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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 5-8 have been amended.
Claims 2-4 have been canceled.
Claims 9 and 10 have been added.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on September 9th, 2025 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action is made FINAL.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of June 16th, 2025
The objections to claims 3 and 4 are moot because those claims have been cancelled.
The 102 rejection of claim 2 over Shibuya is moot because the claim has been cancelled.
The 103 rejections of claims 3 and 4 over Shibuya in view of Maruhashi are moot because those claims have been cancelled.
The 112(b) rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 112(d) rejection of claim 8 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 102 rejections of claims 1, 7, and 8 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant's amendment.
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:
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.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 20210033322 A) and further in view of Maruhashi (US 20180287189 A1). The combination of the two will be referred to as modified Park.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Park teaches a stack including a positive (first) electrode and a negative (second) electrode with a first side portion and a second side portion opposite the first side portion. Furthermore, the location of the first side portion is consistent throughout the entire battery module (as required by claim 8). As seen in the figure below, the second electrode is longer than the first electrode and therefore would have a larger area than the first electrode. See the annotated figure immediately below.
PNG
media_image1.png
704
970
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Each electrode has a first end surface oriented towards the first side portion of the stack and a second end surface oriented toward the second side portion of the stack. The separator has a first folded portion that covers the first end surface of the first electrode and a second folded portion that covers the second end surface of the second electrode. Park also teaches that the entire second folded portion (and by extension, the inner surface of the second folded portion) is outside (in the sense that it is farther from the central axis of the battery stack) of the second end surfaces of both the first and second electrode. All of this is captured in the annotated figure immediately below:
PNG
media_image2.png
704
970
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Park teaches that a position of the first folded portion of the separator is aligned with a position of the first end surface of the second electrode, as seen in the figure below.
PNG
media_image3.png
704
970
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Park fails to teach an adhesive layer between the electrodes and the separator. Maruhashi is analogous art to Park because both teach materials in secondary batteries. Maruhashi teaches a secondary battery “wherein the adhesive layer for a non-aqueous secondary battery is arranged between the positive electrode and the separator and/or between the negative electrode and the separator” [0026]. Maruhashi continues to teach that using the adhesive layer will cause “the internal resistance… [to] be lowered” and that the battery cell’s output characteristics can be sufficiently improved [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Maruhashi’s adhesive layer between the electrodes and separator of Park in order to decrease internal resistance and to improve a battery’s output characteristics.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, orienting the battery cell of modified Park such that a side portion is directed in a downward or upward direction would not modify the operation of said battery cell. Therefore, it is an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 7, modified Park teaches a plurality of the battery cells of claim 1. As seen in the figures above, there are multiple sets of battery cells comprised of a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a folded separator.
Regarding claim 9, modified Park teaches that the second end surface of the first electrode is recessed a first distance from the edge of the second side portion and the second electrode is recessed a second distance from the second side portion. As shown in the figure below, the first distance is greater than the second distance.
PNG
media_image4.png
704
970
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Park teaches that the first end surface of the first electrode is recessed from an edge of the first side portion of the stack (Figure 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
699
963
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5-8 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Komiya (US 2008/0305398 A1) teaches a folded battery that is similar to the claimed battery, but fails to anticipate the claims because they do not disclose
Ahn (US 2012/0189894 A1) teaches a folded battery that is very similar to the claimed battery, but fails to anticipate the claims because one end of the separator is crimped instead of folded.
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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722