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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 06/18/2026 have been entered.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the 04/15/2026 Office action are overcome by the amendments and are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 5, filed 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 USC 102 and 103 relying on the Seong primary reference (US 20160043374 A1 as cited in the rejection of record) have been fully considered and are persuasive, specifically in light of the amendment now requiring “the shock absorbing portion is provided between and entirely within outer edges of separators arranged to face each other with the first electrode plate in between, and between and entirely within outer edges of separators arranged to face each other with the second electrode plate in between” which differentiates from the structure of Seong as seen in Seong Fig. 2. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made (below) in view of the updated search conducted in light of the instant amendments. Seong is still applicable as a secondary reference as used below, which is not for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments. Further, Jo (US 20170309871 A1, the previously cited secondary reference) was not specifically argued against and is still relied upon in the below grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 fails to further claim 2 and claim 1. Claim 1 already necessitates the shock absorbing portion to be “entirely within outer edges of separators” and “arranged entirely at the first side of the electrode assembly”, so it is unclear how the limitation of claim 3 “wherein the shock absorbing portion is located at an end of the separator” differs or adds additional limiting structure to claim 1 (i.e., is “an end” of said separator the same or different than said outer edge of separator at the first side?). Further, “the separator” in claim 3 is indefinite because previously a/the “plurality of separators” was introduced and referred to, so it is unclear which of said plurality is referenced by “the separator” of claim 3.
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.
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) 1-8, 10, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka et al. (US 2008/0131759 A1) in view of Jo et al. (US 2017/0309871, as cited in the previous rejection) and Seong (US 2016/0043374 A1, as cited in the previous rejection).
Regarding claim 1, Hosaka teaches a secondary battery (10, [0036]) comprising:
an electrode assembly (30, [0023] and Fig. 1A) including a plurality of first electrode plates (cathode 23 is formed by providing a cathode active material layer 22 on one side of a collector 21, [0023] and Fig. 1A), a plurality of second electrode plates (anode 25 is formed by providing an anode active material layer 24 on the opposite side of the collector 21, [0023] and Fig. 1A), and a plurality of separators each between a first electrode plate of the plurality of first electrode plates and a second electrode plate of the plurality of second electrode plates (porous separator 3 a segmenting the cathode 23 and the anode 25, [0024-0025] and Fig. 1A), respectively;
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (housing in an exterior case 40 the battery element 30, [0023] and Fig. 1A); and
a shock absorbing portion (a sealing member 36 is installed between the collector 21 and the separator 31a so as to surround the periphery of the unit cell layer 32, [0067]) on a first side of the electrode assembly (36 illustrated at least at right side of unit cell layers 32 within 30, Fig. 1A) to absorb shock (sealing member 36 … such as synthetic rubber, butyl rubber, etc.; [0067]),
wherein the shock absorbing portion is provided between and entirely within outer edges of separators arranged to face each other with the first electrode plate in between, and between and entirely within outer edges of separators arranged to face each other with the second electrode plate in between, respectively (segments of sealing member 36 shown in Fig. 1A to be entirely bounded within outer edges of separators 31a; see also [0067] regarding placement of 36 relative to 31a);
But Hosaka fails to teach:
the plurality of first electrode plates each comprising a first electrode substrate tab,
the plurality of second electrode plates each comprising a second electrode substrate tab, nor
wherein the shock absorbing portion is arranged entirely at the first side of the electrode assembly in a direction opposite to an arrangement direction in which the first electrode substrate tabs and the second electrode substrate tabs extend.
Hosaka does teach a second embodiment in Figs. 4-5 showing cathode and anode lead portions 51a and 52a both extending from the same side of electrode assembly 30, which is an alternate arrangement from what is shown in Fig. 1A, and provides basis for this also being a known configuration for both leads to extend from the same one side of the battery.
Jo is analogous in the art of secondary batteries (a pouch-type secondary battery, abstract) and teaches a plurality of first electrode plates (positive electrode plates 20, [0036-0037] and Fig. 2a) each comprising a first electrode substrate tab (positive electrode tabs 21, [0036-0037] and Fig. 1) and a plurality of second electrode plates (negative electrode plates 30, [0036-0037] and Fig. 2a) each comprising a second electrode substrate tab (negative electrode tabs 31, [0036] and Fig. 1). Jo [0036] teaches a known embodiment of a basic structure of an electrode assembly 100 has a structure in which unit cells are stacked in a repeated manner, each unit cell including a positive electrode plate, a separator, and a negative electrode plate, with each of the positive and negative electrode plates having their respective positive and negative electrode tabs which converge in a predetermined direction and are respectively joined to a positive electrode lead 25 and a negative electrode lead 35. Jo shows in Fig. 5 that the tabs can also converge in the same direction at one side of the electrode assembly 100, which is an alternate configuration from that shown in Fig. 1
It would have been obvious, at the time of filing, for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hosaka by substituting the electrode assembly of Jo for the electrode assembly of Hosaka – having the first and second electrode plates each with respective first and second electrode tabs that can converge at one side to be connected to their like-polarity first and second electrode leads – and expect predictable functionality within the laminated pouch casing of Hosaka ([0044]), similar to the pouch casing of Jo (abstract as cited above). The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a conclusion of obviousness per MPEP 2143 I (B).
Seong is also analogous in the art of secondary batteries (abstract) and pertinent to the problem of protecting the electrode assembly (Seong [0057], Hosaka [0067]). Seong teaches protection film 30 being a multilayer bonding/adhesive material, similar to the sealing member 36 of Hosaka (Seong [0059-0060], Hosaka [0067]). Seong teaches that this protection film 30 need only be applied at the one end of the electrode assembly 120, specifically the lower surface thereof (Seong [0057] and Figs. 1-2) which is opposite from the end at which both electrode tabs project (Seong Fig. 1).
Therefore, in view of Seong, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have further found it obvious to modify the Hosaka embodiment (in which the electrode tabs/leads protrude only from one side) so that the shock absorbing portion is arranged entirely at the first side of the electrode assembly (like that of Seong) in a direction opposite to an arrangement direction in which the first electrode substrate tabs and the second electrode substrate tabs extend, and still expect functional results of the shock absorbing portion to protect the electrode assembly. Rearrangement of parts is held to be an obvious matter of design choice within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Thereby, all limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches a size of a separator of the plurality of separators is larger than a size of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (31a longest portion in 30, Hosaka Fig. 1A; similarly, 40 is longer than 20 and 30 in Jo Fig. 1a as applied to modify Hosaka above).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches the shock absorbing portion is located at an end of the separator (36 at end of 31a in Hosaka Fig. 1A; 130 at end of 125 in Seong Fig. 2 as applied to modify Hosaka above).
Regarding claim 4, claim 6, and claim 7, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 3 above and teaches:
the shock absorbing portion comprises any of PP, PE, … and a rubber-based adhesive (base of 36 can be polypropylene (PP) or polyethylene (PE), while adhesive material of 36 can be synthetic rubber or butyl rubber; Hosaka [0067] – this meets instant claim 7);
Since claim 7 further limits claims 4 and 6 (such that materials listed in claim 7 satisfy limitations of claim 3 and 6), claims 4 and 6 are necessarily also met by the materials of Hosaka which meet claim 7, as cited above. Further regarding claim 6 limitations, Hosaka teaches in [0067] the adhesive material of 36 also having solvent resistance, which reads on “a non-reactive property that does not react with an electrolyte, and an adhesive property” as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 4 above and teaches the shock absorbing portion adheres (sealing member 36 is, for example, a double-face adhesive tape wherein an adhesive material is applied to both surfaces of a base; Hosaka [0067]) the end of the separator and an end of another separator of the plurality of separators (multiple 36 applied at ends of multiple 31a in stacking direction, Hosaka Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the electrode assembly is a stack-type electrode assembly (30 is stacked, Hosaka Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 2 above and teaches wherein the plurality of separators is at least larger than a size of the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate in a longitudinal direction of the separator (31a longest portion in 30, Hosaka Fig. 1A; similarly, 40 is longer than 20 and 30 in Jo Fig. 1a as applied to modify Hosaka above).
Regarding claim 12, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches the first electrode substrate tabs and the second electrode substrate tabs are arranged at one end in a longitudinal direction of the plurality of separators (embodiment of Hosaka Figs. 4-5 as modified in view of Jo Fig. 5 in regards to claim 1 rejection above to include electrode tabs from each respective electrode plate, wherein tabs 21 and 31 extend from the same one end direction of the electrode assembly beyond the separators therein).
Regarding claim 14, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 1 above and teaches further comprising a first lead terminal electrically connected to the first electrode substrate tabs, and a second lead terminal electrically connected to the second electrode substrate tabs (51a, 52a in Hosaka Fig. 5 connected to electrode assembly 30; as modified in regards to claim 1 rejection above to include tabs like the tabs 21, 31 electrically connected to leads 25, 35 of Jo – see Jo Figs. 1 and 5).
Regarding claim 15, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 14 above and teaches the first electrode substrate tabs are gathered to one side and welded to the first lead terminal (tabs 21 converge and are welded to lead 25, Jo [0036] and Jo Fig. 1 in view of Jo Fig. 5, as applied to modify the embodiment of Hosaka Figs. 4-5), and the second electrode substrate tabs are gathered to the one side and welded to the second lead terminal (tabs 31 converge and are welded to lead 35, Jo [0036] and Jo Fig. 1 in view of Jo Fig. 5, as applied to modify the embodiment of Hosaka Figs. 4-5.
Regarding claim 16, modified Hosaka teaches the limitations of claim 14 above but fails to yet teach a first insulating tape and a second insulating tape are attached to the first lead terminal and the second lead terminal, respectively.
However when modifying Hosaka in view of Jo above, it would have further been obvious to include a first insulating tape (like 23, Jo Fig. 1) and a second insulating tape (like 33, Jo Fig. 1) that were attached to the first lead terminal and the second lead terminal, respectively (23 on 25, 33 on 35; Jo Fig. 1), since Jo teaches that the electrode leads preferably have these insulation tapes to improve the adhesion of the pouch case (Jo [0083]). Since Hosaka also teaches the leads 51a, 52a (Hosaka Figs. 1A and 4) extending out from within an exterior case, and that such can be a laminate (Hosaka [0044-0046]), which reads on a pouch case, that is sealed via thermal fusion around the leads 51a, 52a (Hosaka [0046]), including the insulating tapes around the leads to improve sealing between the leads and case as taught toward by Jo would have been and obvious further modification to Hosaka.
Thereby, claim 16 is rendered obvious.
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 Jessie Walls-Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-1664. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, typically 10-4.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights