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 .
Examiner’s Comments
Applicants’ response filed on 5/21/2026 has been fully considered. Claims 1 and 3-5 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 8,062,787 B2) in view of Nagaoka (JP 2014-127242 A) in further view of Lee (US 2008/0102354 A1).
A machine translation is being used as the English translation for Nagaoka (JP 2014-127242 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a secondary battery comprising:
an electrode assembly (Fig. 3 #20; col. 5, lines 19-26) comprising a first electrode plate (Fig. 3 #21; col. 5, lines 19-26), a second electrode plate (Fig. 3 #23; col. 5, lines 19-26) and a separator between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (first separator between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate; Fig. 3 #25a; col. 5, lines 19-26); wherein the electrode assembly is wound (wherein the electrode assembly is cylindrically wound; Fig. 3 #20; col. 5, lines 19-26);
a can for accommodating the electrode assembly (Fig. 3 #10; col. 5, lines 14-18) and an electrolyte (electrolyte permeated between the can and the electrode assembly through an upper end part and injected into a bottom of the can contacting the electrode assembly; col. 8, lines 55-61);
a finishing tape (a sealing tape; Fig. 3 #50; col. 6, lines 19-24) comprising a film layer (base sheet; Fig. 3 #51; col. 6, lines 19-24) and an adhesive layer to attach the film layer to the electrode assembly (Fig. 3 #52; col. 6, lines 19-24), wherein the base sheet comprises a polyamide film (col. 7, lines 51-62), wherein the finishing tape at least partially surrounds the electrode assembly (sealing tape encloses the entire width of the electrode assembly; Fig. 3 #50; col. 8, lines 49-51); and
a cap assembly that seals the can (Fig. 3 #100; col. 5, lines 14-18).
Fig. 2 shows the sealing tape wrapped around the electrode assembly. Nylon is a polyamide film.
Kim does not disclose the secondary battery comprising the film layer comprising a nylon material.
However, Nagaoka discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a film layer comprising a nylon material (tape comprising a base material comprising nylon 66; paragraphs [0104]-[0105]).
Since Nagaoka discloses the material of its tape comprising nylon 66 (a polyamide), which is the same as Applicant’s preferred material for the film layer, and Kim discloses the electrolyte comprising a mixture of organic solvents of ethylene carbonate, dimethyl carbonate and propylene carbonate (col. 13, lines 20-46) and a salt of LiPF6, which are same as Applicant’s preferred materials for the organic solvent and the salt of the electrolyte as stated in paragraph [0034] of Applicant’s Specification, the combined base sheet of Kim and Nagaoka comprising nylon 66 when chemically reacting with the electrolyte of Kim would inherently be at least partially melted and/or form pores and have the chemically reacted film layer deformed together with the electrode assembly when the electrode assembly expands in a radial direction thereby allowing the electrode assembly to expand without restraint. As noted above, Kim does teach polyamide film (col. 7, lines 51-62). Nylon is a polyamide film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the secondary battery of Kim to substitute the polyamide of the base sheet of Kim for the nylon 66 taught in Nagaoka because having the required base material, such as nylon 66, provides a resin that does not melt at temperatures below the shutdown temperature of the lithium secondary battery (paragraph [0104] of Nagaoka). As the nylon/amide materials are essentially the same, they would have the same properties.
Kim does not disclose the secondary battery comprising the finishing tape comprising a plurality of finishing tapes that are spaced apart from one another.
However, Lee discloses a secondary battery (prismatic lithium secondary battery; paragraph [0001]) comprising a finishing tape comprising a plurality of finishing tapes that are spaced apart from one another (finishing tape formed in a narrow band shape where two or more finishing tapes are attached to an upper part of the electrode assembly and a lower part of the electrode assembly; Fig. 5 #410 and #420; paragraph [0038]) and an embodiment where the finishing tape is single tape (Fig. 4 #400; paragraph [0035])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary battery of Kim to substitute the single finishing tape of Kim for the plurality of narrow band shaped finishing tapes of Lee because having a plurality of narrow band shaped finishing tapes allows for the upper part and the lower part of the electrode assembly to be wound in the circumferential direction and allows for the front of the finishing tapes to stick to the front of the winding end to the inner surface of the electrode assembly (paragraph [0038] of Lee).
Regarding claim 3, Kim, Nagaoka and Lee disclose the secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above and Kim discloses the secondary battery comprising the film layer having a thickness less than 20 µm (base sheet having a thickness less than 20 µm; Fig. 3 #51; col. 7, lines 34-41).
The thickness of the base sheet overlaps the claimed range for the thickness of the film layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to allow for movement of the electrode assembly as a thickness from about 20 µm to about 60 µm for the base layer would effectively and efficiently prevent movement of the electrode assembly (col. 7, lines 34-41 of Kim). It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Kim, Nagaoka and Lee disclose the secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above and Kim discloses the secondary battery comprising the adhesive layer comprising an acrylic component (acryl-based adhesive; Fig. 3 #52; col. 8, lines 30-48).
Regarding claim 5, Kim, Nagaoka and Lee disclose the secondary battery of claim 1 as noted above and Kim discloses the secondary battery comprising the adhesive layer having a thickness from about 1 µm to about 30 µm (Fig. 3 #52; col. 8, lines 30-48).
The thickness of the adhesive layer overlaps the claimed range for the thickness of the adhesive layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference in order to have increased strength and durability for the adhesive layer while not using excess material as a means for reducing cost. It has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Please see MPEP 2144.05, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
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.
Applicants argue that Kim does not disclose the finishing tape comprising a plurality of finishing tapes paced apart from one another.
This argument is moot as Kim does not disclose the finishing tape comprising a plurality of finishing tapes paced apart from one another. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection is noted above.
Applicant's arguments filed 5/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Nagaoka does not cure the deficiencies of Kim.
This argument is not persuasive as Nagaoka is a teaching reference used to teach nylon 66.
However, note that while Nagaoka does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Nagaoka is a teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches certain concepts, namely nylon 66, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 SATHAVARAM I REDDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7061. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)-272-1291. 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.
/SATHAVARAM I REDDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights