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 § 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.
Claims 30-31, 33-34, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20070065718 A1) and further in view of Park (US 20090311581 A1).
Regarding claim 30, Moon discloses a secondary battery comprising (para. 0023, secondary batteries):
an electrode assembly (Moon, claim 11, [A medium-sized or large-sized battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells made of an electrode assembly composed of a cathode, an anode, a separator and an electrolyte]);
a pressing tape attached to the electrode assembly (Moon, Fig. 3, item 700 – double-sided adhesive tape is attached to the electrode assembly)
and a pouch battery case (Moon, claim 11, [a battery case]) (Moon, para. 0023, [the battery pack that can be applied to the present invention may include … pouch-type battery packs]), in which the electrode assembly having the pressing tape attached (Moon, para. 0036, [The double-sided adhesive tapes 700 and 710 serve to integrally fix the battery cell 200 and pack case body 300 and pack case cover 400]) (Fig. 3 shows item 700 attached to the electrode assembly) and an electrolyte are accommodated (Moon, claim 11, [a medium-sized or large-sized battery pack comprising a plurality of battery cells made of an electrode assembly composed of a cathode, an anode, a separator and an electrolyte]),
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 pouch 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)
Moon does not teach wherein the pressing tape has a longitudinal direction extending in a direction perpendicular to the protrusion direction.
Park, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches
wherein the pressing tape is a flat strip (Park, Fig. 7, item 800)
a pressing tape that has a longitudinal direction extending in a direction perpendicular to the protrusion direction of the electrode tabs (Park, Fig. 7, item 800- double sided adhesive tape – is perpendicular to the protrusion of electrode leads – item 130 and item 140).
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 designed Moon’s pressing tape to be constructed of two pressing tapes, as taught by Park, in order to create a gap between two subsequent structures. Park teaches that a gap between two structures accommodates possible volume changes of the unit cell during charge and discharge, and a gap allows heat to effectively be dissipated from the unit cell during charge and discharge (Park, para. 0072).
Regarding claim 31, modified Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 30, wherein the pressing tape is attached to the first portion where the electrode tab is disposed in the electrode assembly (Park, Fig. 7, the location of the pressing tape by the electrode leads is analogous to the instant specification and the modification of Moon places the pressing tape along the first portion, as described above in claim 30).
Regarding claim 33, modified Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 31, wherein the pressing tape is attached to an outermost surface of the electrode assembly (Moon, See Fig. 3, the pressing tape [Park, Fig. 7, item 800] is attached to the outermost surface of Moon, item 200).
Regarding claim 34, modified Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 33, wherein the electrode assembly includes a plurality of unit cells (Moon, para. 0024, a plurality of battery cells as a unit battery) and a separation film (Moon, Fig. 2, item 210) folded about a folding axis so as to be disposed between the plurality of unit cells (Moon, Fig. 2, item 210), each unit cell including at least one electrode and at least one separator (Moon, 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 (Moon, Fig. 3, item 700 [modified by Park, Fig. 7, item 800] is attached to the outermost surface of item 200).
Regarding claim 42, modified Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 30, wherein the pressing tape comprises an adhesive layer (Moon, para. 0035, [double-sided adhesive tape(s) 700]), and the base material comprised of any one of polypropylene or polyethylene (Moon, para. 0016, polyethylene, polypropylene, or the like).
Claims 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (US 20070065718 A1) in view of Park (US 20090311581 A1), and further in view of Zhang (US 20230246272 A1).
Regarding claim 35, modified Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 34.
Modified 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 modified 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, modified Moon discloses the secondary battery of claim 34.
Modified 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 modified 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 the claims have been considered.
The following is a response to the arguments:
the battery cell 200 is not itself an electrode assembly
Moon, claim 11 teaches that the medium-sized or large-sized battery packs comprising a plurality of battery cells can make up the electrode assembly. This electrode assembly still contains an adhesive member external to the battery cell.
“A pouch battery case, in which the electrode assembly having the pressing tape attached and an electrolyte are accommodated” is not disclosed in Moon
Examiner disagrees and asserts that Moon teaches:
A pouch battery case (Moon, claim 10) (Moon, Fig. 3, items 300 and 400)
Pressing tape attached to the electrode assembly (Item 700, the adhesive/pressing tape, contacts item 210 – which is a part of the assembly.) (Item 700 also contacts the interior of case 300)
Thus, modified Moon is analogous to the instant’s Fig. 4, where item 300 [pressing tape] contacts item 120 [separation film of electrode assembly] and also contacts item 210 [the interior of item 200 [battery case]])
Electrolyte accommodated (Moon, claim 11)
the battery pack case 300 and cover 400 do not form a pouch-type battery case.
Examiner disagrees. The pack case 300 and the cover 400 contain pouch-type battery cells (Moon, claim 10), and therefore form the aforementioned items of 300 and 400 form a pouch-type battery case.
Conclusion
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