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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, and 8-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 2016/0164069 A1), hereinafter “Takahashi,” in view of How and Why You should Use Serial Number Management in Assembly, by Aptean Staff Writer, February 6, 2020, available at https://www.aptean.com/en-US/insights/blog/how-and-why-you-should-use-serial-number-management-in-assembly, last visited November 6, 2025, hereinafter “Aptean,” Xia et al. (US 2021/0083314 A1), hereinafter “Xia,” and Modi (US 2023/0289541 A1) is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Aptean, Xia, Modi, and Tokuchi (US 2019/0113871 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses a method of tracking and monitoring battery manufacturing data comprising:
assigning an identification (ID) to a unit electrode and assigning a unit electrode assembly ID to a unit electrode assembly comprising the unit electrode, in this case the front end indicator (¶ [0026] & [0064]; Figs. 1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, reference no. 125) includes identification information (¶ [0058]; Figs. 4B, 4C, reference no. 127) that is thus associated with the battery assembly (¶ [0065]); and
matching the assigned unit electrode ID with process data and matching the assigned unit electrode ID with the process data, in this case each produced electrode may be managed and traced based on its ID information in the front end indicator (¶ [0064]);
wherein the assigning a unit electrode ID to a unit electrode and the assigning a unit electrode assembly ID to a unit electrode assembly comprising the unit electrode comprises:
forming a physical ID on a tab of the electrode or the unit electrode assembly, in this case the front end indicators with identification information are formed at formation portions of the electrode tabs (¶ [0063]; Fig. 4C, reference nos. 127 & 132).
Takahashi does not disclose forming a separate ID on the electrode assembly. However, Aptean teaches that it is important to provide identification to components and finished parts (see p. 1/6). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing separate IDs or serial numbers to the unit electrode and the unit electrode assembly would have allowed both the component, i.e. the unit electrode, and the finished product, i.e. the unit electrode assembly, to be tracked and traced through the supply chain, thereby facilitating optimized production and inventory management and increased efficiency (see pp. 1/6-2/6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided separate IDs to both the unit electrode and the unit electrode assembly in order to have facilitated optimized production and inventory management and increased efficiency.
Neither Takahashi nor Aptean explicitly states that the assigned unit electrode assembly ID and the assigned unit electrode ID are matched. However, Xia teaches recording the identification information for each element used in the assembly of a unit battery and to track the production process with the identification information (¶ [0043], [0059], & [0086]). In other words, the identifiers of the individual components are tracked and matched with that of the assembled batteries so that batteries possessing different specifications may be tracked and identified. Xia further teaches using the information to compare the performance of batteries with different specifications in order to optimize the assembly process, thereby facilitating improved automation, operation, precision, and efficiency (see ¶ [0043], [0059], & [0086]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have matched the assigned unit electrode assembly ID with the assigned unit electrode ID in order to have facilitated improved automation, operation, precision, and efficiency.
Takahashi, Aptean, and Xia do not disclose the use of a virtual ID. However, Modi teaches replacing physical tags or identifiers with virtual identification tags so as to reduce the cost of labor and automation (Abstract, ¶ [0004]-[0006]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that applying Modi’s virtual identification scheme in place of the physical identifiers taught by Takahashi would have yielded the predictable result of eliminating the labor needed to attach a physical ID for each electrode of each electrode assembly, thereby facilitating reduced production labor and cost. See M.P.E.P. §2143 I. D. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have replaced the physical ID with the virtual ID as taught by Modi in order to achieve the predictable result of labor and cost reduction.
Takahashi, Aptean, Xia, and Modi do not disclose that the unit electrode is not physically marked. However, Tokuchi teaches marker-free AR technology for obtaining identification information by capturing an image of a target part and comparing it to a comparison result (¶ [0069]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the marker-free technique of Tokuchi for physical marks would have yielded the predictable result of being able to identify specific components. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the marker-free technique for the method using physical marks on the unit electrodes in order to yield the predictable result of being able to identify specific unit electrodes.
Regarding claim 2, Takahashi further discloses that the process data comprises inspected and measured data, in this case inspected information such as thickness abnormalities can be recorded in association with the identification information (¶ [0061]).
Regarding claim 3, Takahashi further discloses that the unit electrode ID comprises a virtual ID, in this case the detection signal corresponds to the presence or absence of the front end indicator (see ¶ [0038]; Fig. 2C) and thus is a “virtual ID.”
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi further discloses that the ID is attached to the unit electrode assembly, in this case the ID is marked on a tab of the unit electrode (¶ [0032], [0060]-0061]; Fig. 4C, reference no. 127) which is a part of the electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi further discloses that:
wherein the matching the assigned unit electrode ID with the process data comprises matching the unit electrode ID with the process data of a roll map generated in an electrode manufacturing process from which the unit electrode is derived, in this case each electrode is formed on a roll in a position corresponding to its front end indicator (¶ [0031]-[0037]; Fig. 2) which results in a map of coated and uncoated portions.
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi further discloses that wherein the matching the unit electrode ID with process data comprises:
identifying the coordinate value corresponding to the unit electrode ID, in this case the front end position detecting means generates a detection signal upon detecting the front end indicator (¶ [0038]; Figs. 2B & 2C, reference nos. 104a & 125); and
acquiring the process data corresponding to the coordinate value from the roll map, in this case the intermittent coating layers are formed, or not, based upon the signal generated from the front end indicator (¶ [0038]; Fig. 2B, reference nos. 103a & 125).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi further discloses that:
the electrode unit is part of an electrode (see, e.g. ¶ [0001]);
wherein assigning the unit electrode ID to the unit electrode comprises assigning the unit electrode ID at each predetermined interval of the electrode (¶ [0033]; Fig. 2B, reference no. 125); and
wherein the identifying the coordinate value corresponding to the unit electrode ID comprises identifying the coordinate value based on the predetermined interval and the unit electrode ID, in this case the front end position detecting means generates a detection signal upon detecting the front end indicator (¶ [0038]; Figs. 2B & 2C, reference nos. 104a & 125).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi further discloses that:
the unit electrode is part of an electrode (see, e.g. ¶ [0001]),
wherein the assigning an ID to at least one of the unit electrode and a unit electrode assembly comprising the unit electrode comprises:
assigning a virtual ID at each predetermined interval of the electrode, in this case the front end position detecting means generates a detection signal upon detecting the front end indicator (¶ [0038]; Figs. 2B & 2C, reference nos. 104a & 125); and
marking a physical ID on a tab of the electrode (¶ [0032], [0060]-0061]; Fig. 4C, reference no. 127).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi further discloses that the method comprises:
generating the unit electrode by cutting the electrode at the predetermined interval, in this case each unit electrode is cut from the collector at the formation portions of the electrode tabs (¶ [0063]; Fig. 4C, reference no. 125).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, Aptean, and Modi as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi further discloses cutting individual electrodes (¶ [0061]-[0066]), but does not specify the type of electrode assembly. However, Yang teaches a stacked electrode formed from electrodes cut to a predetermined size (¶ [0006]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that a stacking the electrodes formed by the method disclosed by Takahashi would have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery upon reading Yang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have formed as stacked electrode assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5, and 8-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights