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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the response filed on 1/29/2026.
Claims 1, and 13 have been amended.
Claims 14-21 are newly added.
Claim 12 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-11, and 13-21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 1/29/2026, 3/6/2026, 05/22/2026, and 6/23/2026 are being considered by the examiner except where lined-through for not having a legible English translation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6, 8-11 and 13 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. While both HOSOKAWA and MARUHASHI are still cited in the new rejections below, neither are relied on for the arguments provided by applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230036396 A1, HOSOKAWA et al. in view of US 20140030608 A1, L'ABEE et al. with EUREKA (https://eureka.patsnap.com/report-acrylic-resin-vs-polyolefin-blends-surface-adhesion-analysis) as a supporting reference.
Regarding claims 1, 4, 14 and 17. HOSOKAWA discloses an electrode assembly [0006], comprising:
HOSOKAWA in annotated figure three below discloses a plurality of electrodes arranged in a stack along a stacking axis, wherein
each of the electrodes in the stack is separated along the stacking axis from a successive one of the electrodes in the stack by a respective planar portion of an elongated separator sheet, the elongated separator sheet being folded proximate successive alternating ends of the plurality of electrodes on opposing sides of the stack in an orthogonal dimension orthogonal to the stacking axis, such that the elongated separator sheet follows a serpentine path traversing back and forth along an orthogonal dimension and each planar portion extends between each successive one of the electrodes in the stack,
wherein each of the electrodes in the stack has a first lateral end and a second lateral end on opposite sides of the respective electrode in the orthogonal dimension, and wherein the first lateral ends of a plurality of electrodes is offset by a first distance in the orthogonal dimension with respect to the first lateral end of either the first electrode in the stack or one of the two adjacent electrodes in the stack, the first distance being from 1% to 10% of a lateral width of any select one of the electrodes (no disclosed offset is less than 10), the lateral width being defined between the first and second lateral ends of the select electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
646
1204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
[0120] of the instant application discloses “the protruding length of the mth stacked electrode may be 0.1 mm to 10 mm.” This length also meeting the limitations of claims 4 and 17.
It is the office’s position that the lower end of this range is merely noise within an acceptable tolerance. Likewise, the upper end of the instantly claimed range is an obvious alteration that lacking any unexpected results would be within the purview of one with ordinary skill in the art to have made before the effective filing date with minimum experimentation and have virtually all the same properties as disclosed by HOSOKAWA.
HOSOKAWA does not disclose the air permeability of the elongated separator sheet is in a range of 70 sec/100 ml to 95 sec/100 ml per square inch under a pressure of 0.05 MPa at room temperature when measured according to the JIS Gurley measurement method of the Japanese industrial standard using a Gurley type Densometer.
L'ABEE [title] discloses A High Temperature Melt Integrity Separator
L'ABEE [0023] discloses separator films.
L'ABEE [0335] discloses that these separator films have “Gurley numbers ranging from 12 to 544 seconds” which overlaps the instantly claimed range in claim 1.
L'ABEE [0335] further discloses “High Gurley values indicate a low air transport through the membrane, which typically translate into a low ionic conductivity.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a permeable separator disclosed by L'ABEE in the battery disclosed by HOSOKAWA in order to achieve a better ionic conductivity.
Neither HOSOKAWA nor L'ABEE disclose the elongated separator sheet is adhered to the plurality of electrodes to a degree that it would take a peel force in a range from 5 gf to 65 gf per 20 mm width of the elongated separator sheet applied to an edge of the elongated separator sheet in order to peel the elongated separator sheet away from any one of the plurality of electrodes at a speed of 100 mm/min along the stacking axis pursuant to the testing method set forth in ASTM-D6862.
HOSOKAWA [0038] discloses hot pressing an acrylic resin at high temperature. The instant specification [0073] states the adhesive binder being a polymer.
EUREKA discloses that Acrylic resins have a higher surface energy (about 35–40 mJ/m²) compared to polyolefins (about 28–30 mJ/m²).
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have experimented with different binders as exemplified by EUREKA to achieve a “peel force” in the claimed range.
Regarding claims 2 and 15. Modified HOSOKAWA discloses an electrode assembly of claims 1 and 14, wherein the first lateral end of the at least one of the plurality of electrodes is offset by the first distance in the orthogonal dimension with respect to the first lateral end of one of the two adjacent electrodes in the stack, the first distance being no more than 10% of the lateral width of the select one of the electrodes.
Annotated figure 3 above shows 0% offset in at least one electrode.
Regarding claims 3 and 16. Modified HOSOKAWA discloses an electrode assembly of claims 1 and 14, wherein the first lateral end of the at least one of the plurality of electrodes is offset by the first distance in the orthogonal dimension with respect to the first lateral end of the first electrode in the stack, the first distance being no more than 10% of the lateral width of the select one of the electrodes.
Annotated figure 3 above meets this limitation by showing a 0% offset in at least one electrode.
Regarding claims 6 and 20. Annotated figure 3 above shows the electrode assembly of claims 1 and 14, wherein the plurality of electrodes in the stack comprise positive electrodes and negative electrodes alternately disposed with respect to one another along the stacking axis, and wherein the lateral width of the positive electrodes is the same as the lateral width of the negative electrodes.
Regarding claims 8 and 21. Annotated figure 3 shows the electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein the plurality of electrodes in the stack comprise positive electrodes and negative electrodes alternately disposed with respect to one another along the stacking axis, and wherein the negative electrode is thermally bonded to the separator [0038], and wherein the separator is thermally bonded to the positive electrode [0038].
Regarding claim 9. Annotated figure 3 shows the electrode assembly of claim 1, wherein the stack further includes an outer separator encircling a perimeter of the stack.
Regarding claim 10. Annotated figure 3 shows the electrode assembly of claim 9, wherein the outer separator is an integral portion of the elongated separator sheet.
Regarding claim 11. The second annotated figure 3 below shows the electrode assembly of claim 9, wherein an inner side of the outer separator is thermally bonded to at least one of a folded portion of the elongated separator or the first or second lateral ends of at least one if the electrodes in the stack.
PNG
media_image2.png
654
1204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13. The fourth annotated figure 3 below shows an electrode assembly comprising:
a plurality of electrodes arranged in a stack along a stacking axis, wherein each of the electrodes in the stack is separated along the stacking axis from a successive one of the electrodes in the stack by a respective planar portion of an elongated separator sheet, the elongated separator sheet being folded proximate successive alternating ends of the plurality of electrodes on opposing sides of the stack in an orthogonal dimension orthogonal to the stacking axis, such that the elongated separator sheet follows a serpentine path traversing back and forth along an orthogonal dimension and to each planar portion extends between each of successive one of the electrodes in the stack,
wherein the stacking axis connects a centroid of each of multiple ones of the electrodes in the stack, and wherein a centroid of at least one of the plurality of electrodes is offset by a first distance in the orthogonal dimension with respect to the stacking axis, the first distance being from 1% to 10% of a lateral width of any select one of the electrodes, the lateral width being defined between first and second lateral ends of the respective electrode on opposite sides of the select electrode in the orthogonal dimension (the lack thereof or zero percent offset reads on this limitation).
PNG
media_image3.png
654
1199
media_image3.png
Greyscale
A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
[0120] of the instant application discloses “the protruding length of the mth stacked electrode may be 0.1 mm to 10 mm.”
It is the office’s position that the lower end of this range is merely noise within an acceptable tolerance. Likewise, the upper end of the instantly claimed range is an obvious alteration that lacking any unexpected results would be within the purview of one with ordinary skill in the art to have made before the effective filing date with minimum experimentation and have virtually all the same properties as disclosed by HOSOKAWA.
HOSOKAWA does not disclose the air permeability of the elongated separator sheet is in a range of 70 sec/100 ml to 95 sec/100 ml per square inch under a pressure of 0.05 MPa at room temperature when measured according to the JIS Gurley measurement method of the Japanese industrial standard using a Gurley type Densometer.
L'ABEE [title] discloses A High Temperature Melt Integrity Separator
L'ABEE [0023] discloses separator films.
L'ABEE [0335] discloses that these separator films have “Gurley numbers ranging from 12 to 544 seconds” which overlaps the instantly claimed range.
L'ABEE [0335] further discloses “High Gurley values indicate a low air transport through the membrane, which typically translate into a low ionic conductivity.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used a permeable separator disclosed by L'ABEE in the battery disclosed by HOSOKAWA in order to achieve a better ionic conductivity.
Claims 5, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230036396 A1, HOSOKAWA et al. in view of US 20140030608 A1, L'ABEE et al. with EUREKA (https://eureka.patsnap.com/report-acrylic-resin-vs-polyolefin-blends-surface-adhesion-analysis) as a supporting reference. and in further view of US 20230006262 A1, MARUHASHI et al.
Regarding claims 5, 7, 18 and 19. Modified HOSOKAWA discloses the electrode assembly of claim 1.
Modified HOSOKAWA does not disclose the plurality of electrodes in the stack comprise positive electrodes and negative electrodes alternately disposed with respect to one another along the stacking axis, and wherein the lateral width of the positive electrodes is greater (or same as in claim 19) than the lateral width of the negative electrodes.
MARUHASHI [0045-0047] discloses the plurality of electrodes in the stack comprise positive electrodes and negative electrodes alternately disposed with respect to one another along the stacking axis (direction), and wherein the lateral width of the positive electrodes is smaller than the lateral width of the negative electrodes. It is noted that the concept of which electrode is positive and which is negative is completely arbitrary as polarity will switch when charging. This reads on the limitation of instant claims 7, 18 and 19 as well.
MARUHASHI further teaches [0047] “It should be noted, however, that the laminate in the presently disclosed secondary battery is not limited to the examples illustrated in FIGS. 1A and 1B and FIG. 3. For example, the first separator 10 and the second separator 30 may have a larger size in plan view than the negative electrode 20 in the laminate. By using a laminate in which the first separator 10 and the second separator 30 are larger than the negative electrode 20, safety of the secondary battery can be further increased.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used alternating larger and smaller sizes for the electrodes taught by MARUHASHI in the electrode assembly disclosed by modified HOSOKAWA in order have the separators better cover the electrodes therefore increasing the safety of the battery.
PNG
media_image4.png
674
939
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached on (571) 272-1330. 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.
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727 /Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights