DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
3. Claims 1, 2, 15, 17 have been amended; support for claim 1 is found in paragraph [0086], support for claim 2 is found in paragraph [0128], and support for claim 15 is found in paragraph [0024] and figs. 7A-8 of the instant specification. Claim 17 has been amended to better clarify the invention.
4. Claims 6-13, 18, and 23-27 have been cancelled.
5. Claims 28-30 have been added; support for claim 28 is found in previous claim 1, support for claim 29 is found in paragraph [0019], support for claim 30 is found in paragraph [0086] of the instant specification.
6. Claims 1-5, 14-17, 19-22, and 28-30 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 14, 21-22, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2016-077042W), in view of Delnick et al. (US5865860A).
As to claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a method for fabricating a secondary battery [0048-49], comprising:
placing a first electrode (layer (2), [0172] fig.1) over a first exterior body (casing (7), [0178] fig.1);
placing a separator (separator (5), [0175]) over the first electrode (fig. 1);
placing a second electrode (layer (1), [0174]) over the separator (fig. 1);
dripping an electrolyte on at least one of the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode [0449-0458];
impregnating at least one of the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode with the electrolyte [0132-0137] and then placing a second exterior body over the first exterior body to cover the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode (Casing (6), [0178], fig.1); and
sealing the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode with the first exterior body and the second exterior body [0415-0418], wherein one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a positive electrode, wherein the other of the first electrode and the second electrode is a negative electrode [0186-0188], and wherein the electrolyte is dripped from a position whose shortest distance from a surface where the electrolyte is dripped is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm. (1mm, [0449-0454] which fails within the claimed range)
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the intervals between dripping positions of the electrolyte are greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 50 mm.
In the same field of endeavor Delnick discloses, “A process for manufacturing an electrochemical cell” [Abstract] and teaches, individual nozzles (306), having equally spaced dripping positions as soon in figure 6, apply droplets of electrolyte (215A) on separator layers and bilayers (204) [C7L1-12], where bilayer (204) may comprise electrode lay (206) and separator layer (208) or single layer (206) [C5L20-35], and the surface area of electrode (206) may be 1 cm2 to 15 cm2 [C5L40-41]. Where 32 nozzles of example 1, equally distributed as shown in fig. 6, across an area of 1 cm2 to 15 cm2 would provide an interval of 1/32 cm2 – 15/32 cm2 or 0.3 mm2 to 4.7 mm2 which overlaps the claimed range. Delnick further teaches, the volume and the distribution of each electrolyte droplet are accurately determined and controlled [C3L45-46]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Yamamoto with the electrolyte application as taught by Delnick to accurately distribute the electrolyte on the electrode and separator.
It should be noted 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Yamamoto discloses the electrolyte is dripped at a temperature higher than or equal to 200C and lower than or equal to 800 C. (250C [0441-0444], which fails within the claimed range.)
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Yamamoto discloses the electrolyte comprises fluorine (Fluoroethylene carbonate [0387] as exemplified by paragraph [0315] of the instant specification.
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Yamamoto discloses the electrolyte comprises an ionic liquid. (The electrolyte solution contains a lithium dissolved salt in a nonaqueous solvent [0377-0381] or the claimed ionic liquid).
As to claim 14, Yamamoto discloses the first exterior body comprises a concave portion (As illustrated in annotated fig. 2 outer case (upper portion of 230) [0189],
PNG
media_image1.png
677
1087
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Yamamoto, annotated fig. 2)
and wherein the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode are placed in the concave portion. [0186-0189]
As to claim 21, Yamamoto discloses the first electrode comprises a first active material layer on one or both surfaces of a first current collector. ([0169-0174] fig. 1)
As to claim 22, Yamamoto discloses the second electrode comprises a second active material layer on one or both surfaces of a second current collector.([0169-0174] fig. 1)
As to claim 30, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Yamamoto
does not explicitly disclose the intervals between dripping positions of the electrolyte are greater than or equal to 5 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm.
In the same field of endeavor Delnick discloses, “A process for manufacturing an electrochemical cell” [Abstract] and teaches, individual nozzles (306), having equally spaced dripping positions as soon in figure 6, apply droplets of electrolyte (215A) on separator layers and bilayers (204) [C7L1-12], where bilayer (204) may comprise electrode lay (206) and separator layer (208) or single layer (206) [C5L20-35], and the surface area of electrode (206) may be 1 cm2 to 15 cm2 [C5L40-41]. Where 32 nozzles of example 1, equally distributed as shown in fig. 6, across an area of 1 cm2 to 15 cm2 would provide an interval of 1/32 cm2 – 15/32 cm2 or 0.3 mm2 to 4.7 mm2 which is close to the claimed range, and it should be noted a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Delnick further teaches, the volume and the distribution of each electrolyte droplet are accurately determined and controlled [C3L45-46]
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Yamamoto with the electrolyte application as taught by Delnick to accurately distribute the electrolyte on the electrode and separator.
10. Claim(s) 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (JP2016-077042W)
As to claim 28, Yamamoto discloses a method for fabricating a secondary battery [0048-49], comprising:
placing a first electrode (layer (2), [0172] fig.1) over a first exterior body (casing (7), [0178] fig.1);
placing a separator (separator (5), [0175]) over the first electrode (fig. 1);
placing a second electrode (layer (1), [0174]) over the separator (fig. 1);
dripping an electrolyte on at least one of the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode [0449-0458];
impregnating at least one of the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode with the electrolyte [0132-0137] and then placing a second exterior body over the first exterior body to cover the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode (Casing (6), [0178], fig.1); and
sealing the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode with the first exterior body and the second exterior body [0415-0418], wherein one of the first electrode and the second electrode is a positive electrode, wherein the other of the first electrode and the second electrode is a negative electrode [0186-0188], and
Yamamoto discloses wherein the electrolyte is dripped from a position whose shortest distance from a surface where the electrolyte dripped 1 mm [0130]. It would be obvious for Yamamoto to adjust the drip height dependent on electrolyte used, and saturation desired for the application for a set of specific ranges [0122-0123] to the claimed dripped is greater than 0.1 mm and less than or equal to 0.5 mm.
It is noted “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
As to claim 29, the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated, modified Yamamoto discloses the electrolyte is dripped on the separator [Abstract], and wherein the shortest distance is a distance between a nozzle and a surface of the separator [0130-0131].
11. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (WO2017-047607A1), in view of Delnick et al. (US5865860A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuki et al. (US2014/0023934A1).
As to claim 2, Yamamoto discloses a electrolyte solution with an additive to suppress the increase in viscosity and resistance of the electrolyte solution [0384-0399] but does not explicitly disclose the viscosity between 0.3 mPa·s to 100 mPa·s.
In the same field of endeavor Otsuki discloses improved safety of a secondary battery [0001] and teaches the viscosity of a non-aqueous electrolyte at 250C may be 10 mPa·s or less providing low internal resistance and high conductivity. [0048] It is noted 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, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Yamamoto with the electrolyte as taught by Otsuki to achieve excellent battery characteristics.
12. Claim(s) 15-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (WO2017-047607A1), in view of Delnick et al. (US5865860A), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yageta et al. (US2006/0210872A1), in further view of Yoon et al. (KR20090110471A).
As to claim 15, Yamamoto discloses a resin layer [0412-0413] is placed over the first exterior body (Upper portion of 230 as shown in fig. 2 above), and in contact with the first exterior body (a resin layer is provided on the front and back surfaces of a metal layer serving as a base material [0412-413]), wherein after the second exterior body (Lower portion of 230 as shown in fig. 2 above) is placed, An exterior container is formed by making the heat-fusible resin layers of the flexible film face each other and heat-sealing the periphery of the portion that houses the electrode laminate [0417-0418]
Yamamoto does not explicitly teach, the resin layer is irradiated with light under reduced pressure to cure at least part of the resin layer, wherein the sealing is performed under atmospheric pressure, and wherein the resin layer is placed in a frame-like shape to surround the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode.
In the same field of endeavor Yageta discloses a method of manufacturing a film covered electric device [0017] and teaches one side of the peripheral sides are thermally sealed in a reduced pressure atmosphere, and returning the sealing of the other sides to atmospheric pressure [0017] to prevent micro-cracks [0019] and consequently prevent a degradation in the reliability of sealing [0041].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Yamamoto with the sealing as taught by Yageta to prevent micro-cracks and improve reliability.
Yageta teaches thermal sealing [0017] but is silent on thermal sealing by irradiated light.
In the same field of endeavor Yoon discloses manufacture of battery packs [0142-0146] and teaches the outer surface of a battery cell may be attached by applying ultraviolet light which minimizes deterioration of the battery cell due to heat [0212-0220].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Yageta with the sealing by ultraviolet light as taught by Yoon to prevent deterioration of the battery cell due to heat.
Modified Yamamoto teaches in the combination of Yageta and Yoon a resin layer irradiated with light at reduced pressure to cure or seal, as exemplified by paragraph [0029] of the instant specification, at least part of the resin layer, and seal other parts of the resin layer under atmospheric pressure.
Yamamoto discloses the resin layer (Outer case (container) 230 [0410-0420]) is placed in a frame-like shape to surround the first electrode, the separator, and the second electrode ([0184-0185] fig. 2)
As to claim 16, modified Yamamoto discloses the light is ultraviolet light. [Yoon 0217-0220]
As to claim 17, modified Yamamoto discloses the sealing is performed by irradiating the resin layer with light to cure the resin layer [Yoon,0217-0218] and wherein an area of the resin layer irradiated with the light during the sealing is larger than an area of the resin layer irradiated with the light under the reduced pressure. (Yageta, sealing one side under reduced pressure and then sealing all other sides under atmospheric pressure would provide a larger area under atmospheric pressure than reduced pressure.[0017])
As to claim 19, a step of connecting a first lead electrode to the first electrode and a step of connecting a second lead electrode to the second electrode before the light irradiation under the reduced pressure. (A positive pole lead and a negative pole lead are connected [0017] 12a, 12b, fig.1).
13. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (WO2017-047607A1), in view of Delnick et al. (US5865860A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Momo et al. (US2016/0111710A1).
As to claim 20, Yamamoto discloses the positive electrode may contain a conductive aid [0337-0339] and the electroconductive material normally used as a conductive support agent for positive electrodes, such as carbonaceous materials [0344-0347] does not explicitly disclose one or both of the first electrode and the second electrode comprise graphene.
In the same field of endeavor Momo discloses a method of fabricating a secondary battery [Abstract] and teaches, the positive electrode active material layer may further include a conductive additive for increasing the conductivity of the positive electrode active material layer and the like in addition to the active materials. As a conductive additive, a material that has a large specific surface area is preferably used; for example, acetylene black (AB) can be used. Alternatively, a carbon material such as a carbon nanotube, graphene, or fullerene can be used. [0150]
Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the graphene of Momo because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.) and graphene was known to be used as a conductive aid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, page 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.
Applicant argues claim 15, page 8, the resin layer is formed over and in contact with the first exterior body is not taught by Yamamoto. The office respectfully disagrees as Yamamoto clearly discloses, [0412-0413] As the flexible film, a film in which a resin layer is provided on the front and back surfaces of a metal layer serving as a base material, and as shown in fig. 2 of Yamamoto the base material is outer case (230).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights