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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Rejection
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are substantially maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner note: Claim 1 recites wherein the first layer faces an inner side and the second layer faces an outer side. It is noted that claim 3 depends from claim 1 that includes these limitations. Claim 3 recites where separator is folded in a zigzag shape, which may appear to be in contrast to the limitations of claim 1 because the zigzag pattern would suggest the first layer is facing both directions (one direction in the zig, the other direction in the zag). However, claim 1 does not require that the first layer faces only an inner side and the second layer faces only an outer side, thus by broadest reasonable interpretation claim 1 is interpreted wherein the first layer is required to face an inner side (but may also face an outer side) and the second layer faces an outer side (but may also face an inner side) and no new matter is present in the claims.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai et al. (US 20160276702 A1) in view of Kojima et al. (US 20170110703 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nakai discloses a secondary battery (nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery [Para. 0044]), comprising:
an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode and negative electrode are stacked with a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (electrode assembly 2 is stacked where positive electrode 23 and negative electrode 24 are stacked with a separator 25 interposed therebetween [Para. 0057; Figs. 6-11]),
wherein the separator includes a first layer and a second layer having a thermal shrinkage rate smaller than a thermal shrinkage rate of the first layer (separator 25 includes a first layer 251 that is a base material and a second layer 252 that is an inorganic layer [Paras. 0058]; examiner further notes that the base material is a polyolefin resin such as polyethylene while the inorganic layer is a silica or alumina based layer comprising polyacrylate or polyvinylidene fluoride and thus inherently meets the requirements of having a smaller thermal shrinkage rate), and has a tubular portion that is formed into a tubular shape to form outermost surfaces of the electrode assembly (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 that show the tubular shape of the surfaces of the electrode assembly),
in the tubular portion of the separator, a tape is attached (an outer end portion of the elongated separator 25A is fixed by a tape [unlabeled, but shown in Figs. 6-11]),
the first layer is a resin layer (the base material layer 251 is a polyolefin resin such as polyethylene or polypropylene [Para. 0058]),
the second layer comprises a resin having a higher melting point or softening point than a melting point or softening point of a resin forming the first layer (the inorganic layer 252 comprises a resin material such as PVDF wherein PVDF has a higher melting point (170-175°C) than the polyolefins such as PE (100-135°C) or PP (160-165°C) that make up the base material layer 251 [Para. 0058]; see evidentiary references downloaded from https://polymers.netzsch.com for melting points of respective polymers);
the separator is provided so that in the tubular portion, the first layer faces an inner side, and the second layer faces an outer side (the base material layer 251 faces an inner side while the inorganic layer 252 faces an outer side [see Fig. 6]).
Although Nakai does teach the use of tape to secure the separator material, as outlined above, Nakai does not provide any description of the location or orientation of the tape with regards to the electrode assembly.
Nakai therefore fails to expressly teach wherein the tape “is attached to at least one end in an axial direction of the tubular portion, the tape extending across the electrode assembly in a stacking direction of the electrode assembly and fastening the at least one end in the axial direction together”, as required by claim 1.
Kojima discloses a secondary lithium ion battery electrode stack [abstract] wherein the electrode stack is secured through the use of fixing members 5 (i.e., tape). Kojima teaches that the fixing members 5 are attached to one end in an axial direction and extend across the electrode assembly and are fastened to the other end in the axial direction (see Figs. 2 and 7). Kojima further teaches that this arrangement is provided to prevent the positive and negative electrodes housed in the stack from shifting [Para. 0039].
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 electrode stack of Nakai to further include the fixing members 5 taught by Kojima as such modification would provide the benefit of preventing the positive electrode and negative electrodes within the stack from shifting [Para. 0039]. Furthermore, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)).
Regarding claim 2, modified Nakai further discloses wherein:
the electrode assembly includes a plurality of positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes, each of which has a substantially rectangular shape in a front view (the electrode stack includes plural positive and negative electrodes and is rectangular as shown in Figs. 3-11), and
the tape is attached to a position overlapping with a center in a long side direction of each of the plurality of positive and the plurality of negative electrodes (Nakai as modified by Kojima above teaches wherein the tape overlaps each positive and negative electrode and thus would overlap with “a center in a long side direction” as shown in annotated Kojima Fig. 2 below where the “a center” is the center thickness in the long side direction ).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternative to the broad interpretation of “a center” outlined above, it would have been further obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the fixing member 5 disclose by Kajima to any and all edges of the electrode stack including the location between the two fixing members 5 shown in annotated Fig. 2 above as such modification would be considered a mere duplication of parts that would result in the obvious and predictable outcome of further securing the positive and negative electrodes within the electrode stack to prevent them from shifting [Kojima Para. 0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Nakai further discloses wherein the electrode assembly includes a plurality of positive electrodes and a plurality of negative electrodes, and has a stacking structure in which one sheet of the separator folded in a zigzag shape is interposed between the plurality of positive electrodes and the plurality of negative electrodes, and the tubular portion is formed by the one sheet of the separator (the electrode stack comprises plural positive electrodes 23 and plural negative electrodes 24 and the separator 25 is formed as a tubular portion from one sheet of separator that winds in a zigzag pattern and is interposed between the electrode layers [Para. 0083-0086; Figs. 7-8]).
Regarding claim 5, Nakai further discloses wherein the separator is provided so that the second layer faces the positive electrode side (the inorganic layer 252 faces the positive electrode side 23 [Para. 0065; Figs. 6-11]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakai and Kojima, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamano et al. (US 20020018930 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nakai discloses the limitations of claim 1 as outlined previously.
Nakai and Kojima are silent on bonding of the positive or negative electrode to the separator and thus fail to expressly teach “an adhesive layer to be bonded to the positive electrode or the negative electrode is formed on at least one surface of the separator”, as required by instant claim 7.
Hamano discloses a lithium ion secondary battery that includes an electrode stack [abstract; Fig. 7] wherein the positive electrode and negative electrode are closely adhered to one another by bonding the positive electrode and negative electrode to the separator using a porous adhesive resin layer [abstract]. Hamano further teaches that when an adhesive resin layer is used to bond the positive electrode and the negative electrode to the separator, a thin and light battery is able to be formed that has excellent charge and discharge characteristics and does not require external pressurization, namely which does not require a strong armor case [Para. 0066].
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 structure of Nakai to include an adhesive resin layer that bonds either or both of the positive electrode and/or negative electrode to the separator because Hamano teaches that such structure provides various benefits including the ability to form a thin and light battery with excellent charge and discharge characteristics that does not require a strong armor case [Para. 0066].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pgs. 4-10, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues that the instant application allegedly solves the problem of the end of the separator from turning up thereby preventing short circuits from occurring while Nakai allegedly solves the problem of improved capacity retention.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner notes that there is no indication in Nakai that the separator ends turn up and lead to short circuits and thus the device of Nakai would inherently have the same properties as those argued by the applicant as the structure is substantially the same with substantially the same resin materials. However, even if Nakai does not inherently have the same benefits as argued by the applicant, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) [see MPEP 2145(II)]. Nakai in view of Kojima teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as outlined in the rejection above.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues that the amended claims intentionally employ a configuration with no inorganic particles that is fundamentally different than the structure disclosed by Nakai.
Examiner's Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., no inorganic particles present) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Amended claim 1 merely recites that the second layer comprises a resin having a higher melting point than a resin forming the first layer. Nakai clearly teaches wherein the second layer 252 comprises PvDF and the first layer comprises PP/PE. As outlined in the rejection above, PvDF has a higher melting point than both PP and PE. Claim 1 recites the transitional term “comprising”. MPEP 2111.03 states “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” It follows that claim 1 does not exclude inorganic particles as argued by the applicant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3176. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-4:30pm ET Mon-Thurs, 7:30am-11:30pm Fri.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/JOSHUA L ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1713