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 .
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 .
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 30-31, 33-34, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Moon (US 20070065718 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Moon discloses a secondary battery comprising (para. 0023, secondary batteries):
an electrode assembly (Moon, Fig. 3, item 200 – battery cell);
a pressing tape attached to the electrode assembly (Moon, Fig. 3, item 700 – double-sided adhesive tape is attached to item 200)
and a battery case, in which the electrode assembly and an electrolyte are accommodated (Moon, Fig. 3, item 400 – pack case cover and item 300 – pack case body),
wherein the pressing tape is attached to an end of the electrode assembly so that the end of the electrode assembly is pressed when an outer surface of the battery case is pressed (Fig. 3 item 700 is attached to an end of item 200-battery cell and is also attached to the outer case items 300 and 400) (para. 0036, [the double-sided adhesive tape(s) 700 … serve to integrally fix the battery cell 200 and pack case body 300 and pack case cover 400]).
wherein the electrode assembly further comprises an electrode tab protruding from a first portion (Fig. 3, the first portion is located on the top surface of item 200) of the electrode assembly in a protrusion direction (Moon, Fig. 3, items 220 and 230 (electrode leads/tabs) protrude from the battery cell), and
wherein the pressing tape is a flat strip (Fig. 3, item 700 is a flat strip)
wherein the pressing tape has a longitudinal direction extending in a direction perpendicular to the protrusion direction (Fig. 3, item 700 has a longitudinal direction extending in a direction perpendicular to the protrusion direction)
Regarding claim 31, Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 30, wherein the pressing tape is attached to the first portion (the first portion is described above in claim 30) where the electrode tab is disposed in the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, item 700 is attached to the first portion where the electrode tab is disposed).
Regarding claim 33, Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 31, wherein the pressing tape [item 700] is attached to an outermost surface of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 3, item 700 is attached to the outermost surface of item 200).
Regarding claim 34, Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 33, wherein the electrode assembly includes a plurality of unit cells (para. 0024, a plurality of battery cells as a unit battery) and a separation film (Fig. 2, item 210) folded about a folding axis so as to be disposed between the plurality of unit cells (Fig. 2, item 210), each unit cell including at least one electrode and at least one separator (para. 0032, [a small battery pack is comprised of a rectangular battery cell in which an electrode assembly composed of a cathode, an anode and a separator]), wherein the pressing tape is attached to one surface of a first surface of the electrode assembly in a direction perpendicular to the folding axis (Fig. 3, item 700 is attached to the outermost surface of item 200).
Regarding claim 42, Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 30, wherein the pressing tape comprises an adhesive layer (para. 0035, [double-sided adhesive tape(s) 700]), and the base material comprised of any one of polypropylene or polyethylene (para. 0016, polyethylene, polypropylene, or the like).
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.
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.
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 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20070065718 A1) and further in view of Zhang (US 20230246272 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 34.
Moon does not teach:
wherein the pressing tape has a thickness of between about 10 µm to about 300 µm.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches:
wherein the pressing tape has a thickness of between about 10 µm to about 300 µm (Zhang, para. 0089, [the seal region between the partition plate and the packaging shell satisfy that 0.01 ≤ T/W ≤ 0.05. For example the width preferably ranges from 1mm to 7 mm]). Examiner notes that the width of the seal region [item 5 of Zhang] is analogous to the length of the adhesive tape of Moon. Examiner also notes that having a seal region where the width ranges from 5mm to 7mm, this leads to a seal thickness that ranges from 0.05mm (50 µm) to 0.35 mm (350 µm).
The thickness values were achieved as follows:
0.01 ≤ T/W ≤ 0.05
According to Zhang, the width [length] ranges from 1mm to 7mm (para. 0089). The instant specification states that the length is 5mm to 300mm. Using 5 mm and 7 mm as the min and max length.
For min length, replace W with 5 mm:
0.01 ≤ T/ 5 mm ≤ 0.05
0.05 mm ≤ T ≤ 0.25 mm which is the same as:
50 µm ≤ T ≤ 250 µm
For max length, replace W with 7 mm:
0.07 mm ≤ T ≤ 0.35 mm which is the same as:
70 µm ≤ T ≤ 350 µm
Therefore, using Zhang’s equation, the thickness ranges from 50 µm to 350 µm, thus reading on claim 35.
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Moon’s double-sided adhesive tape, to have a thickness ranging from 50 µm to 350 µm, as taught by Zhang, in order to keep the ratio of T/W within the foregoing range to ensure good sealing of the battery and improve service life of the battery (Zhang, para. 0089).
Regarding claim 36, Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 34.
Moon does not teach wherein a length of the pressing tape attached to the electrode assembly in a direction of the folding axis of the electrode assembly is between about 5 mm to about 300 mm.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches:
wherein a length of the pressing tape attached to the electrode assembly in a direction of the folding axis of the electrode assembly is between about 5 mm to about 300 mm (Zhang, para. 0089, [the seal region between the partition plate and the packaging shell satisfy that 0.01 ≤ T/W ≤ 0.05. For example the width preferably ranges from 1mm to 7 mm. The sealing width is not particularly limited, provided that the objective … can be achieved]). Examiner notes that the width of the seal region [item 5 of Zhang] is analogous to the length of the adhesive tape of Moon.
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made Moon’s double-sided adhesive tape, to have a length ranging from 1mm to 7 mm, as taught by Zhang, in order to keep the ratio of T/W within the foregoing range to ensure good sealing of the battery and improve service life of the battery (Zhang, para. 0089).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 30 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.
Additionally, regarding the rejection of claims 35-56, Zhang is cited for the adhesive tape’s dimensions, not its sealing area or placement.
Conclusion
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 30 has 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'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 VERITA E GRANNUM whose telephone number is (571)270-1150. The examiner can normally be reached 10-5 EST / 7-2 PST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/V.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights