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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 29th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are pending.
Claim 5 has been cancelled.
Claims 1 and 6-8 are amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on May 29th, 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of January 30th, 2026
The 103 rejection of claim 5 is moot because claim 5 has been cancelled.
The 103 rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-12 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (US 2017/0125764 A1, but citations will be drawn to US 10,784,483 B2) and further in view of Kazuhiro (WO 2019/049485 A1), Kim ‘749 (US 2013/0230749 A1), Kim ‘993 (US 2003/0072993 A1), and Yamaguchi (US 2002/0004161 A1). The combination of all five will be referred to as modified Han.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Han teaches an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode (11), a negative electrode (12), and a separator (13) comprised of a first separator and a second separator that are stacked to be wound (column 6, lines 18-25; Fig. 2). Both the first and second separator have the reference number of 13, but they are separate and distinct from each other. When active material is disposed on both sides of a current collector, two separators are necessary to ensure that there is not direct contact between positive and negative active material. Han’s electrode assembly is depicted below in Figure 2:
PNG
media_image1.png
652
604
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The positive electrode comprises a positive electrode current collector, a positive electrode active material portion upon which positive electrode active material is stacked, and a positive electrode non-coating portion on the positive electrode current collector (abstract).
Han continues to teach a non-coating portion disposed at a winding central portion of the positive electrode assembly (11b, column 7, lines 15-16 and Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
719
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Han is silent on the usage of heat-dissipating tape on the positive electrode non-coating layer. Kazuhiro is analogous art to Han because both teach secondary batteries. Kazuhiro teaches the usage of a heat dissipating tape ([00027] and 40 in Fig. 2) on a non-coated area ([00019] and 32 in Fig. 2) as seen below in their Figure 2.
PNG
media_image3.png
172
458
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This heat-dissipating tape comprises a heat-dissipating material located in a thermally conductive layer of the tape ([00031] and 43 of Figure 4). Using this tape would suppress “an internal short circuit without affecting the battery performance” [00031]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use this heat dissipating tape in order to prevent a short circuit.
PNG
media_image4.png
166
458
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Han and Kazuhiro are silent on if the heat-dissipating tape is directly attached to each of the first positive electrode non-coating portion, the first separator, and the separator, but Kim ‘749 teaches more about the usage of tape. Kim is analogous art to Han and Kazuhiro because all of them teach secondary batteries. Kim teaches that “two electrode tapes may be attached to both surfaces of the uncoated portion of the first electrode” [0054]. Kim continues to teach that tape prevents “direct contact between the uncoated portions of the electrodes” [0029] in order to prevent internal short circuits [0045]. Since tape would be applied to both sides of the first positive electrode non-coating portion (11b in Han’s disclosure, also required by claim 3), that necessitates that the tapes would also be in contact with the first and second separators. Although Kim teaches that there may be two tapes, absent evidence to the contrary, it is prima facie obvious to make the two pieces of tape into one integral piece. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Kazuhiro’s heat-dissipating tape in Han’s battery in the locations taught by Kim ‘749 in order to prevent internal short circuits with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kim ‘749 teaches that the first and second separators may shrink 6-10 mm due to increased heat [0053] and that could result in the electrodes contacting each other and resulting in a short circuit. If the separators may become smaller during use, it would be obvious to increase the length of the separators with a reasonable expectation of success that a separator substantially longer than the electrodes would more effectively prevent short circuiting. Han, modified by Kazuhiro and Kim ‘749, is silent on the lengths of the electrodes, the relationship of the lengths of the electrodes to the separators, and the relationship between the lengths of the first and second separators. Yamaguchi is analogous art to Han et. al because all teach batteries. Yamaguchi teaches that the “width and length of the negative electrode opposite to the positive electrode usually are made to be larger than those of the positive electrode” in order to prevent an internal short circuit [0006]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a negative electrode with dimensions larger than that of the positive electrode to prevent an internal short circuit.
The combination of Han, Kazuhiro, Kim ‘749, and Yamaguchi is silent on why the second separator is longer than the first separator. Kim ‘993 is analogous art to Han et. al because all teach batteries. Kim ‘993 teaches that the outermost separator is additionally wound around the electrode assembly to provide a heat-dissipating effect [0040]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a second separator that is longer than the first separator in the battery of Han modified by Kazuhiro, Kim ‘749, and Yamaguchi in order to achieve the heat-dissipating effect taught by Kim ‘993.
Regarding claim 2, Kazuhiro teaches that the heat-dissipating tape is configured such that the “heat can be dissipated promptly” in case of an internal short circuit that may lead to overheating [00031].
Regarding claim 4, Kim ‘749 teaches that the tape is applied to the uncoated part of the electrodes “to prevent exposure of the uncoated portions of the electrodes” [0060]. Increasing the width of the tape such that the tape has a width greater than a width of the positive and negative electrode may help to minimize the chance of exposure of the uncoated surfaces and to prevent thermal shrinkage of the separator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to increase the size of the tape’s dimensions, including the width of the tape, to minimize the chance that the non-coated portions of the electrode contact other surfaces and that the separators shrink.
Regarding claim 6, Han teaches that the electrodes and separators are combined to be wound (Han, column 2, lines 21-22).
Regarding claim 7, in order for the tape to attach to the first positive electrode, the first separator, and the second separator as taught by modified Han, it is necessary that the tape extend over or beyond a first end of each the positive electrode and two separators.
Regarding claim 8, modified Han teaches a heat-dissipating tape where a composite base layer comprises a base material and thermally conductive layer (Kazuhiro; [00038] and 41 and 43, respectively, in Figure 4) and an adhesive layer stacked upon the base (Kazuhiro, 42 in Figure 4). The composite base layer also may comprise of graphite (Kazuhiro, [00039]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Han teaches an adhesive layer on the tape. As mentioned in the rejection of claim 7, the tape is attached over a first end of the first positive electrode non-coating portion, the first separator, and the second separator. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to attach one material to the other by using an adhesive. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to attach the heat-dissipating tape over an end of the first positive electrode non-coating portion, the first separator, and the second separator by means of the adhesive layer (Kim ‘749, [0057-0058]).
Regarding claim 11, Han teaches that the positive electrode non-coating portion further comprises a second positive electrode non-coating portion at a central portion of the positive electrode. Han also teaches a negative electrode, comprising a negative electrode current collector, a negative electrode active material portion wherein the negative electrode active material is stacked upon the negative electrode currently collector, and a non-coating portion on the negative electrode current collector (abstract). This non-coating portion is disposed at the winding outer portion (12b as seen in Fig. 4 below) and a negative electrode tab is disposed on the negative electrode non-coating portion, similarly as to how the positive electrode tab is disposed on the positive non-coating portion (column 2, lines 34-39).
PNG
media_image5.png
719
805
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, modified Han teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly of claim 1 (Han, abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Han as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2010/0062300 A1, henceforth referred to as Kim '300). Modified Han is silent on a motivation to use an adhesive on both sides of the tape. Kim ‘300 is analogous art to modified Han because they all teach batteries. Kim ‘300 teaches that using thermally conductive adhesive layers on both sides of the base of the tape will improve thermal conductive efficiency so the heat-dissipating tape may be more tightly contacted to surfaces [0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply adhesive to both sides of a heat-dissipating tape to increase the efficiency of heat transfer with a reasonable expectation of success that the tape will more effectively dissipate heat from the center of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 29th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that because the electrode tapes disclosed by Kim ‘749 (US 2013/0230749) are on opposing sides of an uncoated portion of the first electrode and are not contacting each other, it would not be an obvious modification to make the two tapes integral. The Applicant points to Figure 5 of Kim’s disclosure where the two tapes 222 and 222’ are depicted. See the figure below:
PNG
media_image6.png
416
1390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Examiner, however, maintains the position that the combined disclosure of Han (US 2017/0125764 A1), Kazuhiro (WO 2019/049485), and Kim ‘749 teach the concept of making two pieces of tape integral such that the resulting piece of tape contacts the claimed first separator, the second separator, and the first positive electrode non-coating portion. Kazuhiro’s Fig. 2, originally depicted on page 7 of the Final Rejection mailed on January 30th, 2026 is included below:
PNG
media_image7.png
168
542
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The tape (40) covers an uncoated portion (19) of a positive electrode (11) and it is clear that the tape extends slightly above the top of the electrode. Kim ‘749 teaches that “two tapes may be attached to both surfaces of the uncoated portion of the first electrode” [0054]. If the tapes were attached to Han’s non-coated portions in a fashion similar as to what Kazuhiro depicts above, then the top of each piece of tape would directly contact the other, supporting the conclusions that MPEP 2144.04 (V) (B) was applied appropriately and that the prior art renders the Applicant’s claims obvious.
The Applicant also argues that there is no evidence that the tapes of Kim ‘749 are double-sided tapes. Kim teaches that “each of the electrode tapes may include one or two adhesive layers on one or both surfaces of a polymeric resin film” [0057]. Therefore, based on the teachings of Kim, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use double-sided tape to ensure that the first and second separators adhere to the uncoated portions of the positive electrode with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ueki (US 2015/0221919 A1) discusses issues related to thermal shrinkage of separators in a wound battery [0122] – [0130].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights