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 . If status of the application as subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The amendment filed 2/5/2026, in response to the 11/6/2025 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame all 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections. Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim 12 amendment that “the fixing tape remains adhered” is rejected below in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) section. For present examination, this limitation is interpreted in a way that it is obvious over previously-cited prior art (see interpretation in 35 U.S.C. 112(a) below). Thus, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Election/Restriction
The 2/5/2026 amendment introduced the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: The adhesive layer comprises the reaction material and is weakened (specification paragraph 57; claims 17 & 19-20).
Species B: The base film comprises the reaction material and is weakened (specification paragraph 84; claim 18).
Applicant elected Species A in a phone call between Applicant’s representative Chad Wells and Examiner Robert West on 3/4/2026. Species B, claim 18, is withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11, 18, & 21-22 are withdrawn. Claims 12-20 were rejected in the 11/6/2025 office action. Claims 12-17 & 19-20 are presently examined.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 states:
when accommodating the electrolyte, a first portion of the fixing tape remains… and a second portion of the fixing tape is weakened such that the electrode assembly is substantially unwound
Electrode assembly unwinding is a single instant in time. The statement that the fixing tape remains is not interpreted to mean that it remains forever, or that it is insoluble in the electrolyte.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 12 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 states:
“a first portion of the fixing tape remains adhered to the outer surface of the electrode assembly and a second portion of the fixing tape is weakened”
The present specification teaches:
“[0056] The fixing tape 140 may comprise a base film 141 and an adhesive layer 142 provided on one surface of the base film 141.”
“[0054] The fixing tape 140 may be weakened in fixing force for suppressing the unwinding of the electrode assembly 110 when being impregnated in the electrolyte and then be filled in a space between the battery case 120 and the electrode assembly 110. Here, the fixing tape 140 may comprise a reaction material that is dissolved by reacting with the electrolyte. Thus, when accommodating the electrolyte, the reaction material is dissolved to release the fixing force for suppressing the unwinding.”
“[0064] FIG. 4 is a cross-sectional view illustrating an example of a state before winding of an electrode assembly is released in a secondary battery according to another embodiment of the present invention, and FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view 20 illustrating an example of a state in which the winding of the electrode assembly is released…”
These paragraphs teach the following:
The fixing tape 140 has two portions: a base film 141 and an adhesive layer 142 (paragraph 56).
Electrolyte dissolves and weakens at least part of the fixing tape 140 (paragraph 56).
Upon electrode assembly unwinding, some of the fixing tape 140 remains (figure 5).
The present specification and the drawings, however, fail to teach that part “of the fixing tape remains adhered to the outer surface of the electrode assembly”.
Figure 5 illustrates that the entire fixing tape 140 is not instantaneously dissolved upon release of electrode assembly winding. Thus, part of the fixing tape 140 remains between the battery case and the electrode assembly upon electrode assembly unwinding. Remaining adhered, however, is different from remaining in place. Thus, the present specification fails to teach that “the fixing tape remains adhered”.
For present examination, the above limitation is interpreted as follows:
“a first portion of the fixing tape remains between the battery case and
This interpretation is supported by comparing fixing tape 140 figure 4 to fixing tape 140 in figure 5, along with associated paragraph 64.
Claims 12-20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 12.
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.
Claims 17 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) regard as the invention.
Independent claim 12 states “a first portion of the fixing tape remains adhered to the outer surface of the electrode assembly and a second portion of the fixing tape is weakened such that the electrode assembly is substantially unwound”. Dependent claims 17 & 19-20 state that “the first portion is a base film and the second portion is an adhesive layer”. It is unclear how the electrode assembly can unwind if the first portion / base film remains adhered. It is the adhesion of the first portion / base film to the electrode assembly that keeps the electrode assembly wound.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claim 12-14 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun) in view of US20100310912A1 (Kim).
With regard to claim 12, Jun teaches the following limitations:
A method for manufacturing a secondary battery (page 1, lines 11-12; figure 3: secondary battery with the electrode assembly), the method comprising:
winding alternately stacked electrodes and separators to form an electrode assembly (page 1, lines 15-16; figure 3: electrode jelly roll 21 / 211 formed by winding electrodes and separator);
adhering a fixing tape to an outer surface of the electrode assembly (page 1, lines 16-17; figure 3: finishing tape 212 on electrode jelly roll) to initially prevent unwinding; and
accommodating the electrode assembly (21 / 211) and an electrolyte (page 4, lines 36-38) in a battery case (page 5, lines 32-39; figure 3: case 22) after adhering the fixing tape,
wherein, in the adhering the fixing tape, the fixing tape, which is configured to weaken in fixing force for suppressing the unwinding when being impregnated in the electrolyte, is used (page 4, lines 36-38),
Claim 12 also states (amended as interpreted by the Examiner):
wherein, in the accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte, when accommodating the electrolyte, a first portion of the fixing tape remains between the battery case andelectrode assembly is substantially unwound to expand in an initial space between the battery case and the electrode assembly as the fixing force of the fixing tape is weakened
Jun doesn’t explicitly state that the tape has a first portion and a second portion; however, tape with an adhesive layer on a base film has been a common feature for many decades.
Kim provides additional guidance. Kim describes finishing tape 30 on an electrode assembly (paragraph 41; figure 2). The finishing tape 30 includes a film layer 32 [claimed first portion] and an adhesive layer 31 [claimed second portion] (paragraph 25; figure 1). As is well-known to anyone who has ever used tape, it is helpful to have a film layer for handling the tape, and an adhesive layer for adhesion. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Jun’s finishing tape to include a film layer and an adhesive layer as taught by Kim, for handling the tape and for adhesion.
Kim’s adhesive layer 31 can be polyurethane (paragraph 25). The present specification teaches that polyurethane is a reaction material for dissolving in electrolyte (paragraph 55).
Claim 12 does not address whether or not the first portion eventually dissolves or not. It is expected that Kim’s film layer 32 [claimed first portion] and adhesive layer 31 [claimed second portion] won’t dissolve instantly. Thus, upon weakening of the adhesive layer 31, and unwinding of the electrode, both the film layer 32 and the adhesive layer 31 would remain for a period of time. Dissolution of a solid layer takes time.
With regard to claim 13, Jun teaches the following limitations:
wherein the outer surface of the electrode assembly is an outer circumferential surface of the electrode assembly (page 1, lines 18-21; figure 3: finishing tape 212 comprises lower tape 2122 surrounding the outer lower part of the electrode jelly roll), and,
wherein, in the adhering the fixing tape, the fixing tape is provided in plurality… (page 1, lines 18-21; figure 3: finishing tape 212 comprises terminal tape 2121 and lower tape 2122)
Jun, however, fails to teach the following claim 13 limitation:
the fixing tape is… adhered to upper and lower portions of the outer circumferential surface of the electrode assembly
Only one of Jun’s two finishing tapes 212 surrounds / encircles the electrode jelly roll 21 / 211. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to apply a second finishing tape 212 around the electrode jelly roll 21 / 211, if needed for keeping the electrode jelly roll 21 / 211 secure prior to or during insertion into the case 22.
With regard to claim 14, Jun teaches the following 14 limitation:
the fixing tape extends over a winding end of the electrode assembly (figure 3: lower tape 2122 is in this location)
Claim 17 states:
wherein the first portion is a base film and the second portion is an adhesive layer containing a reaction material, which is dissolvable by reacting with the electrolyte, the adhesive layer being provided on one surface of the base film to adhere to the electrode assembly, and
wherein, in the accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte, when the electrolyte is accommodated, the adhesive layer is dissolved so that the winding of the electrode assembly is substantially released
Jun teaches that the finishing tape is dissolved in the electrolyte solution, thus allowing the jelly-roll electrode assembly to unwind (page 1, lines 11-13).
Jun doesn’t explicitly state that the tape has an adhesive layer on a base film; however, this has been a common feature of tape for many decades.
Kim provides additional guidance. Kim describes finishing tape 30 on an electrode assembly (paragraph 41; figure 2). The finishing tape 30 includes a film layer 32 and an adhesive layer 31 (paragraph 25; figure 1). The adhesive layer 31 can be polyurethane (paragraph 25). The present specification teaches that polyurethane is a reaction material for dissolving in electrolyte (paragraph 55). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Jun’s finishing tape to include polyurethane, as taught by Kim, as an adhesive for attaching the tape to an electrode.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun) and US20100310912A1 (Kim), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of US20210036380A1 (Ueda).
With regard to claim 15, Jun teaches the following claim 15 limitation:
wherein the electrodes comprise a positive electrode and a negative electrode (page 1, lines 14-16)
Jun, however, fails to teach the following claim 15 limitations, which are taught by Ueda:
wherein, in winding the alternately stacked electrodes and separators, the negative electrode is wound to be disposed on the outermost surface of the electrode assembly, and
wherein, in the accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte, when the winding of the electrode assembly is substantially released, an inner surface of the battery case and the negative electrode are brought into direct contact with each other
Ueda is directed to a secondary battery 10, with a winding-type electrode body 14, for improved negative electrode to exterior package contact and for reduced internal resistance (abstract; paragraph 8; figure 1). The electrode body 14 includes a negative electrode 12 that contacts a surface of the package can 16 (abstract; paragraph 24; figure 1).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Jun’s negative electrode to be outmost in the electrode jelly roll 21 / 211, and to contact Jun’s case 22, as taught by Ueda, for reduced internal resistance.
With regard to claim 16, Jun teaches the following claim 16 limitation:
wherein the negative electrode comprises a negative electrode collector and an active material provided on one surface of the negative electrode collector (page 1, lines 40-44)
Jun, however, fails to teach the following claim 16 limitations, which are taught by Ueda:
wherein, in the winding the alternately stacked electrodes and separators, the negative electrode collector is wound to define the outermost surface of the electrode (paragraph 24; figure 1: outermost circumferential surface of the electrode body 14 is the negative electrode collector 40), and
wherein, in the accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte, when the winding of the electrode assembly is substantially released, the inner surface of the battery case, which includes a metal material (paragraph 19; figure 1: exterior package can 16 is metal), and the negative electrode collector are in direct contact with each other (paragraph 24; figure 1: negative electrode collector 40 contacts package can 16 inner surface)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun) and US20100310912A1 (Kim), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of US20210005869A1 (Yoshida).
Jun fails to teach the following claim 19 limitations, which are taught by Yoshida:
wherein the first portion is a base film (paragraph 36; figure 3: substrate layer 30b) and the second portion is an adhesive layer (paragraph 36; figure 3: adhesive layer 30a) containing an acrylic-based adhesive (paragraph 41: acrylic-based resin) that is a low-adhesion adhesive, the adhesive layer (30a) being provided on one surface (paragraph 36; figure 3) of the base film (30b) to adhere to the electrode assembly (paragraphs 25, 33, & 60; figure 2A), and
wherein, in the accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte, when the electrolyte is accommodated, the adhesive layer is reduced in adhesive force so that the winding of the electrode assembly is substantially released
The present specification teaches that acrylic-based adhesive is a low adhesion adhesive (paragraph 157). Thus, Yoshida’s adhesive layer 30a with acrylic-based resin achieves the claimed requirements.
Yoshida is directed to a battery with tab tape that has suppressed melting or decomposition at high temperature (paragraph 8). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Jun’s finishing tape 212 to include acrylic-based resin, as taught by Yoshida, for suppressed melting or decomposition at high temperature.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun) and US20100310912A1 (Kim), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of US20120202051A1 (Iseki).
Jun fails to teach the following claim 20 limitations, which are taught by Iseki:
wherein the first portion is a base film and the second portion is an adhesive layer (paragraph 10: substrate and adhesive layer) comprising a curing agent (paragraph 10: isocyanate crosslinking agent) to have low adhesive force, the adhesive layer being provided on one surface of the base film to adhere to the electrode assembly, and
wherein, in the accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte, when the electrolyte is accommodated, the adhesive layer is reduced in adhesive force so that the winding of the electrode assembly is substantially released
The present specification teaches isocyanate as the curing agent (paragraph 159). Thus, Iseki’s adhesive layer with isocyanate achieves the claimed requirements.
Iseki is directed to a battery tape with reduced deformation (paragraphs 9-10). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Jun’s finishing tape 212 to include isocyanate, as taught by Iseki, for reduced tape deformation.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721