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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 11 have been amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on August 20th, 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This Action is FINAL.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of May 20th, 2025
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 2, 7, and 11 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment.
The 112(d) rejection of claim 7 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 1-3, 7, 11, and 12 over Han in view of Kazuhiro are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejection of claim 4 over Han and Kazuhiro and further in view of Kim ‘749 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, and 9 are over Han and Kazuhiro and further in view of Yamaguchi, Kim ’749, and Kim ‘993 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejection of claim 10 over Han, Kazuhiro, Yamaguchi, Kim ‘749, and Kim ‘993 and further in view of Kim ‘300 is withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendment.
However, new grounds of rejection are set forth as necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 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 2019049485 A1) and Kim ‘749 (US 2013/0230749 A1).
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. 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 (40) on a non-coated area (32) 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.
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, Han and Kazuhiro are silent on whether or not the width of the heat-dissipating tape greater than the width of the positive and negative electrodes, but 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 size of the tape 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 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, Han, modified by Kazuhiro and Kim ‘749, teaches a secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly of claim 1 (Han, abstract).
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, Kazuhiro, and Kim ‘749 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 2002/0004161) and Kim (US 2003/0072993 A1, referred to as Kim ‘993) . Henceforth, the combination of Han, Kazuhiro, and Kim ‘749 will be referred to as modified Han.
Regarding claim 5, 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.
Modified Han 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 modified Han because they both 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.
Modified Han is silent on why the second separator is longer than the first separator. Kim ‘993 is analogous art to modified Han because both 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 modified Han’s battery in order to achieve the heat-dissipating effect taught by Kim ‘993.
Regarding claim 6, modified 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]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Han, Yamaguchi, Kim '749, and Kim '993 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2010/0062300 A1, henceforth referred to as Kim '300). Modified Han, Kim ‘749, Yamaguchi, and Kim ‘993 are silent on a motivation to use an adhesive on both sides of the tape. Kim ‘300 is analogous art to all of the mentioned above 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.
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 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.
/RYAN K. BLACKWELL-RUDASILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722