What is at issue: there is no “gap guard” in the claims
DA Technology’s registered patent KR102430493B1 (“Laser notching system for secondary battery manufacturing”) is often introduced as “a patent that tames roll-to-roll tension variance with a gap guard,” but the claim text contains neither a gap guard nor any tension-control element. What claim 1 takes as its right is a mechanical structure that holds the electrode in close contact on a rotating cylindrical pattern jig with tab-processing holes around its circumference for the laser to pass through, and draws suction inside the drum so that scrap and dust generated during laser notching are removed as the process runs. The title’s “narrow margin of roll-to-roll tension variance” therefore does not accurately point to the problem this patent solves; this article corrects that framing and re-reads the scope of the right on the basis of the actual claims.
Starting with the industry setting, investment in secondary-battery manufacturing automation continues. On 2 September 2026 J’s Robotics disclosed a KRW 33.26 billion supply contract for robotic automation equipment for secondary batteries (the counterparty was withheld at its request to protect trade secrets), and D.ENT was reported in July 2024 to have signed laser-notching equipment contracts with L-H Battery Company, the LG Energy Solution–Honda joint venture, bringing orders to about KRW 87.4 billion and extending its reach to the anode. Wherever automation investment gathers, notching (the process of cutting out the tab shape that draws current from the electrode) keeps appearing.
The tension is that notching, although an old process, has become a stage for new rights disputes with the shift to lasers. Switching to lasers reduces the problem of die wear, but how to deal with cut-off scrap and fine dust becomes a new precision variable. This article answers three questions. What does KR102430493B1 actually claim, on what line of prior art does its scope sit, and where can later-entering equipment makers find design-around options?
Basic principle: write on a blackboard and the dust falls down
Notching is the work of cutting away everything from a wide electrode sheet except the tab shape. Press notching, the former mainstream, stamps with a die, so, much like repeatedly cutting thick paper with scissors, a worn blade leaves burrs on the cut edge. A burr is a defect that can pierce the separator and cause an internal short. Laser notching reduces this problem by cutting without contact, using light.
Source: reconstructed by the editorial team from the claims and stated effects of KR102430493B1
Lasers have a weakness too. According to the specification, conventional laser electrode-tab processing devices fired the laser vertically onto the face of an electrode moving horizontally. Cut scrap and fine foreign matter then pile up on the electrode’s upper surface, the force with which the jig holds the electrode drops, and disturbance arises in the laser irradiation, lowering processing precision. It is like sharpening a pencil over a sheet of paper on a desk: the shavings pile up on the paper.
The idea of KR102430493B1 is closer to writing with chalk on a blackboard. On an upright surface like a blackboard, the dust falls down by itself. This patent has the electrode move vertically at the laser irradiation point while supported by a drum-type pattern jig, so that scrap and dust generated during notching drop downward and are removed as the process runs. A suction pipe connected to a suction pump leads into the drum, and the specification explains that micro vacuum holes hold the electrode by suction and prevent vibration, allowing electrode tabs to be processed accurately. The position-stabilizing function readers imagined under the name “gap guard” is implemented in this patent not as a separate guard but by the close-contact support of the suction drum itself.
Comparison: press notching, laser notching, and a common misreading
| Item | Press (die) notching | Laser notching |
|---|---|---|
| Processing method | Pressing and shearing with a die | Non-contact light irradiation |
| Processing speed (reference) | Baseline | Up to 1,200mm/sec announced by DA Technology, about 1.5x existing (reported 2020-08) |
| Burr formation | Increases as the die wears | Relatively suppressed |
| Maintenance | Die replacement needed | Centered on optics management |
| New risk | Low (mature technology) | Loss of holding force and laser disturbance from scrap and dust buildup |
Source: compiled by the editorial team from an Etoday report (2020-08-03, figures announced by DA Technology) and the background art of KR102430493B1
What this table says: Laser notching leads on speed, up to 1,200mm per second (company figure), and on burr suppression, but that lead depends on how quickly processing by-products are cleared. The new risk this patent targets is likewise scrap and dust buildup, not tension.
Comparing the common summary of this patent with the claim text makes the difference even clearer.
| Item | Common summary (before correction) | Per the claim text |
|---|---|---|
| Core element | Gap guard | Rotating cylindrical pattern jig with tab-processing holes formed circumferentially |
| Electrode supply | Roll-mounting section, tension-control element | Wound on and guided in close contact by a guide drum (no roll mount or tension element) |
| Problem solved | Misaligned irradiation from roll-to-roll tension variance | Loss of holding force and laser disturbance from scrap and debris buildup |
| Means of position stability | Mechanically limiting side-to-side sheet movement | Suction inside the drum (suction pipe and pump) and close-contact support |
| By-product handling | Not mentioned | Scrap and dust drop down via vertical travel; collection, dust extraction and dry cleaning in dependent claims |
Source: compiled by the editorial team from the claims and specification of KR102430493B1 (Google Patents)
What this table says: None of the five items matches the original text. Starting a design-around review from “is there a gap guard?” produces a comparison chart unrelated to the actual scope of the right.
Patent perspective: limitations stacked layer upon layer on a single drum
Bibliographic data: KR102430493B1 was filed by DA Technology Co., Ltd. on 2021-03-22 (KR1020210036919A); the inventors are Jeong Young-tae, Kang Yong-jin, Byun Young-hee, Lee Hyuk-yong and Jang Ki-hyun. The international application for the same invention, WO2022203120A1 (PCT/KR2021/007218), was filed on 2021-06-09. After a notice of grounds for rejection on 2022-05-18, an amendment filed on 2022-05-23 and a decision to grant on 2022-06-03, its registration was published on 2022-08-10. Per Google Patents its legal status is Active, its anticipated expiry is 2041-03-22, and payment of the fourth-year annuity on 2025-07-30 is recorded.
Claim gist (restated): Claim 1 includes (a) a laser irradiator that emits the laser, (b) a jig base fixed to one side of the irradiator, (c) a pattern jig, a cylinder along whose outer surface the electrode is guided in close contact, with tab-processing holes formed circumferentially on one or both outer sides and with rotation shafts on both sides rotatably connected to the jig base, and (d) a rotation unit that transmits rotational force to the pattern jig’s shaft.
It then limits the pattern jig further, requiring a guide drum around which the electrode is wound and guided, a hollow pattern drum continuing outside it with tab-processing holes in a zigzag pattern, a coupling disk that closes off the pattern drum’s interior and is connected so the two can rotate relative to each other, and a suction pipe that communicates with the drum interior through the coupling disk and is connected to a suction pump.
Source: reconstructed by the editorial team from the claims of KR102430493B1
The dependent claims add elements such as an edge-processing drum on the other side (with straight cutting holes), scrap-collection units above or below the tab-processing holes, a dust-collection box with a scrap guide plate, a dry-cleaning unit using air spray and suction nozzles with ultrasonic vibration, and a secondary processing device such as marking. Claim 2 is shown as deleted.
Filing history: This patent should be read against the line of prior art. Among the cited documents, KR20180004582A (filed by LG Chem, 2016-07-04) dealt with an electrode manufacturing device that places a vacuum-suction pattern jig opposite the laser irradiation unit and separates a scrap outlet. DA Technology had already secured rights in KR102158708B1 (filed 2020-07-29, registered 2020-09-22) to a pattern jig combining drums with laser-passage holes and guide drums. KR102430493B1 reads as a follow-on application that combines vertical travel, suction inside the drum and a by-product collection system on top of that.
Insight: a narrow but deep claim shaped by amendment. Given that an amendment was filed five days after the notice of grounds for rejection and claim 2 was deleted, it is possible that detailed limitations such as the guide drum, pattern drum, coupling disk and suction pipe entered claim 1 by amendment. If so, the literal scope of claim 1 is narrow, but the same company’s KR102158708B1 separately covers the basic skeleton of the drum-type pattern jig, so the two patents form a layered structure. A later entrant’s FTO (freedom-to-operate) review should look at these two patents together, not at KR102430493B1 alone. The Google Patents citation list shows international applications in the name of LG Energy Solution (WO2024091045A1, WO2024196024A1 and others) as documents citing this patent, indicating that filings in the same technical area continue on the cell-maker side as well.
Design-around scenario (counter-argument): Supporting the electrode with a fixed flat jig or a suction stage instead of a rotating cylindrical pattern jig, or choosing a structure without tab-processing holes on the jig surface, may avoid literal infringement by lacking the pattern-jig element of claim 1. Even with a drum, the absence of an internal suction system (coupling disk and suction pipe) likewise creates distance under the all-elements rule. There is a counter-argument. A design whose problem-solving principle, holding the electrode in close contact while discharging by-products downward, is substantially the same and easily substituted could become subject to a doctrine-of-equivalents determination. And if the scope was narrowed by the applicant during amendment, prosecution history estoppel could limit an equivalents argument, so the conclusion can only be described as a possibility that depends on the individual design and the prosecution history.
Limits and outlook
Counter-scenario: It is too early to conclude that the shift to laser notching will proceed smoothly. The initial cost of laser sources and optics remains high, and new quality variables such as active-material damage from the heat-affected zone (HAZ, the region where laser heat changes material properties) could make cell makers’ transition slower than expected. In addition, a drum-type pattern jig requires a new drum each time the tab shape changes, which could become a replacement burden for customers running many cell types on one line.
Strategic alternative: Equipment makers are better off keeping in parallel design options that implement the two functions of by-product removal and electrode fixing through different mechanical principles. For example, splitting electrode fixing into flat-plate suction and by-product removal into airflow design could aim at the same effect while keeping distance from the drum-type pattern-jig patent family. At the same time, filing separately on one’s own improvements to secure cross-licensing leverage is also worth considering.
Practical action: Prepare, with your in-house patent team, a one-to-one comparison chart that checks your own or a partner equipment maker’s laser-notching design simultaneously against the elements of claim 1 of KR102430493B1 (laser irradiator, jig base, rotating pattern jig with tab-processing holes, rotation unit, and guide drum, pattern drum, coupling disk and suction pipe) and against claim 1 of KR102158708B1. If existing review materials were built around whether a “gap guard” is present, it is safer to discard them and redo them on the new basis.
Items requiring verification
- The grounds of the 2022-05-18 notice of grounds for rejection and the content of the 2022-05-23 amendment (whether the detailed limitations of claim 1 were added by amendment)
- Whether the counterparty to J’s Robotics’ KRW 33.26 billion contract is an overseas secondary-battery manufacturer
- Status of national-phase entry and grant of WO2022203120A1 abroad
- Which DA Technology laser-notching equipment models are in actual mass-production use and how they correspond to this patent
Sources
- Google Patents, KR102430493B1 “Laser notching system for secondary battery manufacturing”: bibliographic data, claims, specification and legal events
- Google Patents, KR102158708B1 “Pattern jig for laser notching process of electrode and laser notching system equipped therewith”: bibliographic data
- Google Patents, KR20180004582A (LG Chem, device for manufacturing electrode comprising pattern jig and scrap outlet portion): bibliographic data
- Electronic Times (etnews), “D.ENT wins KRW 87.4 billion laser-notching equipment order, expands into anode” (2024-07-15)
- Etoday, “DA Technology succeeds in developing high-speed laser notching equipment” (2020-08-03)
- Asia Economy, “J’s Robotics signs KRW 33.3 billion supply contract for secondary-battery manufacturing robotics equipment” (2026-09-02)