electrode to the separator sheet of modified Lee, thereby preventing misalignment of the second electrode during manufacturing of an electrode assembly, as desired by modified Lee.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PGPub 2011/0104567 A1, cited on the IDS dated July 23, 2024) in view of Ban (KR 2020-0092760 A, cited on the IDS dated May 27, 2025, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Kim et al. (US PGPub 2012/0196167 A1), as applied to Claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 2012-0023367 A, cited on the IDS dated May 27, 2025, see also the English translation obtained from Global Dossier provided with this Office Action), hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘367 and Kim et al. (US PGPub 2015/0228963 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kim ‘963.
Regarding Claim 4, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Lee further discloses translating the separator guide (44 of Lee) over the table (30 of Ban) during any one of the first, second, third, or fourth adhesive layer applying steps (Fig. 2 and [0069] of Lee, wherein the separator guide 44 rolls in order to supply the separator sheet 31).
However, modified Lee does not disclose fixing the table in position; and translating the first upper nozzle and the second upper nozzle together over the table during any one of the first, second, third, or fourth adhesive layer applying steps.
Kim ‘364 teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly that folds a separator sheet in a zigzag manner (e.g. Z-shaped folded separator) (Figs. 4-6, [0025]-[0026]).
Specifically, Kim teaches seating a separator sheet (10) on a table (200) along a separator guide (300), wherein the table (200) is fixed in position (Figs. 4-6, [0025]-[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fix the table of modified Lee in position, as taught by Kim ‘364, as such is a known configuration in the art for manufacturing an electrode assembly that folds a separator sheet in a zigzag manner and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully manufacture an electrode assembly as desired by modified Lee.
Furthermore, Kim ‘963 teaches a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly comprising applying an adhesive from a nozzle, wherein the nozzle is translated during application of the adhesive ([0024], [0055]-[0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to translate the first upper nozzle and the second upper nozzle of modified Lee over the table of modified Lee during any one of the first, second, third, or fourth adhesive layer applying steps, as taught by Kim ‘963, as such is a known configuration in the art for applying an adhesive and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such could successfully be done in order to apply any one of the first, second, third, or fourth adhesive layers of modified Lee during any one of the first, second, third, or fourth adhesive layer applying steps of modified Lee
Regarding Claim 5, modified Lee discloses an electrode assembly (1 of Lee) manufactured by the method set forth above ([0064], [0076] of Lee).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 2012-0023367 A, cited on the IDS dated May 27, 2025, see also the English translation obtained from Global Dossier provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2017-050215 A, cited on the IDS dated July 23, 2024, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding Claims 8-9, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Kim further discloses wherein the electrode assembly (20) is utilized in a battery cell ([0001]).
However, Kim does not disclose a battery cell comprising a battery case that houses the electrode assembly together with an electrolytic solution, and wherein either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer is dissolved in the electrolytic solution.
Masuda teaches a battery cell that prevents misalignment of electrodes and a separator during production ([0011]).
Specifically, Masuda teaches in Fig. 1 a battery cell (10) comprising a battery case (6) that houses an electrode assembly (5) together with an electrolytic solution (7), wherein an adhesive layer is applied to at least a part of a surface of an electrode and/or separator during manufacturing of the electrode assembly (5) in order to fix electrodes and the separator together so as to prevent them from shifting relative to each other ([0042]-[0043], [0050]).
Masuda further discloses wherein the adhesive layer is dissolved in the electrolytic solution ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrode assembly of Kim in a battery cell, the battery cell comprising a battery case that houses the electrode assembly together with an electrolytic solution, and wherein either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer of Kim is dissolved in the electrolytic solution, as taught by Masuda, in order to form a battery cell that prevents misalignment of electrodes and a separator during production.
Modified Kim does not disclose wherein either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer have a form of a plurality of dots.
Masuda further teaches wherein the adhesive layer does not need to be applied to the entire surface of the electrodes or the separator so long as it can fix the electrodes and the separator together ([0044]).
For example, Masuda teaches wherein the adhesive layer may have a form of a plurality of dots (Fig. 2, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer of modified Kim to have a form of a plurality of dots, as further taught by Masuda, as such is not particularly limited so long as it fixes the electrodes and the separator in the electrode assembly of modified Kim and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the electrode assembly of modified Kim.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US PGPub 2011/0104567 A1, cited on the IDS dated July 23, 2024) in view of Ban (KR 2020-0092760 A, cited on the IDS dated May 27, 2025, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 7 above, and further in view of Masuda et al. (JP 2017-050215 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding Claims 8-9, modified Lee discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Ban further discloses wherein the electrode assembly (1 of Lee) is utilized in a battery cell ([0002] of Lee).
Specifically, modified Lee discloses wherein an adhesive is applied to the separator sheet (31 of Lee) in order to prevent misalignment of the first electrode (20 of Lee) and the second electrode (20 of Lee) during manufacturing of an electrode assembly (1 of Lee) ([0005]-[0006], [0009], [0073], [0077] of Lee).
However, modified Lee does not disclose a battery cell comprising a battery case that houses the electrode assembly together with an electrolytic solution, and wherein either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer is dissolved in the electrolytic solution.
Masuda teaches a battery cell that prevents misalignment of electrodes and a separator during production ([0011]).
Specifically, Masuda teaches in Fig. 1 a battery cell (10) comprising a battery case (6) that houses an electrode assembly (5) together with an electrolytic solution (7), wherein an adhesive layer is applied to at least a part of a surface of an electrode and/or separator during manufacturing of the electrode assembly (5) in order to fix electrodes and the separator together so as to prevent them from shifting relative to each other ([0042]-[0043], [0050]).
Masuda further discloses wherein the adhesive layer is dissolved in the electrolytic solution ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the electrode assembly of modified Lee in a battery cell, the battery cell comprising a battery case that houses the electrode assembly together with an electrolytic solution, and wherein either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer of modified Lee is dissolved in the electrolytic solution, as taught by Masuda, in order to form a battery cell that prevents misalignment of electrodes and a separator during production, as desired by modified Lee.
Modified Lee does not disclose wherein either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer have a form of a plurality of dots.
Masuda further teaches wherein the adhesive layer does not need to be applied to the entire surface of the electrodes or the separator so long as it can fix the electrodes and the separator together ([0044]).
For example, Masuda teaches wherein the adhesive layer may have a form of a plurality of dots (Fig. 2, [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form either one of or both the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer of modified Lee to have a form of a plurality of dots, as further taught by Masuda, as such is not particularly limited so long as it fixes the electrodes and the separator in the electrode assembly of modified Lee and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the electrode assembly of modified Lee.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1725