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 without traverse of claims 30-31, 33-36, and 42 in the reply filed on 9/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 22-29, 32, and 37-41 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to either a nonelected Group I or nonelected Species B-D, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/29/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 objected to because of the following informalities:
There is a typo in the recitation of Claim 34. Claim 34 recites " at least one electrode and at least oen separator". The limitation should read "at least one separator". .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 , and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaneda (US 6743546 B1).
Regarding claim 30, Kaneda discloses a secondary battery comprising (column 12 line 26, [lithium polymer rechargeable battery]): An electrode assembly (abstract, item [2]) and (column 23, line 59); a pressing tape attached to the electrode assembly (column 23 line 52-55, [the battery employs two fixing sheet [89] which is either adhesive tape or heat-sensitive tape attached to the opposite ends of the electrode assembly]); and a battery case, in which the electrode assembly and an electrolyte are accommodated (column 23, line 52, [battery … before being accommodated within a casing 1 or 18]) (column 3, lines 59-61 teaches that a liquid electrolyte and an electrode assembly are both accommodated in a casing), 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. 34 shows fixing sheet/adhesive tape [89] attached to the end of the assembly, of which is accommodated in the casing and joined to the casing by applying pressure as explained in column 23 lines 52-58).
Regarding claim 31, Kaneda discloses the secondary battery of claim 30, wherein the electrode assembly (column 23, line 55) (column 23, lines 58-60 explains that Fig. 34 is similar to the sixth embodiment (column 22, lines 34-35 explain that the sixth embodiment is Fig. 30) further comprises an electrode tab provided on a first portion of an electrode of the electrode assembly (Fig. 30 shows the electrode tabs of items 13 and 14) (column 22, lines 38-39 explain that items 13 and 14 are the electrode leads (tabs)) (These same tabs can be seen in Fig. 34), and the pressing tape is attached to the first portion where the electrode tab is disposed in the electrode assembly (See Fig. 34 shows the pressing tape [item 89] attached to the portion shared by the electrode tabs).
Regarding claim 33, Kaneda discloses the secondary battery of claim 31, wherein the pressing tape [item 89] is attached to an outermost surface of the electrode assembly (See Fig. 34, item 89 is attached on the outer surface of assembly [item 2]) (Fig. 30, which is similar to the embodiment of Fig. 34 as explained in Claim 31 above, shows [item 2] as the entire electrode assembly).
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 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (US 6743546 B1) and further in view of Choi (US 20160133987 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Kaneda teaches Fig. 34 (ninth embodiment) which is a modification of Fig. 30 (sixth embodiment) of Kaneda (column 23, line 58).
Regarding claim 34, Kaneda teaches the secondary battery of claim 33, wherein the electrode assembly (Fig. 30, [item 2 – stacked electrode assembly]) (column 23, line 59 [item 2]) includes a plurality of unit cells ( [item 3 ]– electrode plate modules] – not defined in Fig. 30 and 34), each unit cell including at least one electrode ([item 4 – negative electrode plate] – not defined in Fig. 30 and 34) and at least one separator ([item 12 - separator] – not defined in Fig. 30 and 34) (Fig. 34 shows multiple plates within the electrode assembly) (column 10, lines 26 – 32, [all effects and advantages of the present invention will also be achieved if the electrode assembly is constructed of positive and negative electrode plates wound into a coil with intervening separators therebetween and pressed into a flat shape, instead of the stacked electrode plates]) (column 24 lines 1-6 also teaches that the embodiment of Fig. 34 can also be applicable to wound positive and negative electrodes with an intervening separator), wherein the pressing tape [Fig. 34, item 89] is attached to one or more surfaces of a first or second surface of the electrode assembly in a direction perpendicular to the folding axis (See Fig. 34, the adhesive tape/item 89 is attached to a first and second surface of the electrode assembly).
Kaneda does not teach a separation film folded about a folding axis so as to be disposed between the plurality of unit cells.
Choi, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches a separation film (Choi, para. 0028, [one separator] para. 0028 explains that the “one separator” includes a first separator and a second separator) folded about a folding axis (Choi, para. 0028 explains that the second separator may wrap side surfaces of the electrodes)( Para. 0029 explains that the plurality of stacked type electrode stacks arranged on a separator sheet is wound or folded in one direction such that the electrode stacks are stacked) so as to be disposed between the plurality of unit cells (Choi, para. 0028 explains that the first separator which is a part of the “one separator” may be disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode )).
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 added Choi’s “one separator” to Kaneda’s electrode assembly, as taught by Choi, in order to improve the safety of the battery cell, as taught by Choi (para. 0012). Choi explains that “opposite ends of a positive electrode are covered by corresponding ends of a separator and a negative electrode even in a state in which all of the positive electrode, the separator, and the negative electrode are curved, whereby safety of the battery cell is improved.
Claims 35, 36, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda (US 6743546 B1) and further in view of Zhang (US 20230246272 A1).
Regarding claim 35, Kaneda teaches the secondary battery of claim 34.
Kaneda is silent regarding the thickness of the pressing tape.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries teaches the importance of the thickness of the seal region between the partition plate and the packaging shell and 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. 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 Kaneda. Examiner also notes that if 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.
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 constructed Kaneda’s adhesive tape to have a thickness sufficient to seal the electrode assembly to the casing/packaging shell, as taught by Zhang, in order to keep the ratio of T/W [T/L in Kaneda’s case] within the foregoing range that can ensure good sealing of the battery, and improve service life of the battery, as taught by Zhang (para. 0089).
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].
Regarding claim 36, Kaneda teaches the secondary battery of claim 34.
Kaneda is silent regarding the length of the pressing tape.
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 Kaneda.
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 constructed Kaneda’s adhesive tape to have a length sufficient to seal the electrode assembly to the casing/packaging shell, as taught by Zhang, in order to keep the ratio of T/W [T/L in Kaneda’s case] within the foregoing range that can ensure good sealing of the battery, and improve service life of the battery, as taught by Zhang (para. 0089).
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].
Regarding claim 42, Kaneda teaches the secondary battery of claim 30, wherein the pressing tape comprises an adhesive layer (column 23, line53 [item 89 which is either adhesive tape]).
Kaneda does not teach that the pressing tape also comprises a base material comprised of any one of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyimide, and polyethylene terephthalate.
Zhang, in the same field of endeavor, batteries, teaches adhesive that can include at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, or polyethylene terephthalate (Zhang, para. 0076).
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 include polypropylene, polyethylene, or polyethylene terephthalate in Kaneda’s adhesive tape, as taught by Zhang, in order to achieve the objective of the application (for connection of two structures as described in para. 0063), as these are materials well known in the art (para. 0076).
Kaneda teaches the secondary battery of claim 30, wherein the pressing tape comprises a base material and an adhesive layer, and the base material comprises any one of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyimide, and polyethylene terephthalate.
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
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721