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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fig. 1, 13, 14, & 15. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zushi et al. (JP 2002-198099 A, hereinafter Zushi, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 1. Zushi teaches an electrode assembly (Fig. 1-3) comprising:
an electrode stack formed by alternately stacking an electrode (Fig. 2, items 1 & 2) and a separator (item 4); and
an outer tape (Fig. 3, item 5) attached to an outer surface of the electrode stack (Fig. 3),
wherein the outer tape is so attached to the electrode stack as to surround a side surface thereof (Fig. 3), and
a through-hole (Fig. 3, item 51) formed in a first region of the outer tape, the outer tape present at a position corresponding to the side surface of the electrode stack (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 3. Zushi teaches wherein the electrode stack has a quadrangular shape with two long sides and two short sides when viewed from above in a plan view, and the outer tape is so attached to the electrode stack as to surround side surfaces thereof that correspond to the two long sides (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 4. Zushi teaches wherein the outer tape has a shape continuous in a longitudinal direction of the electrode stack and is so attached to the electrode stack as to surround each of two side surfaces thereof that correspond to the two long sides (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 6. Zushi teaches wherein the outer tape comprises a second region extending in a width direction (W) of the electrode stack and attached to a top surface of the electrode stack (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 7. Zushi teaches wherein the outer tape comprises a third region extending in a width direction of the electrode stack and attached to a bottom surface of the electrode stack (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 10. Zushi teaches wherein the through-hole comprises a plurality of through-holes, and the plurality of through-holes are formed at equal intervals along a longitudinal direction of the electrode stack (Fig. 3).
Re Claim 13. Zushi teaches wherein the through-hole is positioned at a center of the electrode stack with respect to a thickness direction (Z) thereof (Fig. 3).
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zushi.
Re Claims 8 and 9. Zushi teaches wherein the through-hole is formed in a circular shape (Fig. 3) having a diameter of 0.1 mm to 8 mm (P5).
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] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP § 2144.05, I.
Re Claims 11 and 12. Zushi teaches wherein the through-hole comprises a plurality of through-holes (Fig. 3) but fails to specifically teach that the plurality of through-holes are formed at intervals (d) of 3 cm to 7 cm/4 cm to 6 cm along a longitudinal direction of the electrode stack.
However, Zushi teaches that interval between the two adjacent holes are selected for the electrolyte solution to quickly pass and sufficiently suppress the occurrence of tape breakage during winding operation of the tape. Therefore, one would perform routine experimentation to find optimum intervals of the plurality of through-holes.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05, II.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zushi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (KR 10-2019-0071129 A, hereinafter Lee, cited by applicant).
The teachings of Zushi have been discussed above.
Zushi fails to specifically teach that the outer tape is so attached to the electrode stack as to surround the entire side surface thereof with respect to a longitudinal direction (L) thereof.
The invention of Lee encompasses electrode assembly. Lee teaches that the outer tape (Fig. 1 & 2, item 120) is so attached to the electrode stack (item 110) as to surround the entire side surface thereof with respect to a longitudinal direction (L) thereof.
In view of Lee, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zushi to attach the outer tape to surround the entire side surface of the electrode stack with respect to a longitudinal direction (L) thereof, since it would increase the anti-deformation strength.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zushi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jang et al. (US 2019/0067668 A1, hereinafter Jang).
Zushi further teaches wherein in the electrode stack, the one of the two short sides are sides in which electrode tabs are present (Fig. 3), and the two long sides are sides in which electrode tabs are not present (Fig. 3), but fails to specifically teach that the two short sides are sides in which electrode tabs are present.
The invention of Jang encompasses secondary battery. Jang teaches that wherein in the electrode stack (Fig. 3, item 110) the two short sides are sides in which electrode tabs (items 111 & 112) are present.
In view of Jang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Zushi to put electrode tabs on the two short sides, rather than one short side, since it is a simple design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
12/8/2025