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 1/6/2026 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).
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.
Regarding claim 3, Kim and Nagaoka 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 and Nagaoka 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 and Nagaoka 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 filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Kim teaches that the base layer partially shrinks upon contacting the electrolyte thereby preventing the electrode assembly from being moved in a can.
This argument is not persuasive as Kim teaches the base layer also partially expanding upon contacting the electrolyte (see col. 6, lines 64-66 of Kim). Also, Kim discloses that the base sheet may be variably modified according to standard types batteries and is not limited to a thickness from about 20 µm to about 60 µm (see col. 7, lines 34-41 of Kim). The combination of these disclosures in Kim would suggest a secondary battery where the electrode assembly would have some movement.
Applicants argue that the base layer of Kim is not configured to be partially melted and/or to form pores upon contacting the electrolyte as the film layer recited in claim 1, nor does the chemically reacted film layer deform together with the electrode assembly, there by allowing the electrode assembly to expand without restraint when the electrode assembly expands in a radial direction.
This argument is not persuasive as the combination of Kim and Nagaoka would meet these features. 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.
Applicants argue that Kim does not teach or suggest the technical idea of allowing the electrode assembly to expand after the film layer contacts the electrolyte and to expand without restraint when the electrode assembly.
This argument is not persuasive as Kim teaches the base layer also partially expanding upon contacting the electrolyte (see col. 6, lines 64-66 of Kim). Also, Kim discloses that the base sheet may be variably modified according to standard types batteries and is not limited to a thickness from about 20 µm to about 60 µm (see col. 7, lines 34-41 of Kim). The combination of these disclosures in Kim would suggest a secondary battery where the electrode assembly to expand after the film layer contacts the electrolyte and to expand without restraint when the electrode assembly.
Applicants argue that modifying Kim to include a film layer that melts or forms pores to allow the electrode assembly to expand would change the principal of operation of Kim.
This argument is not persuasive as the material of the resin contribute to the properties of the shrinking and expanding of the resin, not only the thickness of the resin. Column 7 of Kim discloses that the resin comprises polyamide. The nylon 66 of the Nagaoka is a type of polyamide resin. There would be a reasonable expectation of success that nylon 66 would shrink and expand the same way as polyamide due to being a type of polyamide resin. Also, the rationale in Nagaoka for including nylon 66 of providing a resin that does not melt at temperatures below the shutdown temperature of the lithium secondary battery would be reasonably expected to work in the battery of Kim in that if the battery gets too hot and has to be shut down, then the structure of the film layer would be intact by not melting due to the battery getting too hot. Furthermore, nylon 66 has a melting point of 260-265 °C. Applicant has not provided any evidence that using nylon-66 would change the principle of operation of Kim and render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of limiting the movement of the electrode assembly in the can through having the base sheet shrink and expand to hold the assembly to the can. Also, Kim discloses that the base sheet may be variably modified according to standard types batteries and is not limited to a thickness from about 20 µm to about 60 µm (see col. 7, lines 34-41 of Kim). The combination of these disclosures in Kim would suggest a secondary battery where the electrode assembly would have some movement. Based on these reasons, it would have been obvious to include nylon 66 of Nagaoka for the polyamide in the film layer of Kim.
Conclusion
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/Examiner, Art Unit 1785