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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
rotation buff in claim 2, disclosed as a rotating roll/roller 6 in Fig. 5 and 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment filed March 24, 2026 has rendered the 112 rejection in the previous office action moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizu et al. (JP 4754960) in view of Shi et al. (US 10601012).
As to claim 1, Ishizu discloses an electrode group disassembly device/method (Abstract). Ishizu discloses that the method comprises of: separating an outermost separator P4 of the separators from the active material layer at a boundary face with the active material layer by serially moving an extension point along the boundary face to extend the outermost separator; peeling the outermost separator, which has been separated from the active material layer P3, P1 in the separation step, from the active material layer; and disassembling a stacked state of the electrode body in each partial electrode including the active material layer from which the outermost separator has been peeled off in peeling (Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
921
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishizu discloses that all of the layers of the stack may be separated simultaneously from one another fails to specifically teach or disclose whether the outermost separator may be separated from the other layers before separating the rest of the layers of the stack. It is the position of the Examiner that this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since this would amount to the selection of performing process steps which is steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Here, the expected result would be to separate the layers from the stack in a desired order so that they are separated from one another.
As to claim 3, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Ishizu fails to specifically teach or disclose whether the separator comprises of an extruded resin film. Shi discloses a method of making a battery separator (Abstract). Shi discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use an extruded resin film for a separator in a lithium ion battery. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the extruded resin film separator of Shi in the method taught by Ishizu because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional separator for use in a lithium ion battery. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
The method of the above references as combined would peel and separate the separator in a direction perpendicular to the extrusion direction of the resin film prior to separation since the extrusion direction is limited to the plane of the film prior to separation.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizu et al. (JP 4754960) in view of Uematsu et al. (US 20150162584).
As to claim 4, the method of claim 1 is taught as seen above. Ishizu makes no mention that the separation step occurs in a water use state. Ishizu fails to specifically teach or disclose that the separation/peeling occurs in an inert atmosphere/environment. It is the position of the Examiner that operating in an inert environment is known and conventional in the art and would have been obvious at the time of filing to use in the method of Ishizu. Uematsu discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to remove a separator from a battery in an inert atmosphere (¶94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the inert environment of Uematsu in the method taught by Ishizu because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of providing a known successful and conventional environment for removing a separator from a battery/electrode stack. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishizu et al. (JP 4754960) and Shi et al. (US 10601012) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Uematsu et al. (US 20150162584).
As to claim 7, the method of claim 3 is taught as seen above. Claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 4 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5-6 and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 2, the closest prior art of Ishizu et al. (JP 4754960) discloses in Fig. 1 that the clamp rollers (rotation buff) 3, 4 (pressing on the electrode laminate and therefore the outermost separator layer) rotate while in a relatively stationary position, but fail to teach or disclose that the rollers may move in a cross direction relative to the lengthwise direction of the laminate as required of separator in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner will address only those arguments pertinent to the rejection above.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that the prior art of Ishizu fails to teach or disclose that the outermost separator is separated prior to separation from the other layers of the electrode body as recited in claim 1. This argument is not persuasive since, as seen in the rejection above, it would have been to one of ordinary skill in the art since this would amount to the selection of performing process steps which is steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Here, the expected result would be to separate the layers from the stack in a desired order so that they are separated from one another.
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 CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/ Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights