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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 23, 2025 has been entered but does not place the application in condition for allowance. The examiner acknowledges the addition of new claim 5. Claims 1-5 are pending in the present application. The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the original prior art rejections over Mizawa et al and Yamamoto et al.
New rejections follow.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first main surface and the second main surface having an area that is greater than that of the side surface” in lines 11-12. The instant specification does not provide support for this claim in the paragraphs describing main surfaces and a side surface of the base material layer (i.e., [0034]) and Figs. 8-9 of the instant application only show lengths corresponding to the main surfaces and the side surface.
Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasma et al (US 20180323475 A1, published 2018-11-08) in view of Yamamoto et al (JP 2012160273 A, published 2012-08-23 and previously cited in the 09/25/2025 Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Pasma teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising:
An exterior housing body 105 (Fig. 1; [¶ 0029]);
A wound electrode assembly 115 housed in the exterior housing body ([¶ 0031] discloses a jelly roll configuration of the set of electrodes 115), the wound electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator, the positive electrode and the negative electrode that are wound with the separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([¶ 0031] discloses anode and cathode active materials 116 within the set of electrodes 115, which may be in a jelly roll (i.e., wound) configuration, and also discloses a separator material 118 may be positioned between anode and cathode active materials; Fig. 1);
An insulating tape attached to the wound electrode assembly (Fig. 6 and [¶ 0057]-[¶ 0058] disclose an example with coupling material 625 attached to the wound electrode assembly 600, wherein coupling material can be a tape or adhesive and also an insulative material).
Pasma also discloses (Fig. 8; annotated Fig. 8 included below) an example of insulating tape 825 (i.e., a base material layer) wherein the base material layer has a first main surface (bottom surface of 825 in Fig. 8, annotated by the examiner as I) , a second main surface (top surface of 825, annotated by the examiner as II) that is opposite the first main surface, and a side surface (annotated by the examiner as S) extending from an edge of the first main surface to an edge of the second main surface, the first main surface and the second main surface having an area that is greater than that of the side surface (Assuming the first main surface, the second main surface, and the side surface have the same length dimension in the direction of in/out the page, annotated Fig. 8 shows wherein the width of the first main surface wI and the width of the second main surface wII have longer length dimensions in the left/right direction of the page compared to the width ws of the side surface; therefore, the areas corresponding to the first main surface and the second main surface would be expected to be greater than that of the side surface). Pasma also discloses (Fig. 8) wherein the side surface (S) of the base material layer is not vertical and is inclined with respect to the first main surface and the second main surface of the base material layer.
Annotated Fig. 8 of Pasma:
PNG
media_image1.png
240
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pasma does not explicitly claim an adhesive layer, wherein the adhesive layer is provided on the first main surface of the base material layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamamoto teaches an insulating tape (55 + 54) comprising auxiliary member 55 (i.e., base material layer) that can be made of a resin material such as Teflon and polyester that is electrically insulating [¶ 0032] and an acrylic adhesive 56 applied to the lower surface of the auxiliary member 55 [¶ 0075-0076]. Yamamoto discloses that providing an adhesive on at least a portion of the auxiliary member 55 allows it to adhere and fix in an appropriate position [¶ 0030]. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Pasma to use an adhesive layer at the lower surface of the base material layer because Yamamoto teaches it is a known configuration that provides the benefit of allowing the base material layer to adhere and fix in an appropriate position. Consequently, within the combination of prior art, the adhesive layer would be provided on the first main surface of the base material layer as claimed.
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that providing a combination of elements, i.e. combining the element of a base material layer with the element of an adhesive layer at the bottom of a base material layer for an insulating tape, in combination that is a known configuration would merely provide the predictable similar function as performed separately with expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A).
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1, and Pasma further teaches (Fig. 6) wherein insulating tape 625 is attached so as to fix a winding end 627 of the wound electrode assembly to the wound electrode assembly (i.e., a set of electrodes 600 that may be a rolled or wound structure) [¶ 0057], as claimed. Therefore, Pasma directly suggests it as a suitable use for the insulating tape. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art and supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Pasma teaches (Fig. 8) a configuration wherein an electrode 800, which may be part of an cathode (i.e., positive electrode), includes a current collector 805 and an active material 810 formed on the current collector [¶ 0063]-[¶ 0064]. As shown in annotated Fig. 8, included below, Pasma teaches an exposed part on the current collector 805 in which the active material layer 810 is not formed and the current collector is exposed.
Pasma does not teach in the embodiment of Fig. 8 the limitation that an electrode tab is connected to the exposed part, and the insulating tape is attached so as to cover the exposed part and the electrode tab on the exposed part.
However, Pasma does teach (Fig. 7, with annotated Fig. 7 provided below) a related configuration wherein an electrode 700 includes a current collector 705 and an active material 710 formed on the current collector ([¶ 0059]-[¶ 0062]), and which also has electrode tab 120 connected to an exposed part in which the active material is not formed and the current collector is exposed. Although the embodiment of Fig. 7 is for an anode, Pasma teaches that a set of electrodes may also have a cathode tab as well as an anode tab [¶ 0034], therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have placed a positive electrode tab on the side of the current collector 805 opposite to the active material layer, which corresponds to a portion of the exposed part, because Pasma teaches in Fig. 7 that the configuration of having an electrode tab on the side of the current collector opposite to the active material is known, and the person of ordinary skill in the art would have also found it obvious to try the configuration with a positive electrode tab, because Pasma teaches a cathode (positive electrode) tab is a known option for an electrode tab.
Annotated Fig. 7 of Pasma:
PNG
media_image2.png
343
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that providing the combination of elements, i.e. combining the element of an electrode tab on the side of the current collector opposite to the active material in combination with the element of the insulating tape shown in Fig. 8, would merely provide the predictable similar function as the elements performed separately with expectation of success. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A).
Pasma also discloses “insulating material 715, such as a tape, may be applied along second surface 708, and may be positioned on the second surface 708 over a portion of the current collector 705 to which first electrode tab 120 is coupled,” for example, to cover any burs incurred from welding the first electrode tab 120 to the current collector 705 that could contact other components such as a separator and lead to cutting or tearing of the set of electrode materials ([¶ 0060]), thereby teaching the insulating tape is attached so as to cover the exposed part and the electrode tab on the exposed part. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have attached the insulating tape so as to cover the exposed part and the electrode tab on the exposed part, as directly suggested by Pasma, in order to cover any burs incurred from welding the first electrode tab 120 to the current collector 705 that could contact other components such as a separator and result in cutting or tearing of the set of electrode materials.
Annotated Fig. 8 of Pasma:
PNG
media_image3.png
327
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1.
Pasma teaches (Fig. 8) a configuration wherein an electrode 800, which may be part of an cathode (i.e., positive electrode), includes a current collector 805 and an active material 810 formed on the current collector ([¶ 0063]-[¶ 0064]). As shown in annotated Fig. 8, Pasma teaches an exposed part on the current collector 805 in which the active material layer 810 is not formed and the current collector is exposed. Pasma further teaches in Fig. 8 the insulating tape is attached such that its top surface (corresponding to the second main surface) hangs over a boundary between the exposed part and the active material layer, as annotated in annotated Fig. 8, thereby covering a boundary between the exposed part and the active material layer as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pasma et al (US 20180323475 A1, published 2018-11-08) in view of Yamamoto et al (JP 2012160273 A, published 2012-08-23 and previously cited in the 09/25/2025 Office Action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dudley et al (US 7,097,673 B2, published 2006-08-29).
Regarding claim 5, the combination above teaches the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1. Pasma teaches an application wherein the insulating tape can contact the active material layer at the side surface of the base material layer (Fig. 8), and the insulating tape is shown as having the side surface of the base material layer inclined at an acute angle with respect to the second main surface and inclined at an obtuse angle with respect to the first main surface. However, Pasma does not provide exact angles.
In the same field of endeavor, Dudley teaches (Figs. 1a and 5) coating a coating material 2 with an edge material 16 to substantially cover the tapered edge of the coating material wherein the edge material can be an electrically insulating edge material (Col 15: lines 14-16), corresponding to the base material layer of an insulating tape, and the coating material can be a cathode material (Col 3: lines 4-14). Comparison of Figs. 1a and 5 of Dudley and Fig. 8 of Pasma indicate that Dudley’s configuration is structurally similar to modified Pasma’s configuration of attaching an insulating tape towards an active material such that it contacts a portion of a tapered active material edge and also in terms of the shape of the contacting interface. Dudley also teaches exemplary dry thicknesses of cathode coating materials, corresponding to length 6 in Figs 1a and 5, can be in the range of about 3 microns to about 100 microns and also discloses that the width 20 of the coating edge of coating material 2 can be 0.1 mm, or 100 microns (Col6: lines 66-67 bridging Col 7: line 1).
Consequently, if the bulk thickness of the active material layer (i.e., length 6 in Dudley’s Figs. 1a and 5) is about 100 microns, as taught by Dudley, and the width of the tapered end of the active material layer is about 100 microns (i.e., width 20 in Dudley), then the angle formed by the inclined edge of the coating material (i.e., surface 8 of Dudley) with the bottom surface of the coating material, located at point 12 in Fig. 1a, would be 45°. Accordingly, within the combination of prior art, the angle formed by the side surface of the base material layer and the first main surface of the base material layer would be 180° - 45° or 135°, which overlaps with the claimed range for the angle between the side surface and the first main surface. 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)
Figs. 1a and 5 of Dudley, and analogously, Fig. 8 of Pasma, indicate that the top surface, i.e. second main surface, of the base material layer is roughly parallel to the bottom surface, i.e. first main surface. Thus, the angle formed by the side surface of the base material layer and the second main surface (i.e., top surface) of the base material layer is about equal to the angle formed at point 12 (Dudley: Fig. 1a of the combination) by the inclined edge of the coating material (i.e., active material layer) with the bottom surface of the coating material, which Dudley suggests can be 45° based on teachings of the bulk thickness of the active material layer and the width of the tapered region of the active material layer. The angle of 45° overlaps with the claimed range for the angle between the side surface and the second main surface. 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)
A skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have modified the modified non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of Pasma to coat the edge material (corresponding to the insulating tape) to have the side surface of the base material layer to be inclined at an angle of 45° with respect to the second main surface of the base material layer, and the side surface of the base material layer to be inclined at an angle of 135° with respect to the first main surface of the base material layer given that Dudley teaches they are a range of suitable angles for the insulating tape. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art and supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Conclusion
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 March 2026