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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending in the application. Claims 1-11, 18, & 21-22 are withdrawn. Claims 12-17 & 19-20 were rejected in the 3/17/2026 office action. Claims 12-17 & 19-20 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 5/20/2026 amendment, in response to the 3/17/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Applicant's arguments, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 12 requires that —
a second portion of the fixing tape weakens, thus allowing electrode assembly unwinding; and
a first portion of the fixing tape remains between the battery and the electrode in a final state.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach this. Examiner disagrees.
As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section below, “remains” and “final state” are interpreted to mean that upon fixing tape weakening and electrode unwinding, the first portion is between the battery and the electrode. The specification and drawings don’t support an interpretation that the first portion remains beyond that instant of time.
KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun) teaches tape on an electrode that dissolves in electrolyte, thus allowing electrode unwinding (page 1, lines 11-13; page 4, lines 36-38). Jun doesn’t state whether any of the tape remains after the instant in which the electrode unwinds. Logically, however, it is not possible for the electrode to wait to unwind until the last molecule of Jun’s tape dissolves. A substantial portion of Jun’s tape must remain at that instant. Thus, at the instant of unwinding (final state), Jun’s portion that has dissolved is interpreted as the claimed “second portion”, and Jun’s portion that remains is interpreted as the claimed “first portion”. Jun teaches all claim 1 limitations.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 12 states (underline added for emphasis):
“in the accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte… a first portion of the fixing tape remains between the battery case and the outer surface of the electrode assembly in a final state”
The statement that “a first portion of the fixing tape remains… in a final state” is not interpreted to mean that the first portion remains forever, or that the first portion is insoluble in the electrolyte. It is rather interpreted to mean that the first portion remains at the end of this accommodating step, including electrode unwinding. This end of the accommodating step, including electrode unwinding, is interpreted to be the claimed “final state”.
These interpretations are based on specification and drawing support for these phrases:
The specification states that the fixing tape 140 comprises a base film 141 and an adhesive layer 142 (paragraph 56). The adhesive layer or the base film can comprise a reaction material (paragraphs 57 & 85). The reaction material can dissolve in the electrolyte, resulting in electrode assembly 110 unwinding (paragraphs 57 & 127).
The specification doesn’t state what happens to the layer without the reaction material (base film 141 or adhesive layer 142); however, figure 3 shows that at least part of the fixing tape 140 remains upon release of the wound electrode (paragraph 27; figure 3). This remaining fixing tape 140 must include the claimed first portion.
This figure 3 step, in which at least part of the fixing tape 140 remains, is interpreted as the “final state”. In other words, the “final state” occurs upon fixing tape weakening and electrode unwinding. The specification, however, provides no support for whether the first portion remains after this final state of fixing tape weakening and electrode unwinding.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claim 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun).
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:
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 and the outer surface of the electrode assembly in a final state and a second portion of the fixing tape is weakened such that the electrode 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
At the instant of Jun’s electrode assembly unwinding (claimed final state), some of some of Jun’s finishing tape 212 must have dissolved, thus weakening the tape, in order to allow this unwinding. This dissolved portion is equivalent to the claimed second portion.
At the instant of Jun’s electrode assembly unwinding (final state), some of some of Jun’s finishing tape 212 must remain. Due to spring force in the wound electrode assembly, it would not be possible that unwinding waits until every last molecule of the tape dissolves. The tape portion that remains upon unwinding is equivalent to the claimed first portion.
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 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun).
Jun teaches the following claim 13 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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun), 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 improved negative electrode to exterior package contact and 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)
Claims 17 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun), as applied to claim 12, and further in view of US20100310912A1 (Kim).
With regard to claim 17, Jun fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Kim:
wherein the first portion is a base film (paragraph 25; figure 1: film layer 32) and the second portion is an adhesive layer (paragraph 25; figure 1: adhesive layer 31) containing a reaction material (paragraph 25: polyurethane), which is dissolvable by reacting with the electrolyte (see comment below), the adhesive layer being provided on one surface of the base film to adhere to the electrode assembly (paragraphs 25 & 34-35; figure 2), 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 (see comment below)
Kim teaches polyurethane as the adhesive layer 31 (paragraph 25). According to the present specification, polyurethane is a reaction material and will react and dissolve in the electrolyte (present specification paragraph 55).
Kim is directed to increasing battery capacity by reducing finishing tape thickness. 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 on an adhesive layer, and for the adhesive layer to include polyurethane, as taught by Kim, as part of a battery with increased capacity by reducing finishing tape thickness.
With regard to claim 19, Jun fails to teach the following limitations, which are taught by Kim:
wherein the first portion is a base film (paragraph 25; figure 1: film layer 32) and the second portion is an adhesive layer (paragraph 25; figure 1: adhesive layer 31) containing an acrylic-based adhesive (paragraphs 25, 56, & 59: acrylic resin) that is a low-adhesion adhesive (see comment below), the adhesive layer (31) being provided on one surface of the base film (32) to adhere to the electrode assembly (paragraphs 25 & 34-35; figures 1-2)
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 (see comment below)
The present specification teaches that acrylic-based adhesive is a low adhesion adhesive (paragraph 157). Thus, Kim’s adhesive layer 31 with acrylic resin is a low adhesion adhesive, and would allow electrode assembly release.
Kim is directed to increasing battery capacity by reducing finishing tape thickness. 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 on an adhesive layer, and for the adhesive layer to include acrylic resin, as taught by Kim, as part of a battery with increased capacity by reducing finishing tape thickness.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20040042375A machine translation (Jun), 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 (abstract; paragraph 10: substrate and adhesive layer) comprising a curing agent (paragraphs 10 & 43: 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 (abstract; paragraphs 2 & 10), 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 (see comment below)
The present specification teaches isocyanate as a curing agent that would result in low adhesion, thus allowing electrode assembly release (paragraph 159). 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 substrate and adhesive layer, and for the adhesive layer to include isocyanate, as taught by Iseki, for reduced tape deformation.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights