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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 November 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims and Other Notes
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are pending.
Claims 2–4 are canceled.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the instant application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PG-Pub of the instant application. See US 2023/0055724 A1.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The terms "continuous masking regions," "longitudinal end," and "discrete masking regions" of claim 1 do not have proper antecedent basis in the specification.
While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, they should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103. Examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). Applicant is required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.
FIG. 6 appears to illustrate the "continuous masking regions," "longitudinal end," and "discrete masking regions" of claim 1. FIG. 6 is described in paragraph [0047] and may be amended to include and describe the terms "continuous masking regions," "longitudinal end," and "discrete masking regions" of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami et al. (JP 2012-204335 A) in view of Milnes (GB 593,643 A).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Tagami discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (100, [0030]), including:
a positive electrode (1) having a positive electrode mixture layer (1-2) including a positive electrode active material (FIG. 3A, [0026]);
a negative electrode (2) having a negative electrode mixture layer (2-2) including a negative electrode active material (FIG. 3A, [0026]); and
a separator (3) interposed between opposite surfaces of the positive electrode (1) and the negative electrode (2) and being permeable to lithium ions (FIG. 3A, [0024]),
wherein a masking region (32) inhibiting permeation of lithium ions is provided on the separator (3) to restrict release of lithium ions from the negative electrode mixture layer (2-2) during discharge (FIG. 7, [0035]), and
the masking region (32) is formed by sealing pores of the separator (30, [0035]), and
the masking region (32, FIGS. 8A–9C) comprises one or both of (i) one or more continuous masking regions (32) each extending from one longitudinal end to an other longitudinal end of the separator (3, [0035]), at least one of the one or more continuous masking regions (32) passing through an inside part distanced from an end part in a width direction of the separator (3, [0035]); and(ii) a plurality of discrete masking regions (32) disposed between the one and the other longitudinal ends of the separator (3, [0035]), wherein at least one of the discrete masking regions (32) is spaced away from each of the one and the other longitudinal ends of the separator (3, [0035]);
wherein the masking region (32) has a grid shape formed by the masking regions (32) intersecting one another (FIG. 8B, [0035]).
Ueki discloses a separator (30) including low porosity regions (36A, 36B) having a porosity lower than the remainder (35) of the separator (30, [0062]). Ueki also discloses the porosity controls the permeability of ions (FIG. 6, [0062]). Therefore, the low porosity regions restrict release of lithium ions from the negative electrode mixture layer during discharge.
Ueki does not explicitly disclose:
the masking region is formed by sealing pores of the separator with paraffin permeated into the pores.
Milnes discloses a separator comprising a masking region formed by sealing pores of the separator with paraffin permeated into the pores (P7/L49–68) to reduce the internal resistance of the battery (P5/L81–38). Tagami and Milnes are analogous because they are directed to separators including regions having reduced porosity. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to make the masking region of Tagami with the paraffin of Milnes in order to reduce the internal resistance of the battery.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tagami (JP 2012-204335 A) in view of Milnes (GB 593,643 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ueki et al. (US 2014/0220402 A1, hereinafter Ueki).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tagami discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery:
wherein a masking area of the separator is greater than or equal to 12% and less than or equal to 21% of the separator.
Ueki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above, but Ueki does not explicitly disclose a masking area of the separator. Ueki discloses a width of the masking region, which is proportional to the masking area of the separator (i.e.,
A
1
A
T
∝
W
1
W
T
). As curl-inhibiting effect and cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the masking area (FIG. 6, [0064]), with curl-inhibiting effect and cost both increasing as the masking area is increase, the masking area would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed masking area cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the masking area in the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of modified Tagami to obtain the desired balance between curl-inhibiting effect and cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 5, and 6 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean P Cullen, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1251. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:00 am to 4:00 pm CT, Friday 6:00 am to 12:00 pm CT.
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, Basia A Ridley can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725