DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-15 are currently pending. Claims 4, 5, and 7 are cancelled. The amended claims do not overcome the previously stated 103 rejections. Therefore, upon further consideration, claims 1-3, 6, and 8-15 are rejected under the following 112 and 103 rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/9/25 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 4/24/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-15 are 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, it is unclear how the second thickness is substantially equal to the first thickness if the first thickness is 80% and the second thickness is 120%.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear how “a sum of the thickness of the contraction part and a thickness of a portion of the first mixture disposed on the first surface thickness is 200% of the thickness of the elongation part” if the thickness of the contraction part is 80%, a thickness of the first mixture is 100% and a thickness of the elongation part is 120% because 180% does not equal 240%.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, the limitation “wherein a first thickness t1 of the contraction part is 80% of a third thickness t3 of the first mixture and a second thickness t2 of the elongation part is 120% of the third thickness t3 and wherein the second thickness is substantially equal to the first thickness when a portion of the battery on which the second mixture is disposed is folded” is not supported by the specification.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al (US 2017/0098862) in view of Tee et al (US 2016/0049217).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 15, Komori et al discloses a smart phone (electronic device) comprising: a display; and a battery for supplying power to the display, wherein the battery includes:
a substrate (positive electrode current collector “PC” + negative electrode current collector “NC”) having a first surface and a second opposite to the first surface;
a first portion “101” (first mixture / first positive electrode layer “PA11” + first negative electrode layer “NA11”) disposed on the first surface and the second surface of the substrate, the first mixture including a positive electrode active material, a conductive assistant (conductive material), and a first binder; and
a second portion “102” (second mixture / second positive electrode layer “PA12” + second negative electrode layer “NA12”) disposed on the first surface and the second surface of the substrate, the second mixture including a positive electrode active material, a conductive assistant (conductive material), and a second binder; wherein the second binder has higher flexibility (more flexible) than a flexibility of the first binder; and the first mixture and the second mixture are alternatingly arranged; wherein the first binder includes polyvinylidene fluoride;
wherein the second portion (second mixture) includes a contraction part “NA12” disposed on the first surface and an elongation part “PA12” disposed on the second surface;
wherein the thickness De1 of the first solid electrolyte layer SE11 and the thickness De2 of the second solid electrolyte layer SE12 may be equal to each other;
wherein the thicknesses of the layers in the first portion “101” may be different than those of the layers in the second portion “102”;
wherein thickness Dn1 (third thickness t3) > thickness Dn2 (first thickness t1) so that strain or internal stresses generated in the second portion (for example, the bend portion) are further reduced and when the thickness De1 is equal to the thickness De2, the thickness Dp2 (second thickness t2) is necessarily greater than the thickness Dn1 (third thickness) to compensate for the reduced thickness of Dn2 ([0084],[0114], [0121],[0129],[0134],[0138],[0141],[0143],[0148],[0160]-[0167] and Fig. 1 and 3).
However, Komori et al does not expressly teach a first thickness t1 of the contraction part is 80% of a third thickness t3 of the first mixture and a second thickness t2 of the elongation part is 120% of the third thickness t3 (claims 1 and 15).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Komori second portion to include a first thickness t1 of the contraction part is 80% of a third thickness t3 of the first mixture and a second thickness t2 of the elongation part is 120% of the third thickness t3 because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The first thickness of the contraction part and the second thickness of the elongation part are result effective variables of reducing the strain or internal stresses generated in the second portion which further inhibits degradation in charge-discharge characteristics due to strain or internal stress, thereby resulting in the battery with higher energy density ([0149]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed first thickness t1 of the contraction part and the second thickness t2 of the elongation part.
However, Komori et al does not expressly teach a conductive material including carbon nanotubes; wherein a weight proportion of the carbon nanotubes disposed in the second mixture is greater than a weight proportion of the carbon nanotubes disposed in the first mixture (claims 1 and 15).
Tee et al discloses a battery electrode including an electrochemically active material (electrode active material), a binder, and a conductive additive, wherein examples of the conductive additive (conductive material) include carbon nanotubes ([0076]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Tee et al indicates that carbon nanotube is a suitable material for use as a conductive material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use carbon nanotube. In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Komori/Tee first mixture and second mixture to include a weight proportion of the carbon nanotubes disposed in the second mixture is greater than a weight proportion of the carbon nanotubes disposed in the first mixture because changes in proportion was held to have been obvious (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight proportion of the carbon nanotubes in the second mixture and the weight proportion of the carbon nanotubes in the first mixture.
Regarding claim 3, Komori et al discloses a second binder content (% by weight) of the layer containing the second binder that may be higher than the first binder content (% by weight) ([0103]).
However, Komori et al does not expressly teach a weight ratio of the first binder that is 1 wt% to 3 wt% of the first mixture, and a weight ratio of the second binder that is 5 wt% to 30 wt% of the second mixture (claim 3).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Komori first mixture and second mixture to include a weight ratio of the first binder that is 1 wt% to 3 wt% of the first mixture, and a weight ratio of the second binder that is 5 wt% to 30 wt% of the second mixture because it has been held that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The weight ratio of the first binder in the first mixture and the weight ratio of the second binder in the second mixture is a result effective variable of maintaining the layer containing the second binder having higher flexibility than a flexibility of the layer containing the first binder ([0103]). Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454. 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). There is no evidence of criticality of the claimed weight ratio of the first binder and the weight ratio of the second binder.
Regarding claims 8-11, Komori et al also discloses a battery comprising an electrode assembly including positive electrode layer (cathode), a negative electrode layer (anode), and a separator (first solid electrolyte layer “SE11” + second solid electrolyte layer “SE12”) disposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer;
wherein the substrate includes a positive electrode current collector “PC” (cathode substrate) forming at least a portion of the positive electrode layer and a negative electrode current collector “NC” (anode substrate) forming at least a portion of the anode,
wherein the first mixture includes first positive electrode layer “PA11” (1-1th mixture) disposed on the positive electrode current collector (cathode substrate) and first negative electrode layer “NA11” (1-2th mixture) disposed on the negative electrode current collector (anode substrate), and
wherein the second mixture includes second positive electrode layer “PA12” (2-1th mixture) disposed on the positive electrode current collector (cathode substrate) and second negative electrode layer “NA12” (2-2th mixture) disposed on the negative electrode current collector (anode substrate);
wherein the positive electrode current collector (cathode substrate) includes a metal material such as aluminum, and the first positive electrode layer and the second positive electrode layer include a positive electrode active material such as lithium-containing transition metal oxide;
wherein the negative electrode current collector (anode substrate) includes a metal material such as copper, and the first negative electrode layer and the second negative electrode layer include a negative electrode active material such as graphite;
wherein the positive electrode layer, negative electrode layer, and separator have a wound roll shape ([0116],[0123],[0128]-[0135]);
Regarding claim 12, Komori et al also discloses a battery including a first area (“PA11”+”NA11”+”SE11”), in which the first mixture is positioned, and a second area (“PA12”+”NA12”+”SE12”), in which the second mixture is positioned, and wherein the battery is folded on the second area (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 13, Komori et al does not expressly teach a second binder that includes a self-healing polymer.
Tee et al discloses a battery electrode that includes a binder including a self-healing polymer ([0244]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Komori second mixture to include a second binder that includes a self-healing polymer in order to utilize a polymer binder that is stretchable and can spontaneously repair the mechanical damages and cracks in the electrode, resulting in more stable mechanical and electrical connections among the active material particles ([0093]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al in view of Tee et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et al (US 2022/0109142).
However, Komori et al as modified by Tee et al does not expressly teach second binder includes polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), poly(4-4, ethylene dioxythiophene): poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS), polyaniline (PANI), polypyrrole (Ppy), and/or polyethylenimine (PEI).
He et al discloses a binder (second binder) that includes a high elasticity polymer (more flexible polymer) such as polypyrrole and polyaniline ([0107]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of He et al indicates that polypyrrole or polyaniline is a suitable material for use as a high elasticity polymer. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use polypyrrole or polyaniline.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al et al in view of Tee et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nazar et al (US 2022/0223874).
However, Komori et al as modified by Tee et al does not expressly teach second binder includes polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), poly(4-4, ethylene dioxythiophene) : poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS), polyaniline (PANI), polypyrrole (Ppy), and/or polyethylenimine (PEI).
Nazar et al discloses a modified binder (second binder) such as polyethylenimine that exhibits improved cyclability ([0007]).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because the disclosure of Nazar indicates that polyethylenimine is a suitable material for use as a binder. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has generally been held to be prima facie obvious (MPEP §2144.07). As such, it would be obvious to use polyethylenimine.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komori et al in view of Tee et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narita et al (US 2019/0280337).
However, Komori et al as modified by Tee et al does not expressly teach a coupling member configured to be detachably coupled to a user’s body part, wherein the battery is disposed in the coupling member.
Narita et al discloses a smartwatch comprising bands “705A” and “705B” (coupling member) configured to detachably coupled to a user’s body part, wherein the band “705A” includes a power storage device “750” (battery) ([0283],[0286] and Fig. 14A-14C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the Komori/Tee battery to include a coupling member configured to be detachably coupled to a user’s body part, wherein the battery is disposed in the coupling member in order to utilize the flexible battery in a practical application that would require high output and high energy density power storage device ([0004],[0010]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that “Turning to Komori, even if the thicknesses of the portions ‘203’ and ‘103’ in FIG. 21 are the same, the portions ‘203’ and ‘103’ on the left side of Fig. 21 are different from the claim 1 (or from the right side of Fig. 21) in that the end of the battery is placed between the banded upper and lower portions, resulting in a curvature of the banding that is larger than that of Specification, FIG. 13 (or the right side banded portion of Fig. 21). Thus, Komori cannot reasonably be deemed to teach “wherein a first thickness t1 of the contraction part is 80% of a third thickness t3 of the first mixture and the second thickness t2 of the elongation part is 120% of the third thickness t3 and wherein the second thickness is substantially equal to the first thickness when a portion of the battery on which the second mixture is disposed is folded.”.
In response, as stated above in the 103 rejection, Komori discloses an embodiment where a thickness Dn1 (third thickness t3) > thickness Dn2 (first thickness t1) which reducing the strain or internal stresses generated in the second portion which further inhibits degradation in charge-discharge characteristics due to strain or internal stress, thereby resulting in the battery with higher energy density ([0149] and Fig. 3). Although Fig. 3 of Komori does not show a thickness De1 of the first solid electrolyte layer and a thickness De2 of the second solid electrolyte layer that are equal to each other, numerous embodiments such as Figs. 1, 6, 11, 12, 20, and 21 show a thickness De1 of the first solid electrolyte layer that is equal to a thickness De2 of the second solid electrolyte layer. So, when the thickness De1 of the first solid electrolyte layer is equal to the thickness De2 of the second solid electrolyte layer and the thickness of the contraction part is less than the thickness of the first mixture, the thickness of the elongation part would necessarily be greater than the thickness of the first mixture in order to maintain the overall thickness of the battery such that the first portion and second portion have the same thickness. Since there is no evidence of criticality of the claimed thickness of the contraction part and thickness of the elongation part with respect to the thickness of the first mixture, the Office contends that the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine a thickness of the contraction part that is 80% of a thickness of the first mixture and a thickness of the elongation part that is 120% of the thickness of the first mixture by routine experimentation in order to reduce strain or internal stress at the bent portions of the battery.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TONY S CHUO whose telephone number is (571)272-0717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:30pm.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached on 571-270-1292. 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.
/T.S.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 10/6/2025