9DETAILED 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
1. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 02/11/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, and 16-18 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 3, 6, 8, and 11-15 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, and 16-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end at the first straight section” in claim 1, lines 8-9 is indefinite because it is unclear if the terminating end of the recitation is referring to the terminating end of the separator, the terminating end of the current collector or a different terminating end. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end of the separator at the first straight section”.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end at the first straight section” in claim 18, lines 9-10 is indefinite because it is unclear if the terminating end of the recitation is referring to the terminating end of the separator, the terminating end of the current collector or a different terminating end. For examination purposes the aforementioned recitation will be interpreted as “disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end of the separator at the first straight section”.
Regarding claim(s) 2, 4-5, 7, 9-10, and 16-17, the claim(s) is/are rejected as they depend from, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (Pub. No. US 20220367919 A1) in view of Ma et al. (Pub. No. CN 102222802 A).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng teaches an electrochemical apparatus (electrochemical device, see [0040]), comprising an electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]), a second adhesive member (606 on 609, Fig. 6, see [0065] where the insulating layer is made of boehmite and PVDF which is an adhesive); wherein the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]) comprises electrode plates (601/602 and 603/604, Fig. 6, see [0065]) and a separator (separator, see Fig. 6 below, see [0040] where there is a separator disposed between the first and second electrode), the electrode plates (601/602 and 603/604, Fig. 6, see [0065]) and the separator (separator, see Fig. 6 below, see [0040] where there is a separator disposed between the first and second electrode) are stacked sequentially and wound (see Fig. 6 below where the separator is between 601/602 and 603/604 and wound) to form the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]), each electrode plate (601/602 and 603/604, Fig. 6, see [0065]) comprises a current collector (601/603, Fig. 6, see [0065]), and the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]) comprises a first straight section (608, Fig. 6, see [0065]) and a first bending section (609, Fig. 6, see [0065]) connected to each other (see 608 connected to 609, Fig. 6); and the second adhesive member (606 on 609, Fig. 6, see [0065] where the insulating layer is made of boehmite and PVDF which is an adhesive) is disposed on an outer surface (outermost ring, see [0065], see Fig. 6 where 606 is on the outside of 609) of the first bending section (609, Fig. 6, see [0065], see 606 on 609) or an outer surface of the outermost current collector at the first bending section, but Zheng fails to teach a first adhesive member, and along a winding direction, a terminating end of the separator exceeds a terminating end of the current collector by 1 to 5 turns, and the first adhesive member is disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end at the first straight section. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ma teaches a first adhesive member (23, Fig. 2, see [0025]), and along a winding direction (see direction the battery is being wound, Fig. 2), a terminating end (C2, Fig. 2, see [0030]) of the separator (22, Fig. 2, see [0028]) exceeds a terminating end (A2/B2, Fig. 2, see [0028]) of the current collector (20/21, Fig. 2, see [0028]) by 1 to 5 turns (wrap around the winding core one or more times, see [0028], see Fig. 2 where the C2 of 22 exceeds A2 by 2 turns and exceeds B2 by 1 turn), and the first adhesive member (23, Fig. 2, see [0025]) is disposed on an outer surface (outer surface 23 is disposed on, see Fig. 2 where 23 is disposed on the outside surface) of the terminating end (C2, Fig. 2, see [0030]/22, Fig. 2, see [0028]) at the first straight section (first straight section, Fig. 2 below, see 23 is disposed on the outer surface of the first straight section at C2).
PNG
media_image2.png
604
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng such that the terminating end of the separator extends past the terminating end of 601 and 603 by 1 to 2 turns, and add a termination tape to the terminating end of the separator on section 608 as taught by Ma to ensure the separator completely wraps the core (see [0031] of Ma), complete the winding of the separator (see [0030] of Ma) and provide a protective layer to avoid hidden safety hazards (see [0016[ of Ma). Further, Zheng teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Zheng). (The examiner would like to note, Zheng does illustrate some structure at the end of the separators in Fig. 6 that appears to be similar to an adhesive tape or terminating tape, however this structure is not specifically mentioned or described, therefore it is not considered an already existing adhesive tape).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng in view of Ma teaches wherein the second adhesive member (606 on 609, Fig. 6, see [0065] where the insulating layer is made of boehmite and PVDF which is an adhesive) is disposed on the outer surface (outermost ring, see [0065], see Fig. 6 where 606 is on the outside of 609) of the first bending section (609, Fig. 6, see [0065], see 606 on 609) and comprises a first extension portion (first extension portion, Fig. 6 below), the first extension portion (first extension portion, Fig. 6 below) being disposed on the outer surface (outermost ring, see [0065]) of the first straight section (608, Fig. 6, see [0065], see Fig. 6 below showing the bounds of 609 and the first extension portion on the outside of 608).
PNG
media_image3.png
352
636
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Zheng in view of Ma fails to teach wherein along the winding direction, a width W.sub.1 of the first extension portion satisfies 0 mm<W.sub.1≤5 mm.
However, It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng in view of Ma such that the width of the first extension portion is within the claimed range because Zheng teaches the coating rate of the insulating layer on the straight portions is a result effective variable taught of thickness of the finished cell (see [0045] of Zheng). Further, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A). Further Zheng in view of Ma teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Zheng).
Regarding claim 5, Zheng in view of Ma teaches wherein the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]) further comprises a second straight section (607, Fig. 6, see [0065]), the second straight section (607, Fig. 6, see [0065]) being connected to the first bending section (609, Fig. 6, see [0065], see where 609 and 607 are connected); and the second adhesive member (606 on 609, Fig. 6, see [0065] where the insulating layer is made of boehmite and PVDF which is an adhesive) further comprises a second extension portion (second extension portion, see Fig. 6 above), the second extension portion (second extension portion, see Fig. 6 above) being disposed on an outer surface (outermost ring, see [0065]) of the second straight section (607, Fig. 6 above where the second extension is on an outer surface of 607, see [0065]).
Regarding claim 7, Zheng in view of Ma teaches wherein the electrochemical apparatus (electrochemical device, see [0040]) further comprises a third adhesive member (606 on 610, see Fig. 6, see [0065]); the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]) further comprises a second bending section (610, Fig. 6, see [0065]), wherein two ends (ends of 610 which are adjacent to 607 and 608, Fig. 6) of the second bending section (610, Fig. 6, see [0065]) are respectively connected to the first straight section (608, Fig. 6, see [0065]) and the second straight section (607, Fig. 6, see [0065], see ends of 610 connected to 607 and 608, Fig. 6); and the third adhesive member (606 on 610, see Fig. 6, see [0065]) is disposed on an outer surface (outermost ring taken up by 610, see [0065]) of the second bending section (610, Fig. 6, see [0065], see where 606 is on 610).
Regarding claim 18, Zheng teaches an electronic apparatus (electronic device, Claim 20), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (electrochemical device, Claim 20), the electrochemical apparatus (electrochemical device, Claim 20) comprising an electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]), a second adhesive member (606 on 609, Fig. 6, see [0065] where the insulating layer is made of boehmite and PVDF which is an adhesive); wherein the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]) comprises electrode plates (601/602 and 603/604, Fig. 6, see [0065]) and a separator (separator, see Fig. 6 below, see [0040] where there is a separator disposed between the first and second electrode), the electrode plates (601/602 and 603/604, Fig. 6, see [0065]) and the separator (separator, see Fig. 6 below, see [0040] where there is a separator disposed between the first and second electrode) are stacked sequentially and wound (see Fig. 6 below where the separator is between 601/602 and 603/604 and wound) to form the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]), each electrode plate (601/602 and 603/604, Fig. 6, see [0065]) comprises a current collector (601/603, Fig. 6, see [0065]), and the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]) comprises a first straight section (608, Fig. 6, see [0065]) and a first bending section (609, Fig. 6, see [0065]) connected to each other (see 608 connected to 609, Fig. 6); and the second adhesive member (606 on 609, Fig. 6, see [0065] where the insulating layer is made of boehmite and PVDF which is an adhesive) is disposed on an outer surface (outermost ring, see [0065], see Fig. 6 where 606 is on the outside of 609) of the first bending section (609, Fig. 6, see [0065], see 606 on 609) or an outer surface of the outermost current collector at the first bending section, but Zheng fails to teach a first adhesive member, and along a winding direction, a terminating end of the separator exceeds a terminating end of the current collector by 1 to 5 turns, and the first adhesive member is disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end at the first straight section. See 112 rejection above for interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Ma teaches a first adhesive member (23, Fig. 2, see [0025]), and along a winding direction (see direction the battery is being wound, Fig. 2), a terminating end (C2, Fig. 2, see [0030]) of the separator (22, Fig. 2, see [0028]) exceeds a terminating end (A2/B2, Fig. 2, see [0028]) of the current collector (20/21, Fig. 2, see [0028]) by 1 to 5 turns (wrap around the winding core one or more times, see [0028], see Fig. 2 where the C2 of 22 exceeds A2 by 2 turns and exceeds B2 by 1 turn), and the first adhesive member (23, Fig. 2, see [0025]) is disposed on an outer surface (outer surface 23 is disposed on, see Fig. 2 where 23 is disposed on the outside surface) of the terminating end (C2, Fig. 2, see [0030]/22, Fig. 2, see [0028]) at the first straight section (first straight section, Fig. 2 below, see 23 is disposed on the outer surface of the first straight section at C2).
PNG
media_image2.png
604
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng such that the terminating end of the separator extends past the terminating end of 601 and 603 by 1 to 2 turns, and add a termination tape to the terminating end of the separator on section 608 as taught by Ma to ensure the separator completely wraps the core (see [0031] of Ma), complete the winding of the separator (see [0030] of Ma) and provide a protective layer to avoid hidden safety hazards (see [0016[ of Ma). Further, Zheng teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Zheng). (The examiner would like to note, Zheng does illustrate some structure at the end of the separators in Fig. 6 that appears to be similar to an adhesive tape or terminating tape, however this structure is not specifically mentioned or described, therefore it is not considered an already existing adhesive tape).
5. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (Pub. No. US 20220367919 A1) in view of Ma et al. (Pub. No. CN 102222802 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Pub. No. KR 20160021514 A).
Regarding claim 9, Zheng in view of Ma fails to teach wherein along the winding direction, a width W.sub.2 of the first adhesive member satisfies 5 mm≤W.sub.2≤50 mm.
However, Kim teaches wherein along the winding direction (direction of w/directional of horizontal length, Fig. 1, see [0059]), a width W.sub.2 (horizontal length (w), Fig. 1, see [0059]) of the first adhesive member (130, Fig. 1, see [0058]) satisfies 5 mm≤W.sub.2≤50 mm (less than longitudinal length (h), see [0059] where the horizontal length (w) is less than the length (h) which is 30%-100% of longitudinal length (H)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng in view of Ma such that the length of the terminating tape is 30%-100% of the longitudinal length of the cell and the width of the terminating tape in the winding direction is less than 30%-100% of the longitudinal length of the cell as taught by Kim to prevent the roll from loosening (see [0059] of Kim), and maintain a rectangular planar shape (see [0059] of Kim), and it would have been obvious to modify the length and width of the terminating tape to be within the claimed range as Kim teaches it is a result effective variable of preventing loosening and preventing volume increase (see [0021] of Kim). Further, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A). Further Zheng in view of Ma teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Zheng).
Regarding claim 10, Zheng in view of Ma fails to teach wherein along a direction perpendicular to the winding direction, a width W.sub.3 of the separator and a length L.sub.2 of the first adhesive member satisfy 10 mm≤W.sub.3−L.sub.2≤30 mm.
However, Kim teaches wherein along a direction perpendicular (direction of H, Fig. 1, see [0059]) to the winding direction (direction of w/directional of horizontal length, Fig. 1, see [0059]), a width W.sub.3 (H, Fig. 1, see [0059] where H is the entire longitudinal length of the electrode assembly, see [0058] where a separator is part of the electrode assembly therefore H of the overall cell is the width of the separator) of the separator (separator, see [0058]) and a length L.sub.2 (h, Fig. 1, see [0059]) of the first adhesive member (130, Fig. 1, see [0058]) satisfy 10 mm≤W.sub.3−L.sub.2≤30 mm (30%-100% of H, see [0059]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng in view of Ma such that the length of the terminating tape is 30%-100% of the longitudinal length of the cell as taught by Kim to prevent the roll from loosening (see [0059] of Kim), and it would have been obvious to modify the length of the terminating tape to be within the claimed range as Kim teaches it is a result effective variable of preventing loosening and preventing volume increase (see [0021] of Kim). Further, it has been held where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04.IV.A). Further Zheng in view of Ma teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Zheng).
6. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (Pub. No. US 20220367919 A1) in view of Ma et al. (Pub. No. CN 102222802 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bao et al. (Pub. No. US 20170263983 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Zheng in view of Ma teaches wherein the electrochemical apparatus (electrochemical device, see [0040]) further comprises a shell (shell, see [0040]), the electrode assembly (cell, Fig. 6, see [0040]) is accommodated in the shell (shell, see [0040] where the shell encloses the cell), but fails to teach the first adhesive member is bonded to the shell.
However, Bao teaches the first adhesive member (3 at position 11, Fig. 1, see [0035]) is bonded to the shell (package 2, Fig. 1, see [0054] gives a specific example where the binder material was adhered with the inner surface of the package).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng in view of Ma such that the terminating tape is a double sided adhesive with a covering layer and inject an electrolyte to the electrochemical device to dissolve the covering layer so the double sided adhesive bonds with the inner surface of the shell as taught by Bao to solve problems during drop tests and resolve problem of difficulty putting cell in the package to ensure excellent cycle performance and excellent charge-discharge performance under high rate (see [0004] of Bao). Further Zheng in view of Ma teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Zheng).
7. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (Pub. No. US 20220367919 A1) in view of Ma et al. (Pub. No. CN 102222802 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsuji et al. (Pub. No. US 20190221824 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Zheng in view of Ma fails to teach wherein the separator is a polypropylene separator.
However, Tsuji teaches wherein the separator (13, Fig. 2, see [0026]) is a polypropylene separator (polypropylene, see [0026] where the separator is made of polypropylene).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zheng in view of Ma by forming the separator of polypropylene as taught by Tsuji to achieve a separator with ion permeability and insulating properties (see [0026]) to suppress the occurrence of buckling (see [0007]). Further, Zheng in view of Ma teaches that modifications can be made (see [0091] of Zheng).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach the feature of claim 1 as amended wherein the first adhesive member is disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end at the first straight section. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Ma does teach both wherein the separator exceeds the terminating end of the current collector by multiple turns and wherein the first adhesive member is disposed on an outer surface of the terminating end at the first straight section and would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ma with Zheng to ensure the separator completely wraps the core, complete the winding of the separator and provide a protective layer to avoid hidden safety hazards.
Regarding applicants’ argument that Lee does not provide and specific dimensions for the separator or adhesive member even arguendo the width were approximately half width as argued by the examiner with no dimensions specified it is impossible to surmise the length satisfies the required equation 10 mm </= W.sub.3-L.sub.2 </= 30 mm. This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination or interpretation of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
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 DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights