DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the February 12th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on February 12th, 2026:
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-19 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are amended. Claims 4 and 13 were previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are amended to include line indentations following the semicolons. Therefore, the objections of Claims 1, 10, and 15 are withdrawn.
No new matter has been added. Support for the amended claim language is found in the disclosure including the originally filed claims.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as describe below:
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2) as further evidenced by Schmitt et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200106144 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2), and further in view of Hong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 100483994 B1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2) and further evidenced by Tajima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150147626 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2) and further evidenced by Kanda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20110223465 A1). The rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 12th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as further described below:
Applicant argues that the modification of Shi et al. by Woehrle et al. to teach an integrated protection portion and body portion of a separator relies upon improper hindsight (see pgs. 6-8 of the “Remarks”). Further, applicant argues that there is no suggestion in the prior art that the separator can be used as the protection portion, and/or vice versa (see pg. 8 of the “Remarks”).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). “There is no requirement that an ‘express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness.’ Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004)” (see MPEP 2145.X.A).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
As applied in the previous rejection, Shi et al. teaches a first separator including a body portion and a protection portion in which protrudes from an edge of the body portion (para. 44, Fig. 1); the separator can be made of polypropylene (Shi et al., para. 26). Shi et al. does not teach that the body portion and the protection portion are integrally formed. The electrode assembly of Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. to include a plastic film (protective portion) in which can be made of polypropylene and extends from a top end of the electrode assembly (para. 13, Fig. 2); one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to improve battery safety against short and sheath faults in the production of lithium/polymer batteries (Woehrle et al., para. 13). When performing the modification, it would be obvious to extend the polypropylene protection portion as taught by Woehrle et al. from an end of the polypropylene separator of Shi et al. in which is located at a top end of the electrode assembly. Further, making elements integral remains obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04 (see rejection below).
As the separator of Shi et al. and protection portion of Woehrle et al. are made of the same material, it is reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a continuous, one piece construction when performing the modification. Further, although the separator and protection portion may have different functions, they can be made of the same material as disclosed by the prior art; therefore, there is clear indication that the separator can be used as the protection portion, and/or vice versa, as the composition remains the same for either use. Making elements integral has obvious advantages including improved production efficiency, durability, and mechanical stability (as further evidenced by Schmitt et al. in the rejection below). Therefore, the structural claim limitations are disclosed by the prior art including an electrode assembly with a separator located at a top end (Shi et al.), a protection portion made of the same separator material in which can extend from a top end of an electrode assembly (Woehrle et al.); and the understanding that the use of an integrated, one piece construction is within the skills and capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Further, it is known in the field of endeavor to include a separator extending beyond the electrode assembly as further evident by Tao et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319253 A1). Tao et al. teaches benefits of a separator layer protruding or extending from an end of the electrode assembly in which includes improving the internal short circuit caused by shrinkage of the separator, maximizing the drop resistance performance of the battery and improving the safety (para. 5).
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) (“Shi et al.”)
Previously Cited Tajima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150147626 A1) (“Tajima et al.”)
Previously Cited Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2) (“Woehrle et al.”)
Previously Cited Hong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 100483994 B1) (“Hong et al.”)
Previously Cited in “Response to Arguments” above, BURNS, MORRIS & STEWART LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff. v. ENDURA PRODUCTS, INC, Defendant. (Dated May 11, 2005)
Previously Cited in “Response to Arguments” above, Hong et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 101171701 A) (“Yoon et al.”)
Previously Cited Schmitt et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200106144 A1) (“Schmitt et al.”)
Previously Cited Mitsuda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20120189890 A1) (“Mitsuda et al.”)
Previously Cited Peipei et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 108963173 A) (“Peipei et al.”)
Previously Cited Kanda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20110223465 A1) (“Kanda et al.”)
Tao et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319253 A1) (“Tao et al.”)
Claim Objections
Claim 6 remains objected to because of the following informalities: failure to separate multiple elements by line indentation as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i) & M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). For exampleFurther including a line indentation would reduce the complexity of the claim format and improve readability. Additionally, Claim 6 is identified as “Currently Amended,” but it appears that no changes have been made; claim amendments must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) and include appropriate identifiers. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Figures included in previous office actions may be omitted.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2) as further evidenced by Schmitt et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200106144 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shi et al. teaches a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly (10) formed by a plurality of negative plates (103) (first electrode plates), positive plates (101) (second electrode plates), and diaphragms (105) (separators); the plurality of first electrode plates and the plurality of second electrode plates are alternately stacked (para. 18, Fig. 1). As shown in the annotated Figure 1, the separator comprises a first separator and a plurality of second separators in which, along a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, the plurality of first electrode plates (103) are located below or on one side of the first separator, and one of the plurality of second separators are disposed between each pair of adjacent first electrode plates and second electrode plates (Fig. 1).
Further, the electrode assembly includes connecting tabs (50) in which can be made of the same conductive material of the corresponding electrode plate such as aluminum or copper, forming a first conductive unit; as indicated in the annotated Figure 1, the first conductive unit comprises portions analogous to a first section, first bend section, and second section in which the first section is connected to the first electrode plates (103) and the first bend section is connected to the first section and the second section (para. 25, Fig. 1). The first separator includes a portion analogous to a body portion and a protective adhesive (605) applied to a portion of the body portion (forming a protection portion) protruding from an edge of the body portion (para. 44, Fig. 1); the protection portion (605) overlays the first section and the first bend section as indicated. The separator can be made of a material such as polypropylene or other suitable materials (para. 26). Additionally, a protection adhesive (603) (protection portion) overlays at least part of the second section (para. 43, Fig. 1). The protection portion is an extended section of the body portion comprising protective adhesive (Fig. 1).
[AltContent: textbox (Woehrle et al. (Fig. 2))]
PNG
media_image1.png
501
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shi et al. does not teach the protection portion and body portion as integrally formed.
Woehrle et al. teaches a plastic film (6) located at a top surface of an electrode assembly portion in which is bonded to the collector region; the plastic film is made of a suitable material such as polypropylene or polyimide (Fig. 2, para. 13). By covering the conductor and collector regions within the cell, a high level of safety against short and sheath faults is achieved in the production of lithium/polymer batteries (para. 13). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the plastic film to be analogous to a protective portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Shi et al. to include a plastic film (protective portion) made of a polypropylene or polyimide extending from a top portion of the electrode assembly as taught by Woehrle et al. to achieve a high level of safety against short and sheath faults in the production of lithium/polymer batteries. As described above, Shi et al. teaches a separator (105) forming a body portion located at a top surface of the electrode assembly (10) in which can be made of a suitable material such as polypropylene (para. 26, 44, Fig. 1). Therefore, as the plastic film (protective portion) of Woehrle et al. and separator body portion of Shi et al. can be made of the same materials such as polypropylene, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the body portion of the separator of Shi et al. to form the protective portion of Woerhle et al. in which the protection portion and body portion are integrally formed rather than forming two separate pieces made of the same material; utilizing a one piece integrated structure especially when said structures are made of the same material, would eliminate additional steps and time required for implementing bonding and welding methods to connect the body portion and protection portion, therefore reducing process steps and improving production efficiency.
In support, making integral remains obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04; the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968, 144 USPQ 347,349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, making the protection portion as modified by Woehrle et al. and the body portion of Shi et al. a one piece, integrated structure, would be an obvious design choice and is not contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make a structure integral to improve production efficiency and provide a more durable structure in which components cannot be easily removed. As further evidence, Schmitt et al. describes battery components as a one piece structure in which can be materially bonded by a welding or an adhesive process, while further recognizing that the components can instead be advantageously integrally formed to ensure a high degree of mechanical stability (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 2, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, Shi et al. teaches a first conductive unit comprising a plurality of conductive tabs (50) (first tabs); further, one end of each of the first tabs is welded or connected to the corresponding first electrode plate and the other ends of the first tabs are stacked together and bent to form the first section, the second section, and the first bend section (para. 25, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 2 above. Shi et al. teaches forming the negative (first) electrode plate by coating the negative electrode slurry (first active material layer) on a surface of a negative electrode current collector (first current collector) (para. 23). Shi et al. further teaches welding or bonding the first tabs to each first electrode plate in which each of the first collector tabs and the first current collector would be integrally formed (para. 24).
Regarding Claim 5, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1. Regarding the term “binder” as applied to Claim 5, a special definition of the term is not found in the applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, a binder is interpreted as a material used to adhere or bond components in which may be analogous to an adhesive. As applied to Claim 1, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. to include a protection portion (plastic film) at a top portion of the electrode assembly to cover the conductor and collector regions in which it would be obvious to form the protection portion and body portion as a one piece integrated structure based on its composition including the same materials and benefits described above such as reduced manufacturing time and improved mechanical stability
Shi et al. does not teach a binder disposed on a side of the protection portion facing the first conductive unit, and the protection portion fixed to the first conductive unit by the binder by bonding.
Woehrle et al. further teaches the plastic film (protective portion) as bonded to the arrestor and collector (conductive unit) by means of a silicone layer (binder) (para. 6) in which the silicone material is coated onto the plastic film (para. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the protection portion of Shi et al. as modified by Woehrle et al. to include a binder disposed on a side of the protection portion facing the conductive unit in which the protection portion is fixed to the conductive unit by bonding via the binder as further modified by Woehrle et al. When performing the modification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to correspond the conductive unit of Woehrle et al. to the first conductive unit of Shi et al. in which the binder is disposed on a side of the protection portion facing the first conductive unit and the protection portion is fixed to the first conductive unit by bonding. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Woehrle et al. useful as covering the conductor and collector areas within the cell according to the invention provides a high level of safety against short circuits and sheath circuits in the production of lithium/polymer batteries with minimal use of materials (Woehrle et al., para. 13).
Regarding Claim 9, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. As applied to Claim 1, the outermost layer of the battery cell is the first separator, the first electrode plate is a negative electrode plate, and the second electrode plate is a positive electrode plate. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2), and further in view of Hong et al. (K.R. Pat. No. 100483994 B1).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 5 and 14, respectively. Shi et al. teaches the battery cell comprising an adapter tab or piece (70) connected to the second section to form a connecting portion (para. 29, Fig. 1).
Shi et al. does not teach a first insulation tape and second insulation tape.
Hong et al. teaches insulating tape (247) formed on outer surfaces of an electrode tab (230) (first conductive unit) forming a first insulation tape and second insulation tape as shown in annotated Figure 16 (para. 51, Fig. 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery cell of Shi et al. to include the first insulating tape and second insulation disposed on opposite outer surfaces of the first conductive unit as taught by Hong et al. When modifying Shi et al. to include the insulation tape as taught by Hong et al., it would be obvious for the first insulation tape to be disposed on a side of the first conductive unit facing away from the protection portion and overlaying the first section, first bend section, the second section and the first connecting portion; further, it would be obvious for the second insulation tape to be disposed on the opposite side in a position facing the protection portion and overlaying at least the first connecting portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Hong et al. useful to provide the first conductive unit with strong shape resilience and damage protection by utilizing the insulation tape (Hong et al., para. 45). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide both a protection portion and insulation tape for further protection and insulation.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. and Hong et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 6 and 15 above, respectively. Hong et al. teaches the insulation tape being attached with an adhesive in the form of polyimide or polypropylene film, the same material as the protection portion (para. 17). Therefore, when modifying Shi et al. to further include the insulation tape taught by Hong et al., it would be obvious to extend the protection portion, made of the same adhesive material polyimide, in which a portion of the protection portion away from the body portion would be fixed to the second insulation tape by bonding.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. and Hong et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 6 and 15 above, respectively. As applied to Claim 6, the insulation tape is fixed to outer surfaces of an electrode tab beginning at an end portion of the electrode assembly. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the first insulation tape to be fixed or bonded to the end portion of the electrode assembly as taught by Hong et al. above. Based on Figure 14, the insulation tape (247) further appears to be directly attached to the electrode assembly (Fig. 14).
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2) and further evidenced by Tajima et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20150147626 A1).
Claims 10-12 repeat limitations of Claims 1-3, respectively. Shi et al. teaches all claim limitations as applied above in which is repeated below for clarity.
Regarding Claim 10, Shi et al. teaches a smart battery comprising the battery cell as described below (para. 53). It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that the battery cell or smart battery can be used in an electronic device as further evidenced by Tajima et al. (para. 2). Shi et al. teaches a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly (10) formed by a plurality of negative plates (103) (first electrode plates), positive plates (101) (second electrode plates), and diaphragms (105) (separators); the plurality of first electrode plates and the plurality of second electrode plates are alternately stacked (para. 18, Fig. 1). As shown in the annotated Figure 1, the separator comprises a first separator and a plurality of second separators in which, along a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, the plurality of first electrode plates (103) are located below or on one side of the first separator, and one of the plurality of second separators are disposed between each pair of adjacent first electrode plates and second electrode plates (Fig. 1). The protection portion is an extended section of the body portion comprising protective adhesive (Fig. 1). Therefore, the protection portion is integrally formed with the body portion.
Further, the electrode assembly includes connecting tabs (50) in which can be made of the same conductive material of the corresponding electrode plate such as aluminum or copper, forming a first conductive unit; as indicated in the annotated Figure 1, the first conductive unit comprises portions analogous to a first section, first bend section, and second section in which the first section is connected to the first electrode plates (103) and the first bend section is connected to the first section and the second section (para. 25, Fig. 1). The first separator includes a portion analogous to a body portion and a protective adhesive (605) applied to a portion of the body portion (forming a protection portion) protruding from an edge of the body portion (para. 44, Fig. 1); the protection portion (605) overlays the first section and the first bend section as indicated. Additionally, a protection adhesive (603) (protection portion) overlays at least part of the second section (para. 43, Fig. 1). The protection portion is an extended section of the body portion comprising protective adhesive (Fig. 1). Therefore, the protection portion is integrally formed with the body portion.
Shi et al. does not teach the protection portion and body portion as integrally formed.
Woehrle et al. teaches a plastic film (6) located at a top surface of an electrode assembly portion in which is bonded to the collector region; the plastic film is made of a suitable material such as polypropylene or polyimide (Fig. 2, para. 13). By covering the conductor and collector regions within the cell, a high level of safety against short and sheath faults is achieved in the production of lithium/polymer batteries (para. 13). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider the plastic film to be analogous to a protective portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Shi et al. to include a plastic film (protective portion) made of a polypropylene or polyimide extending from a top portion of the electrode assembly as taught by Woehrle et al. to achieve a high level of safety against short and sheath faults in the production of lithium/polymer batteries. As described above, Shi et al. teaches a separator (105) forming a body portion located at a top surface of the electrode assembly (10) in which can be made of a suitable material such as polypropylene (para. 26, 44, Fig. 1). Therefore, as the plastic film (protective portion) of Woehrle et al. and separator body portion of Shi et al. can be made of the same materials such as polypropylene, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the body portion of the separator of Shi et al. to form the protective portion of Woehrle et al. in which the protection portion and body portion are integrally formed rather than forming two separate pieces made of the same material; utilizing a one piece integrated structure especially when said structures are made of the same material, would eliminate additional steps and time required for implementing bonding and welding methods to connect the body portion and protection portion, therefore reducing process steps and improving production efficiency.
In support, making integral remains obvious in view of MPEP 2144.04; the use of a one-piece, integrated construction instead of the structure disclosed or taught in the prior art would have been within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965,968, 144 USPQ 347,349 (CCPA 1965) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Therefore, making the protection portion as modified by Woehrle et al. and the body portion of Shi et al. a one piece, integrated structure, would be an obvious design choice and is not contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make a structure integral to improve production efficiency and provide a more durable structure in which components cannot be easily removed. As further evidence, Schmitt et al. describes battery components as a one piece structure in which can be materially bonded by a welding or an adhesive process, while further recognizing that the components can instead be advantageously integrally formed to ensure a high degree of mechanical stability (para. 14).
Regarding Claim 11, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 10 above. As applied to Claim 10, Shi et al. teaches a first conductive unit comprising a plurality of conductive tabs (50) (first tabs); further, one end of each of the first tabs is welded or connected to the corresponding first electrode plate and the other ends of the first tabs are stacked together and bent to form the first section, the second section, and the first bend section (para. 25, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 11 above. Shi et al. teaches forming the negative (first) electrode plate by coating the negative electrode slurry (first active material layer) on a surface of a negative electrode current collector (first current collector) (para. 23). Shi et al. further teaches welding or bonding the first tabs to each first electrode plate in which the first collector tabs and the first current collector would be integrally formed (para. 24).
Regarding Claim 14, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 10. Regarding the term “binder” as applied to Claim 14, a special definition of the term is not found in the applicant’s disclosure. Therefore, a binder is interpreted as a material used to adhere or bond components in which may be analogous to an adhesive. As applied to Claim 10, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. to include a protection portion (plastic film) at a top portion of the electrode assembly to cover the conductor and collector regions in which it would be obvious to form the protection portion and body portion as a one piece integrated structure based on its composition including the same materials and benefits described above such as reduced manufacturing time and improved mechanical stability
Shi et al. does not teach a binder disposed on a side of the protection portion facing the first conductive unit, and the protection portion fixed to the first conductive unit by the binder by bonding.
Woehrle et al. further teaches the plastic film (protective portion) as bonded to the arrestor and collector (conductive unit) by means of a silicone layer (binder) (para. 6) in which the silicone material is coated onto the plastic film (para. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the protection portion of Shi et al. as modified by Woehrle et al. to include a binder disposed on a side of the protection portion facing the conductive unit in which the protection portion is fixed to the conductive unit by bonding via the binder as further modified by Woehrle et al. When performing the modification, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to correspond the conductive unit of Woehrle et al. to the first conductive unit of Shi et al. in which the binder is disposed on a side of the protection portion facing the first conductive unit and the protection portion is fixed to the first conductive unit by bonding. One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Woehrle et al. useful as covering the conductor and collector areas within the cell according to the invention provides a high level of safety against short circuits and sheath circuits in the production of lithium/polymer batteries with minimal use of materials (Woehrle et al., para. 13).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (W.O. Pat. No. 2020103014 A1) in view of Woehrle et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 1369939 A2) and further evidenced by Kanda et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20110223465 A1).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Shi et al. is modified by Woehrle et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, respectively.
Shi et al. does not teach that an extension direction of the second section of the first conductive unit is parallel to a length direction of the battery cell.
Woehrle et al. teaches an extension section of an electrode assembly in which does not extend in a vertical direction and rather extends horizontally in a direction parallel to a length direction of the battery cell (1) (Fig. 2) forming an analogous second section as shown in annotated Figure 2 above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the second section of Shi et al. to extend horizontally in a direction parallel to a length direction of the battery cell as taught by Woehrle et al. to prevent damage to the conductive unit. It is well known in the field of endeavor that bending collector tabs can reduce their structural integrity and cause damage as further evident by Kanda et al. in which teaches a method to reduce the bending of electrode tabs to prevent failures and fracture (para. 74).
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 CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729