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 .
Petition Decision
In view of the Petition Decision filed on September 10, 2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed November 7, 2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended; support for the amendment can be found at least in cancelled claim 2. Claims 1 and 3 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 7, 2024 have been considered. Applicant argues that the amended claims are not obvious over Yamada in view of Ikeda and Morimoto for at least the reason that the combination does not provide for all the aspects of the claims, nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled artisan to modify the combination so as to derive the current invention because a) Yamada does not teach an equivalent to applicant’s first separator having a 3.0 N or more and less than 3.9 N of piercing strength as while Yamada teaches the other examples of separators taught by Yamada in which the piercing strength within a range of 3.626 to 3.920 N, these separators are not equivalent to Applicant’s first separator as the placement of the separators are different than taught by Yamada and b) Ikeda teaches in regard to both separators that “the tension rupture strength of the first separator in a direction perpendicular to the winding direction of the wound electrode assembly is 7.8 to 11.8 N, and the tension rupture strength of the second separator in a direction perpendicular to the winding direction of the wound electrode assembly is 2.9 to 5.9 N,” and, therefore, there are no disclosures within Ikeda prompting a skilled artisan to adopt only the weaker strength of the second separator because Ikeda requires a significantly stronger first separator to be used in conjunction with a significantly weaker second separator.
Regarding argument A, Yamada teaches the pin puncture strength of the first separator (Applicant’s second separator) is 4,508 mN/20µm in Example 5, meeting the claim limitation of “the second separator [having] 3.9 N or more and 6.0 N or less of piercing strength.” The pin puncture strength of the first separator in Examples 2, 4, and 6 was highlighted to demonstrate how the recited range in well known in the art as there are other embodiments taught by Yamada in which the separator had a pin puncture strength in the claimed range. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is found unpersuasive.
Regarding argument B, Yamada teaches the pin puncture strength of the first separator (provided on an outer winding side of the anode sheet) is higher than the pin puncture strength of the second separator (provided on an inner winding side of the anode sheet) (see e.g., Table 1, Example 5 and Figure 2). Ikeda teaches the higher tension rupture strength of the first separator is positioned on a side in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the negative electrode plate and the lower tension rupture strength of the second separator is positioned on a side in contact with the inner peripheral surface of the negative electrode plate (see e.g., Abstract and Figure 10). Since Yamada and Ikeda both teach a configuration in which the pin puncture strength/tension rupture strength of the separator on the outer winding side of the anode sheet is higher than that of the separator on the inner winding side of the anode sheet, one of ordinary skill could have been motivated to modify the pin puncture strength/tension rupture strength of the separator on the inner winding side of the anode sheet to be in the range of 2.9 or more and less than 5.9 N as taught by Ikeda in order to suppress thermal runaway caused by external impact even in a fully charged state or even in an overcharged state (see e.g., Ikeda Abstract). Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO 2008035806 A1) in view of Ikeda et al. (WO 2012147783 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ikeda, and Morimoto et al. (JP 2004281292 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morimoto.
Regarding claim 1, Yamada teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte battery (see e.g. paragraph [0001], a non-aqueous electrolyte battery) comprising:
a winding-shaped electrode assembly having a positive electrode and a negative electrode wound with a first separator and a second separator intervening therebetween (see e.g., paragraph [0119], the battery has a toroidal electrode assembly 1 comprising a second separator 11, a cathode sheet 13, a first separator 10, and an anode sheet 12);
and a battery case housing the electrode assembly (see e.g., Figure 1, a battery can 23 houses the toroidal electrode assembly),
wherein the first separator is provided on an outer winding side of the positive electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0119] and Figure 2, the second separator 11 is provided on an outer winding side of the cathode sheet 13),
the second separator is provided on an inner winding side of the positive electrode (see e.g., paragraph [0119] and Figure 2, the first separator 10 is provided on an inner winding side of the cathode sheet),
and a piercing strength of the second separator is higher than a piercing strength of the first separator (see e.g., Table 1, Example 5, the pin puncture strength of the first separator (Applicant’s second separator) is 4,508 mN/20 µm and the pin puncture strength of the second separator (Applicant’s first separator) is 4,214 mN/20 µm; therefore, the pin puncture strength of the first separator (Applicant’s second separator) is higher than the pin puncture strength of the second separator (Applicant’s first separator),
wherein the winding-shaped electrode assembly is laminated and wound in order of the second separator, the positive electrode, the first separator and the negative electrode from the inner winding side (see e.g., paragraph [0119] and Annotated Yamada Figure 2, the battery has a toroidal electrode assembly 1 comprising a second separator 11, a cathode sheet 13, a first separator 10, and an anode sheet 12), and
wherein the second separator has 3.9 N or more and 6.0 N or less of piercing strength (see e.g., Table 1, Example 5, the pin puncture strength of the first separator (Applicant’s second separator) is 4,508 mN/20 µm).
PNG
media_image1.png
552
1020
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yamada Figure 2
However, Ikeda teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary cell having satisfactory overcharge characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics, wherein thermal runaway in the battery caused by external impact can be suppressed even from a fully charged state through to an overcharged state (see e.g., Abstract). Ikeda teaches the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary cell (1) comprising a wound electrode assembly (14) on which a positive electrode plate (11) and a negative electrode plate (12) are wound via a first separator (13a) (Applicant’s second separator) and a second separator (13b) (Applicant’s first separator), wherein the first separator (13a) is positioned on a side in contact with the inner peripheral surface of the positive electrode plate (11) and the second separator (13b) is positioned on a side in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the positive electrode plate (11) (see e.g., Figure 1). Ikeda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, wherein the first separator has 3.0 N or more and less than 3.9 N of piercing strength (see e.g., Abstract, the tension rupture strength of the second separator (13b) in a direction perpendicular to the winding direction of the wound electrode assembly (14) is 2.9 to 5.9 N). Ikeda teaches range of the tension rupture strength of 2.9 to 5.9 N produces a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary cell having satisfactory overcharge characteristics and charge-discharge cycle characteristics, wherein thermal runaway in the battery caused by external impact can be suppressed even from a fully charged state through to an overcharged state (see e.g., Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the second separator (Applicant’s first separator) of Yamada to have a tension rupture strength of 2.9 to 5.9 N, as taught by Ikeda, in order to suppress thermal runaway caused by external impact even in a fully charged state or even in an overcharged state (see e.g., Abstract).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because the tension rupture strength of 2.9 to 5.9 N overlap with the recited range, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Yamada, as modified by Ikeda, do not explicitly teach the first separator has 185% or more and 260% or less of coefficient of extension in a winding axis direction and the second separator has 170% or more and 240% or less of coefficient of extension in the winding axis direction.
However, Morimoto teaches a band separator used for the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract). Morimoto teaches the separators have a polyethylene content of 99% by mass (see e.g., paragraph [0017]). Morimoto teaches the band separator has a break elongation of 40% or more and 200% or less in the winding direction of the separator (see e.g., Abstract). Morimoto teaches the separator with this range of break elongation is easily broken and the broken area is increased when the separator is deformed so as to prevent the short-circuit current from being concentrated on a local portion, and therefore, even if an internal short circuit occurs, the safety is improved so that the battery does not burst or smoke (see e.g., paragraph [0010]).
Moreover, the Instant Specification teaches the first and second separator can be made of polyolefin-based resins such as polyethylene (see e.g., Instant Specification paragraph [0027]). Yamada teaches the separators are composed of high-density polyethylene (see e.g., Yamada paragraph [0122]). Ikeda discloses the separators are made from a blended polyethylene mixture (see e.g., Ikeda paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the separators of Yamada, as modified by Ikeda, to have a break elongation of 40% or more and 200% or less in the winding direction of the separator, as taught by Morimoto, in order to improve the safety of the battery to prevent bursting or smoking because when the separator is deformed, the separator is easily broken and the broken area is increased to prevent the short-circuit current from being concentrated on a local portion (see e.g., paragraph [0010]) and, as well, the separators taught by both Yamada, Ikeda, and Morimoto have the composition of the separators as taught by the Instant Specification and will inherently have the same coefficient of extension for the first and second separators (MPEP 2112.01 (II)).
It has been held in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” and because a break elongation of 40% or more and 200% or less overlaps with the recited ranges, a “prima facie” case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(l)).
Regarding claim 3, Yamada, as modified by Ikeda and Morimoto, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Yamada teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, wherein:
the positive electrode has a positive electrode active material layer including a positive electrode active material on at least one of its surfaces (see e.g., paragraph [0109], the cathode sheet comprises a current collector and cathodic active material).
Yamada does not explicitly teach the positive electrode active material is a lithium-containing composite oxide.
However, Ikeda teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, wherein:
the positive electrode active material is a lithium-containing composite oxide (see e.g., paragraph [0019], the positive electrode active material usable in the positive electrode plate is LiMO2 (M is Co, Ni, Mn), LiMn2O4, LiCoxMnyNizO2 (x+y+z=1), LiCoO2, LiNiyCo1-yO2 (y = 0.01 to 0.99), LiFePO4, or the like may be used singly or a mixture of a plurality of kinds may be used).
Ikeda teaches the positive electrode active material oxide produces good overcharge characteristics and charge/discharge cycle characteristics of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (see e.g., paragraph [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the positive electrode active material of Yamada to be a lithium-containing composite oxide, as taught by Ikeda, in order to produce good overcharge characteristics and charge/discharge cycle characteristics of the nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (see e.g., paragraph [0012]).
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 Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights