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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 & 3-5 were rejected in the office action mailed 2/26/2026. Claims 1 & 3-5 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 5/21/2026 amendment, in response to the 2/26/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant's arguments and amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on US20110244304A1 (Shinyashiki) figures 3, 5, & 7. The present claims; however, remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 based on Shinyashiki figures 5, 7, & 14-15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1 & 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20110244304A1 (Shinyashiki).
With regard to claim 1, Shinyashiki teaches the following limitations:
A secondary battery (paragraph 2: lithium-ion battery), comprising:
an electrode assembly (paragraphs 44 & 65; figures 7 & 15: stacked electrode assembly 10) in which a positive electrode (paragraph 44s 44 & 65; figures 7 & 15: positive electrode plate 1) and a negative electrode (paragraphs 44 & 65; figures 7 & 15: negative electrode plate 2) are stacked with a separator (paragraph 44; figure 7: separator 3. paragraph 65; figures 14-15: separator 30) interposed therebetween, wherein
the separator (3, 30) consists of a first layer (paragraph 65; figures 14-15: polyethylene heat-melting layer 30M) and a second layer (paragraph 65; figures 14-15: aramid resin) having a thermal shrinkage rate smaller than that of the first layer (Polyethylene CTE = 108 to 200 x 10-6 m/(m*oC)1. Aramid resin CTE = -2 to +2 x 10-6 m/(m*oC)2. Low CTE = low thermal shrinkage rate.), and has a tubular portion that is formed into a tubular shape (Figure A below) by the separator (3, 30) being disposed along side surfaces of the electrode assembly, to form outermost surfaces (Figure A below) of the electrode assembly (10),
Figure A: Annotated Shinyashiki Figure 7
PNG
media_image1.png
556
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the first layer (30M) placed in physical contact (Figure B below) with the negative electrode (2), and the second layer (30R) placed in physical contact (Figure B below) with the positive electrode (1)
in the tubular portion (Figure A above), the first layer faces an inner side and the second layer faces an outer side (Figure B below),
Figure B: Annotated Shinyashiki Figure 15
PNG
media_image2.png
503
989
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the first layer is a resin layer (paragraph 65; figures 14-15: polyethylene heat-melting layer 30M), and the second layer essentially consists of a resin (paragraph 65; figures 14-15: aramid resin) having a higher melting point or softening point than that of a resin forming the first layer (see discussion below), the resin of the second layer including at least one selected from the group consisting of an aramid resin (paragraph 65; figures 14-15: aramid resin)…
The following table shows that Shinyashiki’s heat-resistant layer 30R, with aramid resin, has a higher melting point or softening point than Shinyashiki’s heat-melting layer 30M, with polyethylene.
Claim
Layer
Material
melting point oC
first layer
heat-melting layer 30M
polyethylene
110 – 120 oC 3
second layer
heat-resistant layer 3R
aramid resin
500 oC 4
With regard to claim 3, Shinyashiki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Shinyashiki also teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
the second layer faces the positive electrode (Figure B above)
With regard to claim 4, Shinyashiki teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Shinyashiki also teaches the following claim 4 limitations:
the positive electrode (1) consists of a plurality of positive electrodes (figures 5 & 7) and the negative electrode (2) consists of a plurality of negative electrodes (figures 5 & 7), and
the electrode assembly (10) has a stacking structure in which one sheet of the separator (3) folded in a zigzag shape (paragraph 44; figures 5 & 7) is interposed between the plurality of positive electrodes (1) and the plurality of negative electrodes (1), and the tubular portion is formed by the one sheet of the separator (figures 5 & 7)
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20110244304A1 (Shinyashiki), with regard to claim 1, and further in view of US20020018930A1 (Hamano). Shinyashiki fails to teach the following claim 5 limitation, which is taught by Hamano:
an adhesive layer bonded to the positive electrode or the negative electrode and formed on at least one surface of the separator
Hamano teaches “bonding the positive electrode active material layer 7 and the negative electrode active material layer 9 to the separator 4 by a porous adhesive resin layer 11” (abstract, figure 1). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Shinyashiki’s separator to be bonded to the positive electrode or to the negative electrode 24 by an adhesive, as taught by Hamano, for securing these components together.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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.
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.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
1 https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html
2 https://www.suretex-aramid.com/blog/what-is-the-coefficient-of-thermal-expansion-of-fr-aramid-fiber-fabric-953989.html
3 https://www.xometry.com/resources/materials/polypropylene-vs-polyethylene/
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramid
Prosecution Insights