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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-5, and 14-22 in the reply filed on 01/27/2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2023, 04/24/2023, 06/30/2025, and 11/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 2, 15-19 are 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.
Claim 2 recites “The method for fabricating a secondary battery, according to claim 1, wherein viscosity of the electrolyte is greater than or equal to 0.3 mPa·s and less than or equal to 100 mPa·s.” The viscosity is dependent on temperature and since no temperature is specified the claim is indefinite. Further the electrolyte constituents and their amounts are not specified which makes the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination the temperature of 250C will be applied.
Claim 15 recites in part, “then 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 after the light irradiation.” Where cure and seal become synonymous as provide by paragraph [0029] of the instant specification, “The sealing is preferably performed by irradiating the resin layer with light to cure the resin layer.” It is unclear how the sealing will occur after light irradiation when the sealing is performed by light irradiation.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 14, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (WO2017-047607A1).
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)
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)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (WO2017-047607A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsuki et al. (US2014/0023934A1)
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.
Claim(s) 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (WO2017-047607A1) 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), wherein the second exterior body is placed (Lower portion of 230 as shown in fig. 2 above),
But does not explicitly, and then 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 after the light irradiation, 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 18, modified Yamamoto discloses the sealing is performed by thermocompression bonding. (Thermal sealing of casing film by pressure with a thermal sealing head for heating [Yageta, 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).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (WO2017-047607A1) 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Hong et al. (US2016/0087252A1) Jig used to seal pouch battery with ultraviolet
light.
Yamamoto et al. (US2009/0098443A1) Resin layer cured by ultraviolet light.
Sugeno et al. (US5,773,165) Lower viscosity of electrolyte better impregnation of
electrode.
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