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 .
Status of Claims
This is a final office action for application 18/191,926 in response to the amendment(s) filed on 01/16/2026. Claims 1-20 are under examination.
Withdrawn Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s), specification, and/or drawing(s) filed 01/16/2026 is acknowledged and the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but were not found persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record for the reasons set forth below. See claims 1-20 rejections below.
Applicant argues “claim 5 is not a substantial duplicate of claim 4 because claim 5 recites a narrower sub-range than claim 4” (see e.g. page 11 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully agrees. Claim 4 recites a broader range while claim 5 recites a narrower range encompassed within the broader range, and therefore the claims are of different scope. Accordingly, claim 5 is not considered a substantial duplicate of claim 4. The objection under 37 CFR 1.75 is therefore withdrawn.
Applicant argues “Ishikawa fails to teach the claimed first structural portion extending beyond the first electrode plate and the corresponding separator protruding and bonding configuration” (see e.g. pages 14-16 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ishikawa discloses electrode plates and separator layers arranged such that separator portions extend beyond electrode end portions and are bonded at outer edges to form a bag-like or envelope structure (see e.g. paragraphs [0151]–[0152] and FIGs. 6A, 8A, and 8B). Ishikawa further discloses electrode configurations including electrode tab portions or electrode portions extending relative to other electrode plates (see e.g. paragraph [0106] and FIG. 4). When the separator protruding and bonding structure disclosed in Ishikawa is used together with the electrode offset or extending electrode portions also disclosed in Ishikawa, the extended electrode portion would be located between separator protruding portions and the bonded separator portions would extend beyond the electrode structural portion as claimed. Therefore, Ishikawa teaches or at least renders obvious the claimed structural relationship between the electrode structural portion, separator protruding portions, and bonded areas. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Ishikawa’s tab region does not satisfy the claimed configuration and Ishikawa instead shows electrode end portions flush with one another and separators forming a bag-like structure” (see e.g. page 15 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Anticipation and obviousness analyses require that the reference be considered as a whole and are not limited to a single embodiment or figure. Ishikawa discloses separator protruding portions bonded outside electrode end portions and also discloses electrode tab or extending electrode structures. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the separator bonding structure would be used with various electrode configurations disclosed in Ishikawa, including electrode structures having extending portions. The resulting structure would include separator protruding portions extending beyond electrode portions and bonded together beyond those electrode portions, which corresponds to the claimed bonding areas extending beyond the structural portion. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Ishikawa does not disclose the first structural portion being sandwiched between the fifth protruding portion and the fourth protruding portion” (see e.g. page 15 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ishikawa discloses separator layers that sandwich an electrode and extend beyond electrode edges, and further discloses bonding outer separator edges beyond the electrode edges. When an electrode plate includes a portion extending beyond another electrode plate as disclosed in Ishikawa, that extended portion would necessarily be positioned between opposing separator protruding portions prior to bonding. Thus, the extended electrode portion would expectedly be sandwiched between separator protruding portions as claimed. The bonding areas formed outside the electrode edges correspond to the claimed bonding areas extending beyond the structural portion. Therefore, the claimed sandwich configuration is taught or at least rendered obvious by Ishikawa. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Ishikawa does not disclose bonding between a third bonding area and a fourth bonding area and only discloses bonding outer edges of the same folded separator” (see e.g. pages 19-20 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ishikawa discloses bonding outer separator edges to form an envelope structure surrounding electrode plates. Such bonding expectedly creates bonded areas between separator portions extending beyond electrode plates. The claimed third bonding area and fourth bonding area correspond to bonded separator portions extending beyond electrode plates as disclosed in Ishikawa. Additionally, Kim discloses bonding separator layers using heat and pressure, which teaches bonding between adjacent separator portions. Therefore, the combination of Ishikawa and Kim teaches or suggests bonding between separator bonding areas extending beyond electrode plates. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Kim does not disclose adhesion force defined per unit length and the Office Action improperly relied on Applicant’s dimensions to calculate adhesion force” (see e.g. page 21 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim discloses bonding separator layers using heat and pressure and provides bonding pressure values. Adhesion force per unit length is an expected property resulting from bonding separator layers using known bonding pressures and bonding widths. Determining adhesion force per unit length based on bonding pressure and bonded width would have been within the ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, adhesion strength is a result-effective variable in separator bonding structures, and it would have been obvious to adjust bonding pressure, bonding width, or bonding temperature to achieve sufficient bonding strength without damaging the separator layers, thereby arriving at adhesion values within the claimed range. Therefore, the claimed adhesion force limitation would have been obvious. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues “there is no substantial evidence or motivation to combine Ishikawa with Kojima, Kim, and/or Hennige and the rejection relies on improper hindsight” (see e.g. page 22 of applicant’s argument):
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The cited references are all directed to electrochemical devices and electrode/separator structures and address similar problems including insulation, sealing reliability, electrode protection, and prevention of short circuits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine separator bonding techniques, electrode extension structures, and separator material properties from the cited references to improve electrochemical device reliability and performance. The proposed combinations involve the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and do not require impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Therefore, a proper motivation to combine exists. For the above reason, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In conclusion, the arguments and amendments filed were not found to be persuasive over the previous prior art rejection of record. The rejections of the claims have been updated to reflect the amendments where appropriate. See claims 1-20 rejections below.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US-20180233780-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus (see e.g. "thin storage battery" in paragraph [0449] and FIG. 38), comprising: an electrode assembly (see e.g. FIG. 38); wherein the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate (see e.g. "positive electrodes" in paragraph [0449] and part number 503 in FIG. 38), a first separation layer (see e.g. "separator" in paragraph [0450] and part number 507 in FIG. 38; the first separation layer is the top of part number 507), a second electrode plate (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0449] and part number 506 in FIG. 38), and a second separation layer see e.g. "separator" in paragraph [0450] and part number 507 in FIG. 38; the second separation layer is the bottom of part number 507); the first separation layer is located between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (see e.g. top portion of part number 507 in FIG. 38), and the second electrode plate is located between the first separation layer and the second separation layer (see e.g. part number 506 in FIG. 38); along a first direction, the first separation layer comprises a first protruding portion extending beyond the second electrode plate (see e.g. " An end portion of the separator 507 was provided to be positioned outward from end portions of the positive electrode 503 and the negative electrode 506." in paragraph [0450] and end portion of part number 507 in FIG. 38), and the second separation layer comprises a second protruding portion extending beyond the second electrode plate (see e.g. " An end portion of the separator 507 was provided to be positioned outward from end portions of the positive electrode 503 and the negative electrode 506." in paragraph [0450] and end portion of part number 507 in FIG. 38); and the first protruding portion comprises a first bonding area (see e.g. "the outer edges of the separator 507 outside the positive electrode 503 are preferably bonded so that the separator 507 has a bag-like shape (or an envelope-like shape)." in paragraph [0152] and part number 514 in FIG. 8A), the second protruding portion comprises a second bonding area (or an envelope-like shape). " in paragraph [0152] and part number 514 in FIG. 8A).
Ishikawa does not disclose the adhesion force of the bonded separators and thus does not disclose that an adhesion between the first bonding area and the second bonding area is F1, wherein F1 ≥ 5 N/m. Ishikawa, however, discloses that the bonding of the separators can be performed with the use of an adhesive, ultrasonic welding, or by thermal fusion bonding (see e.g. paragraph [0152]). Furthermore, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus with no compositional or structural distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the adhesion between the first bonding area and the second bonding area would expectedly be ≥ 5 N/m and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Ishikawa further discloses that along the first direction, the second electrode plate comprises a first structural portion extending beyond the first electrode plate (see e.g. "For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the end portion of the negative electrode 506 is preferably located inward from the end portion of the positive electrode 503." in paragraph [0106] and FIG. 4 and the annotated figure below), the first separation layer comprises a fifth protruding portion extending beyond the first electrode plate, and the fifth protruding portion comprises the first protruding portion (see e.g. annotated figure below); the second separation layer comprises a fourth protruding portion, wherein the fourth protruding portion comprises the second protruding portion and a part of the second separation layer located on a surface of the first structural portion (see e.g. annotated figure below); wherein the first bonding area is a portion of the first protruding portion that extends beyond the first structural portion (see e.g. annotated figure below), and the second bonding area is a portion of the second protruding portion that extends beyond the first structural portion (see e.g. annotated figure below), the first bonding area and the second bonding area are bonded together (see e.g. "the outer edges of the separator 507 outside the positive electrode 503 are preferably bonded" in paragraph [0152] and annotated figure below).
Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose that the first structural portion is sandwiched between the fifth protruding portion and the fourth protruding portion in a single embodiment. However, Ishikawa discloses (i) separator layers having protruding portions extending beyond electrode end portions and bonded at outer edges (see e.g. FIG. 6A), and (ii) electrode configurations in which one electrode extends relative to the other (see e.g. paragraph [0106] and FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because both relate to electrode alignment and separator configuration in a power storage device. Combining the known separator protrusion and bonding structure with the known electrode offset structure would have predictably resulted in an arrangement in which the extended electrode portion is disposed between opposing separator portions, thereby improving insulation, preventing short circuiting at electrode edges, and enhancing sealing reliability. Such a combination merely involves the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Accordingly, when the separator protrusions of Ishikawa are applied to the electrode offset configuration, the extended portion of the electrode would necessarily be positioned between opposing protruding portions of the separator, with bonding occurring at
PNG
media_image1.png
640
1525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
regions extending beyond the electrode edges, as claimed.
(Ishikawa, figures 6A and 4, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 2, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Ishikawa is silent as to the length of the bonding area or protruding portion and thus does not explicitly disclose that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.1 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 1.
However, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus that has no structural or compositional distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the property that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.1 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 1 would be expectedly disclosed by Ishikawa and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 3, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Ishikawa is silent as to the length of the bonding area or protruding portion and thus does not explicitly disclose that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.5 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 0.75.
However, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus that has no structural or compositional distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the property that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.5 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 0.75 would be expectedly disclosed by Ishikawa and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Ishikawa further discloses that the electrode assembly is in a stacked structure (see e.g. FIG. 6A), and the electrode assembly further comprises a third separation layer (see e.g. annotated figure below) and a third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), wherein the second separation layer is located between the second electrode plate and the third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), and the third electrode plate is located between the second separation layer and the third separation layer (see e.g. annotated figure below); and along the first direction, the third separation layer comprises a third protruding portion extending beyond the third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), the second separation layer comprises a fourth protruding portion extending beyond the third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), the third protruding portion comprises a third bonding area (see e.g. annotated figure below), and the fourth protruding portion comprises a fourth bonding area (see e.g. annotated figure below), wherein the third bonding area is bonded with the fourth bonding area (see e.g. "Here, the outer edges of the separator 507 outside the positive electrode 503 are preferably bonded so that the separator 507 has a bag-like shape (or an envelope-like shape). The bonding of the outer edges of the separator 507 can be performed with the use of an adhesive or the like, by ultrasonic welding, or by thermal fusion bonding." in paragraph [0152]).
PNG
media_image2.png
596
944
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Ishikawa, figure 8B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 7, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose the adhesion force of the bonded separators and thus does not disclose that an adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area is F2, wherein F2 < 5 N/m. Ishikawa, however, discloses that the bonding of the separators can be performed with the use of an adhesive, ultrasonic welding, or by thermal fusion bonding (see e.g. paragraph [0152]). Furthermore, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus with no compositional or structural distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area would expectedly be < 5 N/m and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 8, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus according to claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose the adhesion force of the bonded separators and thus does not disclose that an adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area is F2, wherein F2 ≤ 2 N/m. Ishikawa, however, discloses that the bonding of the separators can be performed with the use of an adhesive, ultrasonic welding, or by thermal fusion bonding (see e.g. paragraph [0152]). Furthermore, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus with no compositional or structural distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area would expectedly be ≤ 2 N/m and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 9, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa further discloses that the first electrode plate and the third electrode plate are positive electrode plates (see e.g. part number 503 in FIG. 6A), and the second electrode plate is a negative electrode plate (see e.g. part number 506 in FIG. 6A).
Regarding Claim 10, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 9 (see e.g. claim 9 rejection above).
Ishikawa further discloses that along the first direction, the second electrode plate comprises the first structural portion extending beyond the third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), and the fourth bonding area is located on a surface of the first structural portion (see e.g. annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
499
931
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Ishikawa, figure 8B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 11, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 10 (see e.g. claim 10 rejection above).
Ishikawa further discloses that along the first direction, the second separation layer comprises a first area located on a surface of the third electrode plate (see e.g. FIG. 8B and annotated figure below; this is the area where the second separation layer comes in contact with the third electrode plate) and a second area located on the surface of the first structural portion (se e.g. annotated figure below).
Ishikawa is silent as to the thickness of these areas and thus does not disclose that a thickness of the first area is H1, a thickness of the second area is H2, and a thickness of the third electrode plate is H3, wherein 1/2 ≤ (H2 - H1)/H3 ≤ 3/2.
Ishikawa, however, discloses an electrochemical apparatus that has not compositional or structural distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed by the instant application. Therefore, the property that a thickness of the first area is H1, a thickness of the second area is H2, and a thickness of the third electrode plate is H3, wherein 1/2 ≤ (H2 - H1)/H3 ≤ 3/2 would be expected and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
PNG
media_image4.png
522
803
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Ishikawa, figure 8B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa is silent as to the properties of the separation layer and thus does not disclose that a porosity of each of the first separation layer, the second separation layer, and the third separation layer is independently a, an aperture of each is independently ϕ, a thickness of each is independently H, and at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(a) 30% ≤ α ≤ 95%;
(b) 10 nm ≤ ϕ ≤ 5 µm;
(c) 1 µm ≤ H ≤ 20 µm
Ishikawa, however, discloses an electrochemical apparatus that has not compositional or structural distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed by the instant application. Therefore, the properties of the separation layer wherein a porosity of each of the first separation layer, the second separation layer, and the third separation layer is independently a, an aperture of each is independently ϕ, a thickness of each is independently H, and at least one of the following conditions is satisfied; (a) 30% ≤ α ≤ 95%; (b) 10 nm ≤ ϕ ≤ 5 µm; (c) 1 µm ≤ H ≤ 20 µm would be expected and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 16, Ishikawa discloses an electrical device (see e.g. "vehicle" in paragraph [0374] and FIG. 24), comprising an electrochemical apparatus (see e.g. "a vehicle using one embodiment of the present invention." in paragraph [0374]), wherein the electrochemical apparatus comprises an electrode assembly (see e.g. FIG. 38); wherein the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate (see e.g. "positive electrodes" in paragraph [0449] and part number 503 in FIG. 38), a first separation layer (see e.g. "separator" in paragraph [0450] and part number 507 in FIG. 38; the first separation layer is the top of part number 507), a second electrode plate (see e.g. "negative electrode" in paragraph [0449] and part number 506 in FIG. 38), and a second separation layer see e.g. "separator" in paragraph [0450] and part number 507 in FIG. 38; the second separation layer is the bottom of part number 507); the first separation layer is located between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (see e.g. top portion of part number 507 in FIG. 38), and the second electrode plate is located between the first separation layer and the second separation layer (see e.g. part number 506 in FIG. 38); along a first direction, the first separation layer comprises a first protruding portion extending beyond the second electrode plate (see e.g. " An end portion of the separator 507 was provided to be positioned outward from end portions of the positive electrode 503 and the negative electrode 506." in paragraph [0450] and end portion of part number 507 in FIG. 38), and the second separation layer comprises a second protruding portion extending beyond the second electrode plate (see e.g. " An end portion of the separator 507 was provided to be positioned outward from end portions of the positive electrode 503 and the negative electrode 506." in paragraph [0450] and end portion of part number 507 in FIG. 38); and the first protruding portion comprises a first bonding area (see e.g. "the outer edges of the separator 507 outside the positive electrode 503 are preferably bonded so that the separator 507 has a bag-like shape (or an envelope-like shape). " in paragraph [0152] and part number 514 in FIG. 8A), the second protruding portion comprises a second bonding area (or an envelope-like shape). " in paragraph [0152] and part number 514 in FIG. 8A).
Ishikawa does not disclose the adhesion force of the bonded separators and thus does not disclose that an adhesion between the first bonding area and the second bonding area is F1, wherein F1 ≥ 5 N/m. Ishikawa, however, discloses that the bonding of the separators can be performed with the use of an adhesive, ultrasonic welding, or by thermal fusion bonding (see e.g. paragraph [0152]). Furthermore, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus with no compositional or structural distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the adhesion between the first bonding area and the second bonding area would expectedly be ≥ 5 N/m and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Ishikawa further discloses that along the first direction, the second electrode plate comprises a first structural portion extending beyond the first electrode plate (see e.g. "For example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the end portion of the negative electrode 506 is preferably located inward from the end portion of the positive electrode 503." in paragraph [0106] and FIG. 4 and the annotated figure below), the first separation layer comprises a fifth protruding portion extending beyond the first electrode plate, and the fifth protruding portion comprises the first protruding portion (see e.g. annotated figure below); the second separation layer comprises a fourth protruding portion, wherein the fourth protruding portion comprises the second protruding portion and a part of the second separation layer located on a surface of the first structural portion (see e.g. annotated figure below); wherein the first bonding area is a portion of the first protruding portion that extends beyond the first structural portion (see e.g. annotated figure below), and the second bonding area is a portion of the second protruding portion that extends beyond the first structural portion (see e.g. annotated figure below), the first bonding area and the second bonding area are bonded together (see e.g. "the outer edges of the separator 507 outside the positive electrode 503 are preferably bonded" in paragraph [0152] and annotated figure below).
Ishikawa does not explicitly disclose that the first structural portion is sandwiched between the fifth protruding portion and the fourth protruding portion in a single embodiment. However, Ishikawa discloses (i) separator layers having protruding portions extending beyond electrode end portions and bonded at outer edges (see e.g. FIG. 6A), and (ii) electrode configurations in which one electrode extends relative to the other (see e.g. paragraph [0106] and FIG. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because both relate to electrode alignment and separator configuration in a power storage device. Combining the known separator protrusion and bonding structure with the known electrode offset structure would have predictably resulted in an arrangement in which the extended electrode portion is disposed between opposing separator portions, thereby improving insulation, preventing short circuiting at electrode edges, and enhancing sealing reliability. Such a combination merely involves the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Accordingly, when the separator protrusions of Ishikawa are applied to the electrode offset configuration, the extended portion of the electrode would necessarily be positioned between opposing protruding portions of the separator, with bonding occurring at
PNG
media_image1.png
640
1525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
regions extending beyond the electrode edges, as claimed.
(Ishikawa, figures 6A and 4, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 17, Ishikawa discloses the electrical device of claim 16 (see e.g. claim 16 rejection above).
Ishikawa is silent as to the length of the bonding area or protruding portion and thus does not explicitly disclose that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.1 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 1.
However, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus that has no structural or compositional distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the property that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.1 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 1 would be expectedly disclosed by Ishikawa and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 18, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 16 (see e.g. claim 16 rejection above).
Ishikawa further discloses that the electrode assembly is in a stacked structure (see e.g. FIG. 6A), and the electrode assembly further comprises a third separation layer (see e.g. annotated figure below) and a third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), wherein the second separation layer is located between the second electrode plate and the third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), and the third electrode plate is located between the second separation layer and the third separation layer (see e.g. annotated figure below); and along the first direction, the third separation layer comprises a third protruding portion extending beyond the third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), the second separation layer comprises a fourth protruding portion extending beyond the third electrode plate (see e.g. annotated figure below), the third protruding portion comprises a third bonding area (see e.g. annotated figure below), and the fourth protruding portion comprises a fourth bonding area (see e.g. annotated figure below), wherein the third bonding area is bonded with the fourth bonding area (see e.g. "Here, the outer edges of the separator 507 outside the positive electrode 503 are preferably bonded so that the separator 507 has a bag-like shape (or an envelope-like shape). The bonding of the outer edges of the separator 507 can be performed with the use of an adhesive or the like, by ultrasonic welding, or by thermal fusion bonding." in paragraph [0152]).
PNG
media_image5.png
600
929
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Ishikawa, figure 8B, annotated for illustration)
Regarding Claim 19, Ishikawa discloses the electrical device of claim 18 (see e.g. claim 18 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose the adhesion force of the bonded separators and thus does not disclose that an adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area is F2, wherein F2 < 5 N/m. Ishikawa, however, discloses that the bonding of the separators can be performed with the use of an adhesive, ultrasonic welding, or by thermal fusion bonding (see e.g. paragraph [0152]). Furthermore, Ishikawa discloses an electrochemical apparatus with no compositional or structural distinction to the electrochemical apparatus claimed in the instant application. Therefore, the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area would expectedly be < 5 N/m and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2112 (III) and MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 20, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 18 (see e.g. claim 18 rejection above).
Ishikawa further discloses that the first electrode plate and the third electrode plate are positive electrode plates (see e.g. part number 503 in FIG. 6A), and the second electrode plate is a negative electrode plate (see e.g. part number 506 in FIG. 6A).
Claims 2-5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US-20180233780-A1) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Kojima (US-20120301791-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose the length of the separator protrusion or the bonding area and thus does not disclose that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.1 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 1.
Kojima, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrochemical apparatus with protruded and fused separators, discloses that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein L1/L2 = 0.66 (see e.g. "the fusion bonded portions and the fusion seal portion, along the side on which the electrode draw-out portion was formed, were formed at positions that retreated by 2 mm from the edge so that the separator protrusion portion having a length of 2 mm was formed" and "The effective length of the separator protrusion portion was 4 mm" in paragraph [0055] of Kojima; bonding area = 2 mm, protruding portion = 4 mm… 2/4 = 0.50).
Kojima discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kojima further teaches that this electrochemical apparatus is a laminated secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even if the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Kojima). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the length of the bonding area and first protruding portion of Ishikawa et al such that a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein L1/L2 = 0.66 as taught by Kojima in order to have a secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even when the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin as suggested by Kojima.
Regarding Claim 3, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 1 (see e.g. claim 1 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose the length of the separator protrusion or the bonding area and thus does not disclose that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.5 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 0.75.
Kojima, however, discloses that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein L1/L2 = 0.66 (see e.g. "the fusion bonded portions and the fusion seal portion, along the side on which the electrode draw-out portion was formed, were formed at positions that retreated by 2 mm from the edge so that the separator protrusion portion having a length of 2 mm was formed" and "The effective length of the separator protrusion portion was 4 mm" in paragraph [0055] of Kojima; bonding area = 2 mm, protruding portion = 4 mm… 2/4 = 0.50).
Kojima discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kojima further teaches that this electrochemical apparatus is a laminated secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even if the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Kojima). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the length of the bonding area and first protruding portion of Ishikawa et al such that a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein L1/L2 = 0.66 as taught by Kojima in order to have a secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even when the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin as suggested by Kojima.
Regarding Claim 4, Ishikawa in view of Kojima discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Ishikawa is silent as to the width of the first bonding area and thus does not disclose that a width of the first bonding area is 0.5 mm to 20 mm.
Kojima, however, discloses a first bonding area that is 2 mm (see e.g. "the fusion bonded portions and the fusion seal portion, along the side on which the electrode draw-out portion was formed, were formed at positions that retreated by 2 mm" in paragraph [0055] of Kojima).
Kojima discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kojima further teaches that this electrochemical apparatus is a laminated secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even if the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Kojima). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bonding area of Ishikawa et al. such it is 2 mm as taught by Kojima in order to have a secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even when the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin as suggested by Kojima. Regarding Claim 5, Ishikawa in view of Kojima discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 2 (see e.g. claim 2 rejection above).
Ishikawa is silent as to the width of the first bonding area and thus does not disclose that a width of the first bonding area is 0.5 mm to 20 mm.
Kojima, however, discloses a first bonding area that is 2 mm (see e.g. "the fusion bonded portions and the fusion seal portion, along the side on which the electrode draw-out portion was formed, were formed at positions that retreated by 2 mm" in paragraph [0055] of Kojima).
Kojima discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kojima further teaches that this electrochemical apparatus is a laminated secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even if the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Kojima). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the bonding area of Ishikawa et al. such it is 2 mm as taught by Kojima in order to have a secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even when the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin as suggested by Kojima.
Regarding Claim 17, Ishikawa discloses the electrical device of claim 16 (see e.g. claim 16 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose the length of the separator protrusion or the bonding area and thus does not disclose that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein 0.1 ≤ L1/L2 ≤ 1.
Kojima, however, discloses that along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction, a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein L1/L2 = 0.66 (see e.g. "the fusion bonded portions and the fusion seal portion, along the side on which the electrode draw-out portion was formed, were formed at positions that retreated by 2 mm from the edge so that the separator protrusion portion having a length of 2 mm was formed" and "The effective length of the separator protrusion portion was 4 mm" in paragraph [0055] of Kojima; bonding area = 2 mm, protruding portion = 4 mm… 2/4 = 0.50).
Kojima discloses a point that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kojima further teaches that this electrochemical apparatus is a laminated secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even if the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin (see e.g. paragraph [0025] of Kojima). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the length of the bonding area and first protruding portion of Ishikawa et al such that a length of the first bonding area is L1, and a length of the first protruding portion is L2, wherein L1/L2 = 0.66 as taught by Kojima in order to have a secondary battery in which short circuit does not occur even when the electrode sheet is not covered with an insulating resin as suggested by Kojima.
Claims 7-8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US-20180233780-A1) as applied to claims 6 and 18 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US-20140363729-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose that the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area is F2, wherein F2 < 5 N/m.
Kim, however, in the same field of endeavor, electrochemical apparatus with fused protruded separator discloses an adhesion between bonding areas of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 (see e.g. "The fused portions may be formed by applying a heat of 50° C. to 100° C. and a pressure of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 to the edges of the upper separator and the edges of the lower separator." in paragraph [0017] of Kim). Kim does not disclose the width of the fused portion thus it is not possible to convert this adhesion to N/m. The instant specification, however, discloses a bonding area of 0.5 mm (see e.g. paragraph [0099] of the instant specification). Therefore, it is possible to convert the adhesion force in N/m to gf/cm2. This can be done by first converting N/m to N/m2:
5 N/m / 0.0005 m = 10,000 N/m2
Next N/m2 can be converted to gf/cm2 as follows:
1 gf/cm2 = 98.0665 N/m2
10,000 N/m2 * 1 gf/cm2 / 98.0665 N/m2 = 101.97 gf/cm2
The adhesion range of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 < 101.97 gf/cm2.
Kim discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim further teaches that this range is used to achieve ease of attachment at the edges of the separator as well as the ease of finishing the electrode assembly (see e.g. paragraph [0058] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area of Ishikawa et al. such that it is 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 as taught by Kim et al. in order to achieve ease of attachment at the edge of the separators as suggested by Kim.
Regarding Claim 8, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose that the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area is F2, wherein F2 ≤ 5 N/m.
Kim, however, discloses an adhesion between bonding areas of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 (see e.g. "The fused portions may be formed by applying a heat of 50° C. to 100° C. and a pressure of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 to the edges of the upper separator and the edges of the lower separator." in paragraph [0017] of Kim). Kim does not disclose the width of the fused portion thus it is not possible to convert this adhesion to N/m. The instant specification, however, discloses a bonding area of 0.5 mm (see e.g. paragraph [0099] of the instant specification). Therefore, it is possible to convert the adhesion force in N/m to gf/cm2. This can be done by first converting N/m to N/m2:
2 N/m / 0.0005 m = 4,000 N/m2
Next N/m2 can be converted to gf/cm2 as follows:
1 gf/cm2 = 98.0665 N/m2
4,000 N/m2 * 1 gf/cm2 / 98.0665 N/m2 = 40.79 gf/cm2
The adhesion range of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 < 40.79 gf/cm2.
Kim discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim further teaches that this range is used to achieve ease of attachment at the edges of the separator as well as the ease of finishing the electrode assembly (see e.g. paragraph [0058] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area of Ishikawa et al. such that it is 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 as taught by Kim et al. in order to achieve ease of attachment at the edge of the separators as suggested by Kim. Regarding Claim 19, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 18 (see e.g. claim 18 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose that the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area is F2, wherein F2 < 5 N/m.
Kim, however, discloses an adhesion between bonding areas of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 (see e.g. "The fused portions may be formed by applying a heat of 50° C. to 100° C. and a pressure of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 to the edges of the upper separator and the edges of the lower separator." in paragraph [0017] of Kim). Kim does not disclose the width of the fused portion thus it is not possible to convert this adhesion to N/m. The instant specification, however, discloses a bonding area of 0.5 mm (see e.g. paragraph [0099] of the instant specification). Therefore, it is possible to convert the adhesion force in N/m to gf/cm2. This can be done by first converting N/m to N/m2:
5 N/m / 0.0005 m = 10,000 N/m2
Next N/m2 can be converted to gf/cm2 as follows:
1 gf/cm2 = 98.0665 N/m2
10,000 N/m2 * 1 gf/cm2 / 98.0665 N/m2 = 101.97 gf/cm2
The adhesion range of 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 < 101.97 gf/cm2.
Kim discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Kim further teaches that this range is used to achieve ease of attachment at the edges of the separator as well as the ease of finishing the electrode assembly (see e.g. paragraph [0058] of Kim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the adhesion between the third bonding area and the fourth bonding area of Ishikawa et al. such that it is 10 gf/cm2 to 20 gf/cm2 as taught by Kim et al. in order to achieve ease of attachment at the edge of the separators as suggested by Kim.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa et al. (US-20180233780-A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hennige et al. (US-20060166085-A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose that a porosity of each of the first separation layer, the second separation layer, and the third separation layer is independently α, an aperture of each is independently ϕ, a thickness of each is independently H, and at least one of the following conditions is satisfied:
(a) 30% ≤ α ≤ 95%
(b) 10 nm ≤ ϕ ≤ 5 µm
(c) 1 µm ≤ H ≤ 20 µm
Hennige, however, in the same field of endeavor, separator layers for batteries, discloses a separator layer with a thickness of 10 µm ≤ H ≤ 20 µm (see e.g. "With particular preference the separator of the invention comprises a substrate, preferably a nonwoven, which has a thickness of less than 20 μm, preferably a thickness of from 10 to 20 μm." in paragraph [0031] of Hennige).
Hennige discloses a range that lies within the range claimed by the instant application. In the case where the prior art discloses a range within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Hennige further teaches that separators of this type have an increased packing density in a battery stack, so that a large amount of energy can be stored in the same volume (see e.g. paragraph [0034] of Hennige). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the separator layers of Ishikawa et al. such that the separator layers have a thickness of 10 µm ≤ H ≤ 20 µm as taught by Hennige et al. in order to have increased packing density in the stack as suggested by Hennige.
Regarding Claim 13, Ishikawa discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 6 (see e.g. claim 6 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose that at least one of the first separation layer, the second separation layer, and the third separation layer comprises polymer fibers, and further particles, wherein the particles comprise at least one of inorganic substance or organic substance.
Hennige, however, discloses a separation layer (see e.g. "The separator of the invention for high power lithium batteries, based on a sheetlike flexible substrate provided with a multiplicity of openings and having a porous inorganic electrically insulating coating on and in said substrate" in paragraph [0028]) that polymer fibers (see e.g. "The material of the substrate may be selected from loop-formed knits, felts or nonwovens of polymer fibers" in paragraph [0030]), and further particles, wherein the particles comprise at least one of inorganic substance (see e.g. "Preferably, the porous inorganic coating on and in the nonwoven comprises oxide particles of the elements Al, Si and/or Zr. " in paragraph [0035]).
Hennige further teaches that separators of this type have an increased packing density in a battery stack, so that a large amount of energy can be stored in the same volume (see e.g. paragraph [0034] of Hennige). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify separation layers of Ishikawa et al. such that they are made of polymer fibers as taught by Hennige et al. in order to have increased packing density in the stack as suggested by Hennige.
Regarding Claim 14, Ishikawa in view of Hennige discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose that at least one of the first separation layer, the second separation layer, and the third separation layer comprises a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer, wherein the first layer comprises the polymer fibers, and the second layer comprises the particles.
Hennige, however, discloses a separator layer that comprises a first layer and a second layer disposed on the first layer, wherein the first layer comprises the polymer fibers, and the second layer comprises the particles (see e.g. "a separator for high power lithium batteries, based on a sheetlike flexible substrate having a multiplicity of openings and having a porous inorganic electrically insulating coating on and in said substrate, said coating closing the openings in the substrate, the material of said substrate being selected from non-woven electrically nonconductive polymeric fibers and said inorganic electrically insulating coating comprising particles" in paragraph [0018] of Hennige).
Hennige further teaches that separators of this type have an increased packing density in a battery stack, so that a large amount of energy can be stored in the same volume (see e.g. paragraph [0034] of Hennige). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify separation layers of Ishikawa et al. such that they are made of polymer fibers as taught by Hennige et al. in order to have increased packing density in the stack as suggested by Hennige.
Regarding Claim 15, Ishikawa in view of Hennige discloses the electrochemical apparatus of claim 13 (see e.g. claim 13 rejection above).
Ishikawa does not disclose that the polymer fibers comprise at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyimide, polyamide, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene glycol, polyethylene oxide, polyphenylene oxide, polypropylene carbonate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene glycol terephthalate, poly(vinylidene fluoride- hexafluoropropylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-chlorotrifluoroethylene), or derivatives thereof, the inorganic substance comprises at least one of hafnium oxide, strontium titanate, tin dioxide, cesium oxide, magnesium oxide, nickel oxide, calcium oxide, barium oxide, zinc oxide, zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, aluminum oxide, titanium oxide, silicon dioxide, alumina hydrate, magnesium hydroxide, aluminum hydroxide, lithium phosphate, lithium titanium phosphate, lithium aluminum titanium phosphate, lithium lanthanum titanate, lithium germanium thiophosphate, lithium nitride, SiS2 glass, P2S5 glass, lithium oxide, lithium fluoride, lithium hydroxide, lithium carbonate, lithium meta aluminate, lithium germanium phosphorous sulfur ceramics, or garnet ceramics; and the organic substance comprises at least one of polyvinylidene fluoride, polyimide, polyamide, polyacrylonitrile, polyethylene glycol, polyethylene oxide, polyphenylene oxide, polypropylene carbonate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene glycol terephthalate, poly(vinylidene fluoride- hexafluoropropylene), poly(vinylidene fluoride-chlorotrifluoroethylene), or derivatives thereof.
Hennige, however, discloses that the polymer fiber comprises polyacrylonitrile (see e.g. " separator having insulating properties to be obtainable the polymeric fibers for its nonwoven comprise electrically nonconductive fibers of polymers which are preferably selected from polyacrylonitrile (PAN)" in paragraph [0033] of Hennige), the inorganic substance comprises at least one of aluminum oxide,(see e.g. " the porous inorganic coating on and in the nonwoven comprises oxide particles of the elements Al" in paragraph [0035] of Hennige).
Hennige further teaches that separators of this type have an increased packing density in a battery stack, so that a large amount of energy can be stored in the same volume (see e.g. paragraph [0034] of Hennige). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify separation layers of Ishikawa et al. such that they are made of polymer fibers that comprise polyacrylonitrile as taught by Hennige et al. in order to have increased packing density in the stack as suggested by Hennige.
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 JESSE EFYMOW whose telephone number is (571)270-0795. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10:30 am - 8:30 pm EST.
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, TONG GUO can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/J.J.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights