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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/29/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1-13, 16, and 18-19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chi (US 20170279091 A1) and in view of Li (US 20170331090 A1) and Tsuruta (US 20130209859 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chi discloses a battery comprising: a housing having an accommodating cavity having an opening [0058, Chi]; a core assembly provided in the accommodating cavity and an insulating film (10, 100, 101; “insulating sheet”) covering the battery core [0059-0061, Chi], wherein the battery core [fig. 1, Chi], and the body portion has a top end surface and a bottom end surface located at both ends of the body portion [0059-0061, Chi], and a main side surface (“peripheral surface”) connected to the top end surface and the bottom end surface [0060, Chi], and the insulating sheet covers the peripheral surface and/or the bottom end surface [0060-0061, Chi], and comprising a circumferentially covering area which covers the peripheral surface of the body portion [0065-0067, Chi], and a bottom covering area which covers the bottom end surface of the body portion [0067-0069, Chi]; a chassis plate (“separator”) (102) provided in the housing and configured to separate the bottom end surface of the jelly-roll from a bottom surface of the housing [0068-0069, Chi]; and a top cover assembly (20) connected to the housing in a sealed manner and configured to close the opening of the housing [0058-0059, 0063-0064, Chi], wherein the top cover assembly is provided to be spaced apart from the insulating film [0058-0059, 0063-0064, fig 5, Chi].
PNG
media_image1.png
420
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5, Chi showing a gap between the top cover (20) and the insulating sheet (10 i.e. 100)
Chi is silent to 1) the type of battery core and therefore specifically the use of a jelly-roll electrode body. 2) a glue tape provided on the circumferentially covering area. 3) liquid-guide flow channels to guide the electrolyte to flow between the insulating sheet. 4) a splicing gap where a junction of the circumferentially covering area and the bottom covering area is formed and at least a portion of the splicing gap is not covered by the glue tape.
In regards to 1), Li discloses a cell (30) with a winding structure [0041, Li discloses of a winding structure reads on a jelly-roll], which is surrounded by an insulating material (40) [0039, 0042, Li].
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify the battery core of Chi to be a winding structure (equivalent to jelly-roll) as a winding structure is an art recognized battery core structure with art recognized suitability for the intended purpose (structure capable of performing battery function) (MPEP 2144.07).
In regards to 2) Tsuruta discloses an electrode body (120) wrapped in an insulating member (183) and fixed with an adhesive (“glue”) tape (184) [0134, Tsuruta]. Wherein the tape is configured to be provided on the circumferentially covering area [fig. 11, Tsuruta], so that a cavity for covering the jelly-roll is formed and enclosed by the circumferentially covering area and the bottom covering area [0135, Tsuruta], and the glue tape is located outside the cavity [fig. 11, Tsuruta depicts the adhesive tape (“glue layer”) is not between the electrode body and surface of the circumferentially covering area].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Chi such that the insulating sheet was fixed with adhesive tape on the circumferentially covering area to form a cavity. Doing so would provide one the opportunity to adjust the size of the insulating member as it is wrapped around the electrode body [0136, Tsuruta]. At which point the tape may fix the insulating material in place and secure it around the electrode body [0135, fig. 11 Tsuruta].
In regards to 3) and 4) Chi as presently modified discloses that after wrapping the insulation sheet around the battery core the side insulating regions (101b) are connected to each other and the two bottom insulation regions (101c) are connected together [0065-0066, Chi]. Where glue tape used to fix the circumferential covering area to form a cavity [0134, fig. 11, Tsuruta]. The examiner notes that the circumferentially covering area and the bottom covering area are not taught to be connected to one another.
As such, the “junction” at the circumferential covering area and the bottom covering area form a “splicing gap” where at least a portion of the splicing gap is not covered by the glue tape.
The examiner notes that because Chi as presently modified has the structured “splicing gap” then it is capable of performing the function of a liquid-guiding flow channel which partially guides electrolyte between the jelly-roll and the insulating sheet to between the insulating sheet and the housing.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Chi as modified above is silent to an air flow channel between the insulating sheet and the top covering assembly.
However, Li depicts a space between the top surface of the electrode body (30) and the bottom surface of top cover (20) that may be filled with electrolyte and/or gas [fig. 4, Li]. This space reads on an “air flow channel” as any gas that may be produced as result of use of the battery may flow up to this space.
One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that an explosion-proof valve air hole (100c) is located on the top covering assembly [fig. 3, 0059, Chi]. An “air flow channel” located between the insulating sheet and the top cover would allow for gas generated by the cell to accumulate near the top of the cell where the explosion-proof valve of Chi is located.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Chi such that an air flow channel existed between the insulating sheet and top covering assembly. Doing so allows for any gas generated by the cell to accumulate near the explosion-proof valve and be exhausted if the pressure builds too high.
In regards to claim 3, Chi as modified above discloses the insulating sheet covers the side main surface (“peripheral surface”) of the body portion [0018, Chi], and the separator is integrally formed with the insulating sheet and covers the bottom end surface of the body portion [0068-0069, fig. 2, Chi].
Regarding claim 4, Chi as modified above discloses the separator (102) is a sheet made of insulating material parallel to the bottom end surface [0068-0069, fig. 2, Chi].
Chi is silent to the thickness of the separator being between 0.1-2 mm.
However, Li discloses a separator (50) that is a sheet made of insulating material and has a thickness of 0.3mm-5mm [0043, Li discloses a thickness range of the separator (50) that overlaps with the applicant’s range of 0.1-2mm].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Chi such that the thickness of the separator was 0.3-5 mm as this is a known thickness range that can support the cell [0043, Li].
Regarding claim 5, Chi as modified above is silent to the separator is provided with a protruding structure.
However, Li depicts at least one surface of the separator is provided with a protruding structure [figs. 6-10, Li depicts various embodiments of the separator (50) with protruding structures].
PNG
media_image2.png
324
1204
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 6 and 10, Li
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious for the separator of Chi to have a protruding structure as this can allow for improved flow of electrolyte and gas generated by the cell may pass through the separator [0044-0047, Li].
Regarding claim 6, Chi as modified above discloses the separator is provided on a side surface of the bottom covering area away from the body portion [0069, Chi].
Regarding claim 7, Chi as modified above discloses the separator (102) is provided parallel to the side surface of the bottom covering area away from the body portion [0068-0069, fig. 2, Chi depicts the (102) as parallel to the bottom portion of the insulating sheet].
Regarding claim 9, Chi as modified above discloses that the structure of the chassis plate (102, “separator”) and the attaching position should be designed carefully, so as not to shield the electrolyte permeation hole (101d) [0068, fig. 2-3, Chi].
Chi description of the chassis plate (102, “separator”) being positioned such that it doesn’t block the flow of electrolyte through holes 101d reads on the claim language of “positioning holes for positioning”.
Regarding claim 10, Chi as modified above discloses that the chassis plate (102, “separator”) should be positioned carefully such that it does not shield the electrolyte permeation hole (101 d) [0068, Chi].
Chi as modified above is explicitly silent to “positioning holes” on the separator and bottom covering area.
However, Li as modified above discloses holes on the bottom of the insulating film (42) and holes on the separator (54) for the purpose of allowing gas and electrolyte to flow through [0042, 044, Li].
Li’s description of the purpose of holes 42 and 54 read on the claim language of a “positioning hole” as the two sets of holes may be used for positioning such that they allow for gas and electrolyte to flow through.
Li depicts two sets of “positioning holes” on both ends of the separator and bottom covering area located along the same center line [fig. 2 and 5, Li] (instant claim 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
429
961
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figures 2 and 5, Li
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Chi such that both the separator and the bottom covering area contained “positioning holes”. Doing so would allow for gas and electrolyte to flow through the two materials [0042, 044, Li]. The examiner also notes that this would one to attach the two materials such that it does not shield the electrolyte permeation holes of Chi.
Regarding claim 11, Chi as modified above is explicitly silent to a “foolproof hole”.
However, Li discloses a separator is further provided thereon with a notch (58, “foolproof hole”) which deviates from the center line of the separator.
The notch (58) described by Li is used for communicating the space above and below the cell pallet (“separator”). Designed to allow for further flow of the electrolyte deposited at the bottom of the housing (10) to infiltrate the anode and cathode plates [0044, Li].
The examiner is interpreting this to read on a “foolproof hole” because it still allows for the flow of electrolyte even if the holes of the cell pallet (50, “separator”) and insulating film (42) do not overlap.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Chi such that there was a “foolproof hole” on the separator as this can still allow for the flow of electrolyte throughout the cell [0044, Li].
Regarding claim 12, Chi as modified above discloses the separator is connected with the bottom covering area by means of hot melting [0068, Chi].
Regarding claim 16, Chi as modified above discloses the battery wherein the glue tape is located outside the cavity [fig. 11, Tsuruta depicts the adhesive tape (“glue layer”) is not between the electrode body and surface of the circumferentially covering area] (instant claim 10).
Regarding claim 18, Chi as modified above discloses the top cover assembly comprises a top cover plate (20) configured to close the opening of the housing [0058, Chi], and a lower plastic member connected to a lower surface of the top cover plate facing towards the jelly-roll [0063, Chi discloses that there is lower plastic on the head cover that may be fixed to the insulating sheet]; the insulating sheet comprises a circumferentially covering area (101) which covers the peripheral surface of the body portion [0059-0069, Chi]; and a plurality of connection bosses (200) extending towards the electrode battery are provided at a peripheral edge of the lower plastic member [0009-0011, 0063, fig. 5, Chi discloses that there should be at least one connecting hole and at least one connecting piece for connecting the two members together. Figure 4 depicts four connecting holes. Therefore, the examiner is interpreting this to read on the claim language of a “plurality of connection bosses”.], the circumferentially covering area is connected to the outer peripheral surfaces of the plurality of connection bosses [0063, Chi discloses the top connecting sheet (100) and the lower plastic on the head cover are fixed together via hot melting or welding. This reads on the claim language in which the circumferentially covering area is connected to the outer peripheral surfaces of the connection bosses].
Regarding claim 19, Chi as modified above discloses a top surface of the insulating sheet facing toward the top cover plate is spaced apart from the lower surface of the top cover plate facing towards the jelly-roll [fig. 5, Chi].
Claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Chi as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US2011086265A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Chi is silent to the separator and the bottom covering area having a total thickness of 0.1-2mm.
However, as noted in the rejection of claim 4, Li teaches a separator (50) that is a sheet made of insulating material and has a thickness of 0.3mm-5mm [0043, Li discloses a thickness range of the separator (50) that overlaps with the applicant’s range of 0.1-2mm].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Chi such that the thickness of the separator was 0.3-5 mm as this is a known thickness range that can support the cell [0043, Li].
Suzuki discloses an electrode body (80) that is a flat wound electrode body surrounded by an insulating member (20, “insulating film”) which isolates the electrode body from the battery case (50) [0033, 0036, Suzuki]. The insulating member (20) has no particular limitation on the thickness of the insulating member provided it allows the obtaining of required strength, for example 0.1 mm [0036, Suzuki].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to have the thickness of the cell plate (“separator”) be between 0.3-5 mm and the thickness of the insulating member be 0.1 mm, providing a combined thickness of 0.4-5.1 mm. If the combined thickness is too low, the flow of liquid and gas through the separator and insulating film would be inhibited and a risk of pressure build up will increase or alternatively the insulating member may rip. If the combined thickness is too large then the overall size of the battery will increase along with the cost of the materials.
This range overlaps with the applicant’s claimed range of 0.1-2 mm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, modified Chi discloses that the cell pallet (50, “separator”) may comprise insulating materials (such as PP, PE, PET, PPS) that are fire proof and resistant to electrolyte [0044, Li].
Chi is silent to 1) the material used in the insulating film and 2) the process in which the materials are formed.
In regards to 1), Suzuki discloses an insulating member (20) comprised of an insulating material with electrolyte resistant properties such as, PP, PE, PTFE, and PPS [0037, Suzuki].
Prior to the effective filing date one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to make the insulating film (40) of Li be made of the same material as the cell pallet, such as PP, PE, or PPS. Doing so would provide both the insulating fill and cell pallet with electrolyte and fire resistant properties.
In regards to 2) the claim limitation of requiring the separator and bottom covering area to be made via “a thermoplastic process” is a product by process claim limitation, see MPEP 2113.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
The use of a thermoplastic process to make the insulating sheet and separator imparts the shape and structure of the final thermoplastic materials.
While Li as currently modified is silent to the method in which the thermoplastic separator and insulating sheet are made the final product is still the same insulating sheet and separator, as discussed throughout the rejections of this office action.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Chi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuruta (US 20130209859 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Chi discloses that the chassis plate (102, “separator”) is placed in the bottom of the housing to support the cell and insulating film by seating them on the cell pallet [0068-0069, Chi].
Chi is silent to the length and width of the cell pallet (“separator”) and jelly-roll.
However, Tsuruta depicts a wound electrode body comprising a non-coated region (A1) and a coated region (A2) [0065-0066, 0084, fig. 4, Tsuruta]. Tsuruta depicts the length of the separator 170 being longer than that of the electrode body i.e. L2>L1 and W2>W1. Tsuruta is silent to the exact length and width of the separator (L2, W2) in relation to the jelly roll (L1, W1). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that a separator larger than the electrode body as taught by Tsuruta provides support for the electrode body but that making the separator too much longer and wider than the electrode body would unnecessarily increase the overall size of the battery with not additional benefit. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would appreciate that L2 and W2 are art recognized result effective variables.
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts prior to the effective filing date to have the length and width of the separator be within the claimed range in order to balance support of the electrode body without increasing the overall size of the battery to an unreasonable degree.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Suzuki in claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Suzuki applied to claim 1 in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to intended use of the alleged naturally forming splicing gap produced during assembly serving an intended use of a liquid guide flowing channel are not persuasive.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
After additional search and consideration the examiner has determined that Modified Chi (as outlined in claim 1 above) does posses the structural features of claim 1 and does not required modification to the creases lines.
The examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights