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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 01/27/2026:
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are pending in the current application. Claim 2 has been amended.
The previous prior art-based rejection have been overcome due to the amendment to the claim, however, as seen below, previously cited prior art Lee can still meet the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot due to the amendment to the claims.
However, in regards to Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 6-7, filed 01/27/2026, Applicant states Lee does not meet the newly amended claim limitations of “wherein the bond is spaced from an edge of the one surface of the electrode assembly, and the edge of the one surface of the electrode assembly is free of a bond”. Applicant provides Fig. 5a of Lee on Page 6 and states “as can be seen in FIGS. 5 and 5b of Lee, the deformation prevention strap 700 contacts, and is not spaced from, the edge of the top surface 200c”.
While the amendment overcomes the previous rejection of record, the Office disagrees that Lee itself does not meet the newly amended claim limitations of “wherein the bond is spaced from an edge of the one surface of the electrode assembly, and the edge of the one surface of the electrode assembly is free of a bond” because the claim notes that only “an edge” of the one surface of the electrode assembly is free of a bond and not “all edges” of the one surface of the electrode assembly are free of a bond. As seen in Fig. 5a, the surface at which deformation prevent strap 700 sits can be interpreted to have four edges: two curved edges and two straight edges (see the annotated Fig. below; the edges are also attached to Applicant’s claim 4’s “curved” portions and “flat” portions). As seen from the annotated Fig. below, the deformation prevention strap is spaced from both curved edges of the one surface of the electrode assembly, and the curved edges are free of a bond (in Applicant’s claim 5, which Lee meets, the bond is spaced from the “curved” portions, therefore, would be spaced from the “curved edges” in Lee).
Annotated Lee Fig. 5a
PNG
media_image1.png
618
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, a rejection in view of Lee has been updated to meet the newly added claim limitations and to clarify points previously set forth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-7, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 20060093902 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly wound about a longitudinal direction and comprising (electrode assembly 200 in Figs. 5a-5b; see entire disclosure and especially P54):
a negative electrode plate and a positive electrode plate (first electrode plate 210 and second electrode plate 220 in Fig. 5a; see entire disclosure and especially P38, 54);
a separator interposed between the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate (separator 230 in Fig. 5a; see entire disclosure and especially P38, 54);
a bond on one surface of the electrode assembly perpendicular to the longitudinal direction to fix the separator (deformation prevention strap 700 in Fig, 5a-5b which comprises an adhesive tape and is on the surface where winding can be seen; see entire disclosure and especially P39, 54-55; the separator is fixed given the deformation prevention strap prevents the electrode assembly from being unwound);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (case 110 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P37);
a negative electrode lead drawn out from the negative electrode plate and a positive electrode lead drawn out from the positive electrode plate (first and second electrode tabs 215 and 225 in Fig. 5a; which each would inherently be attached to and extend out of the case from (and therefore ‘drawn out’) from their respective plates; see entire disclosure and especially P38),
wherein the bond is spaced from an edge of the electrode assembly, and the edge of the electrode assembly is free of a bond (“an edge…” can be drawn to one of the curved edges of the one surface of the electrode assembly; as seen in the annotated Fig. 5a below, the deformation prevention strap 700 is spaced from both curved edges of the “one surface”, and the curved edges have no bond).
PNG
media_image2.png
618
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee Fig. 5a
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses wherein the electrode assembly is wound in an elongated circle shape to have a flat portion defined by two opposite flat outer surfaces (see Fig. 5a), and curved portions connecting the two opposite flat outer surfaces to each other from one side and an opposite side, respectively, and wherein the bond is located on the flat portion (see Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses wherein the bond is spaced from the curved portions (deformation prevention strap 700 is located in the middle sections away from curved portions and edges, see Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses wherein the bond is located on an outer portion of the electrode assembly (deformation prevention strap 700 is located on outer surfaces, see Fig. 5a).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses wherein the bond is applied along a winding direction (see the annotated Fig. 5a below).
PNG
media_image3.png
698
615
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Lee Fig. 5a
Regarding claim 13, Lee discloses wherein the bond is applied across a winding direction (deformation prevention strap 300 is applied perpendicularly to the winding direction, see annotated Fig. 5a above).
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses wherein the bond is linearly applied (the bond is applied in a straight line across the surface where the winding can be seen in Fig. 5a; therefore, the bond on that surface can be considered linearly applied).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses wherein the bond covers an area of the one surface as a whole (see top surface of electrode assembly (surface where winding can be seen) wherein the deformation prevention strap 700 covers an area of the middle of the surface as a single non-broken up piece).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Lee et al (US 20060093902 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Park et al (US 20140363725 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee does not disclose wherein the separator comprises a plurality of separators, wherein the electrode assembly is stacked in an order of the negative electrode plate, one separator from among the plurality of separators, the positive electrode plate, and another separator from among the plurality of separators, and wherein the bond covers at least two adjacent separators from among the plurality of separators.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park teaches an electrode assembly (radical unit) formed by stacking a first electrode (111 in Fig. 3, such as an anode, see entire disclosure and especially P38), a first separator (112 in Fig. 3), a second electrode (113 in Fig. 3, such as a cathode, see entire disclosure and especially P38), and a second separator (114 in Fig. 3) in sequence (P39). Park teaches the pieces of the assembly can be attached to each other through laminators (L1 and L2) that apply pressure to the materials to attach the materials to each other (see entire disclosure and especially P47). Park teaches the alignment of the electrode assembly may be accurate and easily accomplished because of the attachment (see entire disclosure and especially P9, 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Park and substituted contents of the electrode assembly of Lee with the electrode assembly of Park to provide wherein the electrode assembly is stacked in an order of the negative electrode plate, one separator from among the plurality of separators, the positive electrode plate, and another separator from among the plurality of separators, given Park teaches forming this electrode assembly through laminators that allow for accurate and easy alignment and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Given the bond extends across the winding surface of the electrode assembly, modified Lee meets the limitation wherein the bond covers at least two adjacent separators from among the plurality of separators.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20060093902 A1) in view of Park et al (US 20140363725 A1) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Yageta et al (US 20120177975 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee does not meet the limitation wherein the at least two adjacent separators have ends that are gathered together, and the bond is applied on edges of the ends.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yageta teaches an electrode assembly (battery elements 3 in Fig. 1A-C) include positive electrodes and negative electrodes (10 and 20 in Figs. 1A-C) laminated via separators (30 in Figs. 1A-C, see entire disclosure and especially P41) Yageta teaches the separators include bumping sections (33a-d, 37a-d in Fig. 1C) made up of creases (31a-d, 35a-d in Fig. 1C) that limit the movement of the electrodes towards their pulled-out terminals (see entire disclosure and especially P44).
Yageta teaches the movements limited by the bumping sections literally means that even if a tabular electrode is about to move in a direction toward a bumping section, there is a portion that limits the movement as an end surface of the tubular electrode hits the portion, meaning that two separators, which are disposed on both sides of the tabular electrode, are joined together outside an electrode region thereof to form a crease, or that the two separators are joined together by heat-sealing or chemicals, or subjected to join, sewing, holding and other processes with the use of an adhesive tape, adhesive agent, thread, rivet, clip or the like, so strongly that the movement of the tabular electrode is limited (see entire disclosure and especially P46). Yageta teaches this further improves the accuracy of determining the relative positions of the positive and negative electrodes of all the layers (see entire disclosure and especially P54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Yageta and chosen to extend the separators of modified Lee such that their ends are gathered together and bonded at the edges of the ends, given Yageta teaches this can limit the movement of the electrodes towards their pulled-out terminals and improve the accuracy of determining the relative positions of the positive and negative electrodes of all the layers.
Given Yageta teaches the separators can be joined with adhesive tape (P46), and the deformation prevent strap of Lee can be an adhesive tape (P39), the deformation prevention strap 700 of Lee can be the means of joining/bonding at the edges of the ends of the separators.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20060093902 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kawabe et al (US 20180316045 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the bond comprises an adhesive tape (P39). Lee does not disclose wherein the bond is applied in a form of dots.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kawabe teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive tape (200 in Fig. 2, P21). Kawabe teaches the tape includes a pressure sensitive adhesive laminate with pressure-sensitive adhesive layers formed on both sides 21 and 21’, P21; the examiner notes the adhesive appears to be applied in a dot formation in Fig. 2). Kawabe teaches the tape can be used for bonding two adherends to another (P22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Kawabe and substitute or select the adhesive tape of Lee to be the pressure sensitive adhesive tape of Kawabe, given Kawabe teaches their tape can be used for bonding two things together, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.), and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Lee discloses wherein the electrode assembly is placed into a battery case (P36). Therefore, the pressure sensitive adhesive layers on both sides would attach the bond (deformation prevention strap) to the electrode assembly and to the battery case, thereby attaching the electrode assembly itself to the battery case.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20060093902 A1) as applied to claim 1 and 8 respectively, further in view of Li et al (US 20230017239 A1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Lee discloses wherein the electrode assembly is placed into a battery case (P36). Lee does not disclose wherein the bond is divided into a plurality of sections or wherein the bond is located in a plurality of rows.
In a similar field of endeavor, Li teaches a wound battery cell (100 in Figs. 1-2) including a first adhesive layer (30 in Figs. 1-2), a second adhesive layer (40 in Figs. 1-2), and a third adhesive layer (50 in Fig. 1; P42). Li teaches the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are adhered to the surface of an electrode assembly of the wound battery cell, each having one end extending to the bottom of the electrode assembly and bonded to another surface of the electrode assembly (P42).
Li teaches one side of the third adhesive layer is adhered to a packaging bag, and two ends of the other side of the third adhesive layer are respectively adhered to the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer, such that the third adhesive layer can bond the packaging bag and the electrode assembly together (P42).
Li teaches this structure allows a shear force caused by the packaging bag on the electrode assembly during falling to be transferred to the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer, and the packaging bag (P16). Li teaches this helps address the problem that the electrode assembly separates from the packaging bag during falling of the battery cell, and further resolves the resulting safety failures such as top seal being pushed open and short circuits (P16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Li and substituted the bond of Lee (deformation preventing strap 700) with the bond of Li (a first adhesive layer, a second adhesive layer, and a third adhesive layer wherein the first adhesive layer and second adhesive layer contact the third adhesive layer on two ends and the third adhesive layer contacts the battery case/housing), given Li teaches this can allow a shear force caused by the packaging bag on the electrode assembly during falling to be transferred to the first adhesive layer, the second adhesive layer, and the case thereby addressing the problem that the electrode assembly separates from the packaging bag during falling of the battery cell, and further resolves the resulting safety failures such as top seal being pushed open and short circuits. Further, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Through the modification of Lee by Li, modified Lee meets the limitations wherein the bond is divided into a plurality of sections (the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer of Li both extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, therefore, the bond is divided into a plurality of sections) and wherein the bond is located in a plurality of rows (the examiner notes that the number of ‘bonds’/structures making up the bond in each row is not specified, therefore any number of ‘bonds’/structures making up the bond is allowed in each row; the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer of Li both extend perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, therefore, one row of the bond has one adhesive layer and another row of the bond has another adhesive layer such that the bond is located in two rows).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20060093902 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Dymax (Ultra-Red Fluorescing Adhesive Technology).
Regarding claim 12, Lee does not disclose wherein the bond comprises a fluorescent material.
Analogous art is a term used to connect multiple prior arts that are in the same field of endeavor. Lee and Dymax are analogous art due to their disclosed contents being directed to adhesive bonding.
Dymax teaches Dymax light-curable adhesives and coatings remain clear until exposed to UV light (see entire disclosure and especially Page 1). Dymax discloses when materials with Ultra-Red fluorescing technology are exposed to UV light, they fluoresce bright red; the bright red fluorescence contrasts extremely well on solder masks, components, and plastics that naturally fluoresce blue in color (like PVC), greatly assisting with visual inspection of the bond-line or coated area (see entire disclosure and especially Page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Dymax and provided wherein the bond comprises a fluorescent materials, such as modifying the deformation prevention strap to include a Dymax light-curable adhesive, given Dymax teaches their adhesive can assist with visual inspection of a bond line or coated area.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jung et al (US 20150072241 A1)
Jung teaches fixing parts (204 in Fig. 27, 207 in Fig. 30) that prevent generation of gaps at the outer portion of a cell stack (P91, 93, 95).
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 Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729