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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 30 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 4, 6-7, 10, 12, 16, and 18-20 and cancelled claims 5, 11, 17; claims 3 and 15 were cancelled previously. Thus, claims 1-2, 4, 6-10, 12-14, 16, 18-20 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejection of claims 5, 11, and 17 is withdrawn because they have been cancelled.
The rejection of the claims 1-2, 4, and 8-8 over Li and Cho (as well as dependent claims 12, and 14 further in view of Ohsima) are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20 over Jiang, Cho and Li, and claim 13 further in view of Yebka, are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Jiang and Li are not found persuasive for the following reasons. First, applicant appears to argue against the references individually (e.g.., applicant presents a figure from Jiang, which fails to consider the modification set forth in the rejection), one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Second, Applicant presents Fig. 3 of Li to show that secondary reference fails to suggest the amended features; however, Fig. 3 was not used to reject the features of the claim(s). Finally, the features of Li used to modify Jiang (e.g., paragraphs [0035-0036] of Li) are not addressed by applicant. Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang (CN 109755461) in view of Cho et al (US 2017/0141427) and Li (US 2019/0207212, of record), hereinafter Jiang, Cho, and Li.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 6, 12, 14, and 18, Jiang suggests an electronic device (i.e., external electrical device, see e.g., [0018, 0046] and Fig. 9) comprising an electrochemical device comprising an electrode assembly (10) having a wound structure comprising a first electrode plate (18), a second electrode plate (14), and a separator (40) disposed between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (Fig. 3, [0038]); and in a winding direction, the electrode assembly comprises a first section (bottom straight section), a first bend section (right bend), a second section (top straight section), and a second bend section (left bend) connected sequentially, see annotated Fig. 3; in the winding direction, the first section comprises a first part (i.e., the first section), the second section comprises a second part (i.e., the second section), an outermost coil of the second part (i.e., the second section) is the first electrode plate (18), and the outer most coil of the second section (top straight section) is the first electrode plate (18).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
1467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jiang does not suggest the wound structure of the electrode assembly (10) disposed in a housing. However, Cho suggests accommodating the electrode assembly into a housing (e.g., pouch), [0010, 0039], for used in an electronic device, [0006]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the electrode assembly is disposed in a housing, to allow the use thereof in an electronic device, as suggested by Cho.
Jiang does not suggest an outermost coil of the first part is the separator or an outermost coil of the first section is the separator. However, Li suggests extending the separator around the outside of the bare cell increases the contact of the separator and the packaging bag which increases the friction between the bare cell and the packaging bag and prevents slipping/malposition, thereby improving anti-dropping performance of the cell, [0035]. Further, it appears Li has recognized the length of the separator as a result effective variable for the amount of friction between the cell with the packaging bag ([0036]), which would be motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product (optimize the extension of the separator by routine experimentation), MPEP 2144.05, II. Further, Cho shows a tape is used to prevent or reduce movement of the electrode assembly 110 within the pouch 120; the tape (e.g., 130: 131, 132; 630, etc.) is wound around a straight section S21 and a bend section (S11), leaving the remaining straight section exposed (S22), thereby improving drop safety, see e.g., Fig. 9, [0042-0059]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to extend the separator of Jiang around the outside the bare cell from the second bend section (left bend, see Fig. 3 of Jian) to the next straight section (i.e., 1st section, bottom straight section) and bend section (i.e., 1st bend section (right bend section)), while leaving the second section exposed, with the expectation of increasing the friction between the bare cell and packaging bag, thereby preventing slipping/displacement of the electrode assembly in the housing, hence improving anti-dropping performance, as suggested by Li and Cho. In view of the foregoing, the modification of Jiang with Li and Cho suggests the outermost coil of the first part of the first section is the separator, and the outermost coil of the first section is the separator.
Jiang, as modified by Li and Cho, suggests in the winding direction, an end part of the separator is located at the first bend section (i.e., right bend of Jiang); that is, extension of the separator from the second bend section (left bend) through the first section (bottom straight section) and the second bend (right bend) would be advantageous from the standpoint reducing movement of the electrode assembly in the housing (see e.g., rejection of claims 1 and 12 above), but does not suggest a first bonding piece bonded to an outer surface of the first bend section and the end part of the separator. However, Li suggests the end part of the separator is secured with a first bonding piece (70, see Fig. 3), thereby maintaining the wound nature of the electrode assembly. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the end part of the separator located at the first bend (right bend in Jiang) includes a first bonding piece on the end of the separator and fixed to a part of the first electrode on the second section (top straight section) to maintain winding of the electrode assembly structure.
Jiang suggest in the winding direction, an end part of the first electrode plate is located at the second section, and the electrochemical device further comprises a second bonding piece (see labelled in annotated Figs. 3), and the second bonding piece bonded to an outer surface of the second bend section (obvious to secure winding of the first electrode 18 and the electrode assembly against the pouch to prohibit movement of the assembly in the pouch, see Cho and Li) and the end part of the first electrode plate; wherein the second bonding piece is further bonded to an outer surface of the first section, see Figs. 3-4.
Jiang was modified by Cho and Li as set forth above; the modification suggests in a direction perpendicular to a winding central axis of the electrode assembly, a projection of an edge of the first bonding piece (which fixes the separator about the first bend section (right bend) and second section (top straight section) of Jiang) is located between a projection of an edge of the first electrode plate (located at the end of the second section) and a projection of an edge of the separator (located in the first bend section (right bend)); and/or in a direction perpendicular to a winding central axis of the electrode assembly, a projection of an edge of the second bonding piece is located between a projection of an edge of the first electrode plate (located near the second section (top straight section)) and a projection of an edge of the separator (located at the first bend section (right bend) of Jiang).
Regarding Claims 4 and 16, Jiang, as modified by Li and Cho, suggests the end part of the separator is located at the first bend section (i.e., right bend of Jiang); that is, extension of the separator along the first section (bottom straight section) and the first bend section (right bend section) of Jiang would be advantageous from the standpoint of preventing or reducing movement of the electrode assembly in the housing (see e.g., rejection of claims 1 and 12 above), but does not suggest a the first bonding piece bonded to an outer surface of at least one of the first section or the second section. However, Li suggests the end part of the separator is secured with a first bonding piece (70, see Fig. 3), thereby maintaining the wound nature of the electrode assembly. Considering the location of the end of the separator, i.e., first bend of Jiang, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the first bonding piece (70) suggested by Li to be bonding to an outer surface of the second section (the section sequentially following the first bend section), with the expectation of maintaining the wound nature of the electrode assembly.
Regarding Claims 7 and 19, Jiang does not suggest the first bonding piece or the second bonding piece is double sided tape or hot-melt adhesive. However, Cho suggests the tape (130) is attached to the outer surface of the electrode assembly (110) and fixes or adheres the electrode assembly (110) to the pouch (120), thereby suggesting a double sided tape; the tape prevent the electrode assembly (110) from moving within the pouch (120), thereby improving safety, [0043]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the first bonding piece or the second bonding piece are double sided, allowing one side to adhere to the electrode assembly and the other side to adhere to the pouch/housing, thereby preventing the electrode assembly from moving withing the pouch, hence improving safety, as suggested by Cho.
Regarding Claim 10, Jiang suggests a first tab (36) connected to the first electrode plate (18), see e.g., Fig. 4. Jiang suggests a second bonding piece about the second bend section (left bend) to finish/secure winding of the end part of the electrode (18), see Figs. 3-4. In a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, a projection of the first tab (36) is separated from a projection of the second bonding piece (see Fig. 4). Jiang was modified by Cho and Li to suggest extension of the separator (40) along the first section (i.e., bottom straight section) and first bend section (right bend), with the expectation of reducing the movement of the electrode assembly in the housing, hence improving drop safety, as suggested by Li and Cho in the rejection of claims 1-2. Further, Li suggested a first bonding piece to secure the end of the separator about the first bend section (right bend) and the second section (top straight section), thereby maintaining the wound nature of the separator and electrode assembly (see rejection of claim 3). The length of the tape in Li appears less than a third of the length of the straight section; thus, the combination of Jiang, Cho and Li suggests, in a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, a projection of the first tab (36) is separated from a projection of the first bonding piece since the first bonding piece need not extend more than a third of the way along the second section (top straight section) in Jiang.
Regarding Claim 20, Jiang does not suggest a third bonding piece bonded to the outermost coil of the separator in the first part and the housing. However, Jiang was modified by Cho and Li as set forth in the rejection of claim 12. The increased extension of the separator is expected to increase friction between the assembly and the package/pouch to improve anti-drop performance; however, no adhesion of the separator to the housing is disclosed. Cho suggests adhesive tape (130, 230, … 730) bound to the electrode assembly 110 on the outermost coil (see Figs. 3-10), which fixes the electrode assembly to the pouch 120, thereby preventing movement of the assembly within the pouch. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply adhesive tape to the outermost coil of the separator in the first part and the housing to improve anti-drop performance beyond friction, with adhesive.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang, Cho, and Li in view of Yebka et al. (US 2019/0305303), hereinafter Yebka.
Regarding Claim 13, Jiang does not suggest the electronic device further comprises an accommodation chamber and a fifth bonding piece, the electrochemical device is disposed in the accommodation chamber, and the fifth bonding piece bondg a housing oriented to the first section and the accommodation chamber. However, Yebka suggests an electronic device 200 includes an accommodation chamber 250 ([0048]) and a bonding piece ([0052-0053]), the electrochemical device is disposed in the accommodation chamber (see e.g., Fig. 2), and the bonding piece bonds a housing oriented to the flat section of the battery and the accommodation chamber; see also Fig. 3, [0050], battery 305 in bay 350. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the electronic device of Jian includes an accommodation chamber and a fifth bonding piece, the electrochemical device is disposed in the accommodation chamber, and the fifth bonding piece bonds a housing oriented to the first section and the accommodation chamber with the expectation of securing the battery inside the electronic device, as suggested by Yebka.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729