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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Request for Continued Examination filed 12/18/2025 includes claim amendments and arguments corresponding to the new limitation(s). Examiner has withdrawn the Claim Objection set forth in the previous action due to Applicant’s amendment to Claim 4.
Applicant argues the art of record does not disclose the new Claim 1 limitation:
“an amount of the adhesive that melts on an inner side in the stacking direction is smaller than an amount of the adhesive that melts on an outer side in the stacking direction, and an amount of bonded portion developing the adhesive strength in the adhesive on the inner side in the stacking direction is smaller than an amount of bonded portion developing the adhesive strength in the adhesive on the outer side in the stacking direction.”
Regarding the primary reference cited in the previous action (Obara et al., JP 2014026943 A), Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s opinion that “Obara describes that a difference in an amount of bonded portion developing the adhesive strength on the center side and an amount of bonded portion developing the adhesive strength on the end, should be avoided to prevent deterioration in the stacked battery. Therefore, Obara teaches away from the features of amended independent claim 1.”
Obara teaches the area of a resin layer at an end of an electrode stack should be 1.2 to 3 times larger than an area of a resin layer at a center of the stack ([0115]). Obara also teaches there is a direct relationship between the amount of adhesive resin used for a layer and the resulting adhesiveness of the layer after hot pressing ([0105, 0114-0115]). Since Obara discloses a smaller amount of adhesive (i.e., a smaller area of resin) is present on the inner side of the stack compared to the outer side, and an amount of adhesive corresponds to the claimed “amount of bonded portion,” Obara discloses the new limitations of Claim 1 and new Claim 18.
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites “at least one separator” on line 6, and then recites “the secondary battery further comprises a plurality of different separators with different amounts of adhesive applied” on lines 30-31. It is not clear which of the following structure(s) is/are being claimed in Claim 18:
the “plurality of different separators” correspond to different sections/portions of the “at least one separator” in the claimed stack of electrodes; or
the “plurality of different separators” are included in the claimed stack of electrodes, in addition to the “at least one separator;” or
the “plurality of different separators” are a component of the claimed secondary battery, but are not included in the claimed stack of electrodes
Examiner notes the second and third interpretation do not appear to be supported by the instant disclosure. For the purpose of this action, the Claim 18 limitation “a plurality of different separators with different amounts of adhesive applied” will be Examined under the first interpretation.
Examiner acknowledges it is also possible the claim was written in error, and mistakenly combines two separate embodiments of an electrode stack:
a zigzag/continuous separator on lines 6-10, see [0026] of the instant specification; and
a plurality of individual separator sheets on lines 30-31, see [0095] of the instant specification
Further clarification is needed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obara et al., JP 2014026943 A, and further in view of Masarapu et al., US 20140065464 A1 (references cited in previous action).
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Obara discloses a secondary battery (a stacked type non-aqueous electrolyte lithium ion secondary battery 10 [0014-0019], Figs. 1 and 4) comprising:
a plurality of first electrodes each including a first electrode core body and a first electrode active material disposed on the first electrode core body (negative electrode has a structure in which negative electrode active material layers 15 are disposed on both sides of a negative electrode current collector 12 [0019], Fig. 1; a plurality are stacked [0020]);
a plurality of second electrodes each including a second electrode core body and a second electrode active material disposed on the second electrode core body (the positive electrode has a structure in which positive electrode active material layers 13 are disposed on both sides of a positive electrode current collector 11 [0019], Fig. 1; a plurality are stacked [0020])
at least one separator (separator/electrolyte layer 17 [0019], Fig. 1); and
an adhesive disposed between at least one side surface in a thickness direction of the separator and the first electrode (resin layers 18 may be disposed between the separator 17 and the negative electrode active material layer 15 and/or between the separator 17 and the positive electrode active material layer 13 to bond these two layers together [0019], resin layer 18 adheres electrode and separator [0013, 0034]),
wherein the plurality of the first electrodes (12+15) and the plurality of the second electrodes (11+13) are alternately stacked via the separator (18) ([0013, 0020], Figs. 1, 2, and 5), and
the plurality of the first electrodes (12+15) includes an outermost first electrode located farthest from a center in a stacking direction of the stacked body (see “outermost first electrode 12+15” in Annotated Fig. 1), and a centermost first electrode located closest to the center in the stacking direction of the stacked body (see “centermost first electrode 12+15” in Annotated Fig. 1),
wherein an adhesive strength A0 (between the outermost first electrode and the separator, see “A0” on Annotated Fig. 1) and an adhesive strength A1 (between the centermost first electrode and the separator, see “A1 on Annotated Fig. 1) are measured at corresponding portions of the outermost first electrode and the centermost first electrode which overlap each other in the stacking direction (adhesive surfaces for A0 and A1 overlap each other in the stacking direction, see Figs. 1, 2, and 5; peel tests for measurements [0148]).
PNG
media_image1.png
498
1250
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Obara – Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding the limitation “A1/A0 is at least 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.9,” Obara discloses a stacked battery manufacturing process that utilizes the method of the instant disclosure (using a hot press on a stack of electrodes to thermally fuse/melt resin and create an adhesive separator adjacent to an electrode, at 95ºC for 300 seconds [0007, 0162]; compared to instant spec Table 1, pressing at 70-110ºC for 50-500 seconds). Obara discloses numerous acceptable resin/adhesive materials also cited by the instant disclosure, including a meth(acrylic) resin, an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer, an epoxy resin, and a fluorine resin such as PVDF ([0099]; compare to instant spec at [0051]).
Noting the common adhesive materials and processing conditions disclosed by Obara and the instant invention, it is the Examiner’s position that although Obara does not measure an “A1/A0” value, the electrode stack of Obara would possess the claimed values of A1/A0. Since the PTO cannot conduct experiments, the proof of burden is shifted to the applicant to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Should inherency due to similar material and processing conditions not be sufficient, the following rejection also applies. Obara discloses the electrode stack should have adhesive layers throughout the stack to prevent the separator from shrinking ([0007]), but also acknowledges in stacked-structure batteries, there is a difference in the amount of heat received between the ends and the center of the stacked-structure battery, resulting in variations in the melting speed of the resin layer between the center and ends in the stacking direction ([0008, 0011]).
Obara discloses an area of the resin layer at an end of the lamination direction can be 1.2 to 3 times larger than an area of the resin layer at the center ([0115]), or the weight of the resin layer at the end of the lamination direction can be 1.1 to 2.5 times larger than the weight of the resin layer at the center ([0117-0119, 0170]; meeting the limitation “different amounts of adhesive applied” to the separator). Obara also discloses there is a direct relationship between the amount of adhesive resin used for a layer and the resulting adhesiveness of the layer after hot pressing ([0105, 0114-0115]). Knowing Obara’s preference for the area of the resin layer at the end of the lamination direction (“A0”) to be 1.2 to 3 times larger than the area of the resin layer at the center (“A1”), Obara teaches an A1/A0 range of 0.33 to 0.83 (1/3=0.33 for “3 times larger” and 1/1.2=0.83 for “1.2 times larger”). Obara’s suggested range of 0.33 to 0.83 overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.9.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize a ratio of adhesive strength between a centermost first electrode and a separator and between an outermost first electrode and a separator, in the stacked body of Obara, and would have been motivated to do so, as Obara teaches adhesiveness is needed throughout the electrode stack, and a significantly higher amount of adhesive is preferred at the outermost portion of the stack compared to the centermost portion.
Since Obara discloses a smaller amount of adhesive (i.e., a smaller area of resin) is present on an inner side of the stack compared to the outer side ([0115]), Obara discloses the new Claim 1 limitation “an amount of the adhesive that melts on an inner side in the stacking direction is smaller than an amount of the adhesive that melts on an outer side in the stacking direction.”
Obara also discloses there is a direct relationship between the amount of adhesive resin used for a layer and the resulting adhesiveness of the layer after hot pressing ([0105, 0114-0115]). Therefore, Obara’s stack having a smaller amount of adhesive (i.e., a smaller area of resin, or a smaller “amount of bonded portion”) on an inner side of the stack compared to the outer side of the stack meets the limitation “an amount of bonded portion developing the adhesive strength in the adhesive on the inner side in the stacking direction is smaller than an amount of bonded portion developing the adhesive strength in the adhesive on the outer side in the stacking direction.”
Although Obara discloses a plurality of first electrodes are included in a stacked body including the plurality of the first electrodes and the plurality of the second electrodes (three or more unit cell layers stacked together [0013]; stack of five unit cells [0152]), Obara does not disclose the plurality of first electrodes is “at least ten” per Claim 1. However, this limitation is taught by Masarapu.
Masarapu teaches a high energy density battery can have about 3 to 50 negative electrode layers, and increasing the number of electrode layers in a battery will increase the capacity of the battery ([0148], “Cell Layers” column in Tables 2-7). However, Masarapu also teaches increasing the number of electrode layers will undesirably increase the battery weight and size ([0148]). Masarapu and Obara both disclose their respective batteries may be used in electric vehicles (Obara [0130], Masarapu [0031]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to select between 3 and 50 first electrodes for the stacked body of Obara, and would have been motivated to do so, by including enough first electrodes to achieve a high battery capacity, yet not too many layers to negatively impact battery weight and size (as taught by Masarapu). Examiner notes the range of first electrodes taught by Masarapu (3 to 50) overlaps with the claimed range of “at least ten.”
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding Claim 3, modified Obara discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Obara does not disclose “a longer side of the first electrode is at least 10 cm, and an area of one side surface of the first electrode in the thickness direction is at least 90 cm2.” However, these limitations are also taught by Masarapu.
Masarapu teaches a length and a width of an electrode is variable, and an area of an electrode can be 13.5 cm2 to about 400 cm2 ([0147], “Electrode Area” column in Tables 2-7). Masarapu teaches an electrode area can be large to increase battery capacity, but an increased weight of a large electrode can negatively influence cell capacity ([0147-0151], “Wh/Kg” column in Tables 2-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize the length and area of the first electrode in the battery of modified Obara, and would have been motivated to do so, by having a large enough electrode area to contribute to a high battery capacity, yet not too large as to negatively impact battery weight (as disclosed by Masarapu). Additionally, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.04].
Regarding Claim 4, modified Obara discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Obara discloses a second adhesive disposed between the other side surface of the separator in the thickness direction and the second electrode (resin layers 18 may be disposed between the separator 17 and the negative electrode active material layer 15 and/or between the separator 17 and the positive electrode active material layer 13 to bond these two layers together [0019]), wherein
an adhesive strength between the outermost second electrode and the separator is A2 (see “outermost second electrode 13+17” in Annotated Fig. 1), and an adhesive strength between the second electrode located in a center in the stacking direction of the stacked body and the separator is A3 (see “outermost second electrode 13+17” in Annotated Fig. 1; as the first electrode is at the exact center of the stack, the second electrode immediately above or below the center first electrode would be A3).
Regarding the limitation “A3/A2 is at least 0.1 and less than 0.9,” this limitation expresses the adhesive strength between the outermost second electrode and separator (A2) is larger than the adhesive strength between the centermost second electrode and separator (A3). This limitation is consistent with modified Obara’s preference for the area of the resin layer at the end of the lamination direction be 1.2 to 3 times larger than the area of the resin layer at the center (Obara, [0115]), or the weight of the resin layer at the end of the lamination direction be 1.1 to 2.5 times larger than the weight of the resin layer at the center (Obara, [0117-0119, 0170]). Modified Obara discloses there is a direct relationship between the amount of adhesive resin used for a layer and the resulting adhesiveness of the layer (Obara, [0105]). Knowing modified Obara’s preference for the area of the resin layer at the end of the lamination direction (“A2”) to be 1.2 to 3 times larger than the area of the resin layer at the center (“A3”), Obara suggests an A3/A2 range of 0.33 to 0.83 (1/3=0.33 for “3 times larger” and 1/1.2=0.83 for “1.2 times larger”). Obara’s suggested range of 0.33 to 0.83 overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.9.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to optimize a ratio of adhesive strength between a centermost second electrode and a separator and an outermost second electrode and a separator, in the stacked body of modified Obara, and would have been motivated to do so, as modified Obara teaches adhesiveness is needed throughout the electrode stack, but a significantly higher adhesiveness is preferred at the outermost portion compared to the centermost portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
498
1292
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Obara – Annotated Fig. 1
Regarding Claim 7, modified Obara discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Obara discloses the one side surface is included in a porous substrate having ionic permeability (Obara, separator having pores holding the electrolyte for lithium ion movement [0086]) and insulating characteristic (Obara, PP, PE, polyimide, and PVdF-HFP [0094]; PP, PE, polyimide, and PVdF-HFP are insulating materials [0099]).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Obara discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Obara discloses the other side surface is included in a porous substrate having ionic permeability (Obara, separator having pores holding the electrolyte for lithium ion movement [0086]) and insulating characteristic (Obara, PP, PE, polyimide, and PVdF-HFP [0094]; PP, PE, polyimide, and PVdF-HFP are insulating materials [0099]).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Obara discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Obara discloses the adhesive (Obara, resin 18) is applied to the one side surface of the separator with an approximately constant area density (Obara, PVDF:NMP mass ratio for resin is a constant 1:9 for all examples [0143-0146]), and the area density of a bonded portion of the adhesive changes in the stacking direction such that the area density of the bonded portion between the separator and the outermost first electrode is greater than the area density of the bonded portion between the separator and the centermost first electrode (Obara [0117-0119, 0143-0161], Tables 1-2).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Obara discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Obara discloses the secondary battery is a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Obara, stacked type non-aqueous electrolyte lithium ion secondary battery [0014-0019]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Obara as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Okada et al., JP 2002329530 A (new reference, see enclosed PTO-892).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Obara discloses all limitations as set forth above. Modified Obara does not disclose “the separator is folded in a zigzag.” However, this limitation is taught by Okada.
Okada teaches a traditional battery stack comprises a plurality of positive electrode sheets 1 and a plurality of negative electrode sheets 2 alternately stacked with a separator 3 interposed therebetween ([0002], Fig. 4; similar to Obara battery stack in Obara Fig. 1). Okada teaches the traditional stack design can be improved by obtaining a continuous-length separator and folding it “in a zigzag manner” between the electrode sheets ([0019], Fig. 3). Okada teaches the zigzag folding technique shields and insulates the edges of the positive and negative electrodes, which prevents a short circuit within the stack ([0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to assemble modified Obara’s plurality of first and second electrodes with a continuous-length separator folded in a zigzag manner, as disclosed by Okada, in order to protect the stack from short circuiting.
PNG
media_image3.png
384
856
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Okada – Fig. 3 (left) and Fig. 4 (right)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721