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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, the rejections are maintained for claim 4 (cancelled, now incorporated into claim 1) and modified and maintained for claims 14 and 17 and this action is FINAL. Specifically, applicant argues the prior art fails to obviate previous claim 4 and wherein a product of an area of the first overlapping portion and an adhesive force between the first adhesive film and the first adhesive layer is defined as a first adhesive force, a product of an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly and an adhesive force therebetween is defined as a second adhesive force, and the first adhesive force is smaller than the second adhesive force.
However, the rejection is now based on 103 and the standard of obviousness and applicant’s argument that such is not explicitly disclosed in the prior art (i.e. is not inherent) is moot. Applicant’s arguments fail to provide evidence that the prior art would not obviate such a relationship between the forces. The Examiner maintains the rejections, specifically, in regard to Kawate - as seen in the annotated figure below, an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly (darkest highlighted portion below, which also extends along the top surface of the electrode assembly – see figure 2 and includes the first overlapping portion) is much larger than an area of the first overlapping portion (lighter highlighted portion). As all of the adhesive tapes 370, 380, 390 in Kawate et al. are disclosed as the same materials (paragraph [0128]) the adhesive force between the elements per unit area is taken to be the same. Therefore, the area between components is a direct relationship with the adhesive forces, and as noted above an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly (darkest highlighted portion below – and therefore the second adhesive force) is much larger than an area of the first overlapping portion (lighter highlighted portion – and the which is source of the first adhesive force).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The same rationale applied to the rejection based on Yohei, where an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly (darkest annotated rectangle portion below, which includes the first overlapping portion) is much larger than an area of the first overlapping portion (lighter highlighted rectangular portion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawate et al. (US Pub 2018/0269523 of record – corresponds to WO 2020/032538 cited in IDS).
In regard to claims 1, 14 and 17, Kawate et al. teach an electric device including a battery containing a battery cell (paragraph [0050] – such as an electric vehicle), comprising: an electrode assembly 400, wherein an outer surface of the electrode assembly comprises a first surface, a first side surface, a second surface, and a second side surface that are sequentially connected, the first surface is disposed opposite to the second surface, the first side surface is disposed opposite to the second side surface, the outer surface of the electrode assembly further comprises a first end surface and a second end surface opposite the first end surface, and the first end surface and the second end surface are respectively connected to the first surface and the second surface (prismatic cell - see annotated figure below); a first adhesive film (adhesive tape 370) adhered to the first side surface and extending from the first side surface to the first surface and/or the second surface; and a first adhesive layer (adhesive tape 380) adhered to the first surface and extending from the first surface to the second surface through the first end surface, wherein in a width direction of the electrode assembly, the first adhesive film 370 and the first adhesive layer 380 on the first surface and/or the second surface overlap to form a first overlapping portion; and in the first overlapping portion, the first adhesive film 370 is disposed between the first surface and/or the second surface and the first adhesive layer 380 (paragraphs [0094-0128], figure 9 annotated below – all components are considered adhered to each other in the laminated electrode assembly).
PNG
media_image3.png
645
779
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to the amendment to claim 1, Kawate et al. teach adhesive tapes (paragraph [0128]) substantially identical to those disclosed in the instant application, therefore while adhesive forces between the layers are not particularly disclosed, the prior art is reasonably presumed to have the claimed properties (see MPEP 2112.01) or properties close enough to obviate the claimed properties, as the properties of the adhesive tapes are result effective should be optimized to prevent winding deviations (see paragraphs [0092-0095]).
Further, in regard to the amendment to claims 14 and 17, as seen in the annotated figure below, an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly (darkest highlighted portion below, which also extends along the top surface of the electrode assembly and includes the area of the first overlapping portion – see figure 2) is much larger than an area of the first overlapping portion (lighter highlighted portion). As all of the adhesive tapes 370, 380, 390 in Kawate et al. are disclosed as the same materials (paragraph [0128]) the adhesive force between the elements per unit area is taken to be the same. Therefore, the area between components is a direct relationship with the adhesive forces, and as noted above an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly (darkest highlighted portion below - and the second adhesive force) is much larger than an area of the first overlapping portion (lighter highlighted portion - and first adhesive force).
PNG
media_image1.png
645
895
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2 and 7, Kawate et al. teach in the width direction of the electrode assembly, a width of the first overlapping portion is shown (figure 9 above) but not disclosed as having a particular value. However, changes to size and shape of the prior art adhesive tapes and overall battery dimensions are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV).
In regard to claim 3, 8 and 9, Kawate et al. teach adhesive tapes (paragraph [0128]) substantially identical to those disclosed in the instant application, therefore while adhesive forces between the layers are not particularly disclosed, the prior art is reasonably presumed to have the claimed properties (see MPEP 2112.01) or properties close enough to obviate the claimed properties, as the properties of the adhesive tapes are result effective should be optimized to prevent winding deviations (see paragraphs [0092-0095]).
In regard to claim 10, Kawate et al. teach a first tab 410 and a second tab 420 electrically connected to the electrode assembly respectively, wherein the first tab and the second tab are spaced apart and protrude from the second end surface (paragraph [0091]), the first adhesive film 370 extends to the second surface, and the second adhesive film 370 extends to the second surface; and in the width direction of the electrode assembly (figure 9 above).
Further, embodiments include an adhesive layer 360 (figure 12 above) on the second surface, the first adhesive film partially overlaps the first tab, and/or on the second surface, the second adhesive film partially overlaps the second tab. As noted above while no width of the overlapping portions is disclosed, changes to size and shape of the prior art tapes and overall battery dimensions are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV).
In regard to claim 11, Kawate et al. teach the first adhesive film 370 and/or the second adhesive film 370 extends on the second surface to a position between the first tab 410 and the second tab 420 (see middle tape 370 between tabs in figure 9 above).
In regard to claim 12, Kawate et al. teach in the width direction of the electrode assembly, on the first surface, the first adhesive film 370 and/or the second adhesive film 370 does not overlap the first tab (left and right adhesive films 370 on first side/end – figure 9 above).
In regard to claim 5, 15 and 18, a second adhesive film (additional tape 370 at bottom in figure 9 above), wherein the second adhesive film is adhered to the second side surface and extends from the second side surface to the first surface and/or the second surface; and a second adhesive layer (lower adhesive tape 380), wherein the second adhesive layer is adhered to the first surface and extends from the first surface to the second surface through the first end surface; in the width direction of the electrode assembly, the second adhesive film and the second adhesive layer on the first surface and/or the second surface overlap to form a second overlapping portion; and in the second overlapping portion, the second adhesive film is disposed between the first surface and/or the second surface and the second adhesive layer (figure 9 above).
PNG
media_image4.png
427
483
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 6, 16 and 19, further comprising a third adhesive layer (another of adhesive tapes 370) adhered to the first surface or the second surface; in the width direction of the electrode assembly, the first adhesive film and/or the second adhesive film and the third adhesive layer overlap to form a third overlapping portion; and in the third overlapping portion, the third adhesive layer 370 is disposed between the first adhesive film and/or the second adhesive film 380 and the first surface, or the third adhesive layer is disposed between the first adhesive film and/or the second adhesive film and the second surface (figure 9 above – note the tapes of the prior art are considered adhered to the all of the components in the assembly).
The Examiner note that other interpretations (i.e. which tapes elements are considered the adhesive layer or film, which surfaces are ends or sides) and additional embodiments (such as figure 12 annotated here) that are disclosed may be relevant to the claims.
Claims 1-3, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yohei (JP 2011044436 cited in IDS, a machine translation of which is of record).
PNG
media_image5.png
419
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 1, 14 and 17, Yohei teaches an electric device including a battery containing a battery cell (see background art – page 2 of machine translation), comprising: an electrode assembly (spiral electrode group 10b), wherein an outer surface of the electrode assembly comprises a first surface, a first side surface, a second surface, and a second side surface that are sequentially connected, the first surface is disposed opposite to the second surface, the first side surface is disposed opposite to the second side surface, the outer surface of the electrode assembly further comprises a first end surface and a second end surface opposite the first end surface, and the first end surface and the second end surface are respectively connected to the first surface and the second surface (prismatic cell - see annotated figure below); a first adhesive film (adhesive tape for winding protection 31) adhered to the first side surface and extending from the first side surface to the first surface and/or the second surface; and a first adhesive layer (adhesive tape for bottom insulation 32) adhered to the first surface and extending from the first surface to the second surface through the first end surface, wherein in a width direction of the electrode assembly, the first adhesive film 31 and the first adhesive layer 32 on the first surface and/or the second surface overlap to form a first overlapping portion; and in the first overlapping portion, the first adhesive film 31 is disposed between the first surface and/or the second surface and the first adhesive layer 32 (pages 3-5 of machine translation - 7figure 5 annotated below – all components are considered adhered to each other in the laminated electrode assembly).
In regard to the amendment to claim 1, Yohei teaches adhesive tapes (page 3 of translation) substantially identical to those disclosed in the instant application, therefore while adhesive forces between the layers are not particularly disclosed, the prior art is reasonably presumed to have the claimed properties (see MPEP 2112.01) or properties close enough to obviate the claimed properties, as the properties of the adhesive tapes are result effective should to prevent short circuits as shown in the drop testing of the batteries described on pages 6 and 7 of the machine translation.
Further, in regard to the amendment to claims 14 and 17, as seen in the annotated figure below, an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly (darkest highlighted portion below, which also extends along the top surface of the electrode assembly) is much larger than an area of the first overlapping portion (lighter highlighted portion). As all of the adhesive tapes are disclosed as the same materials the adhesive force between the elements per unit area is taken to be the same. Therefore, the area between components is a direct relationship with the adhesive forces, and as noted above an area of an overlapping portion between the first adhesive film and an outer surface of the electrode assembly (darkest highlighted portion below - and the second adhesive force) is much larger than an area of the first overlapping portion (lighter highlighted portion - and first adhesive force).
PNG
media_image6.png
318
605
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Yohei teaches in the width direction of the electrode assembly, a width of the first overlapping portion is shown (figure 5 above) appears to be approximately 5mm based on the overall width of the bottom insulating layer 32 being 30mm in an embodiment (bottom of page 3 of translation). However, changes to size and shape of the prior art adhesive tapes and overall battery dimensions are an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (see MPEP 2144.04 Part IV).
In regard to claim 3, Yohei teaches adhesive tapes (page 3 of translation) substantially identical to those disclosed in the instant application, therefore while adhesive forces between the layers are not particularly disclosed, the prior art is reasonably presumed to have the claimed properties (see MPEP 2112.01) or properties close enough to obviate the claimed properties, as the properties of the adhesive tapes are result effective should to prevent short circuits as shown in the drop testing of the batteries described on pages 6 and 7 of the machine translation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawate et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ono et al. (US Pub 2020/0373625 of record – a translation of JP 2019053892 cited in IDS).
In regard to claim 13, Kawate et al. teach a case 111 for inserting the electrode body 400 but does not disclose a packaging film. However, Ono et al. teach a similar battery cell with overlapping adhesive tapes and the desirability to include a packaging film (exterior member 50 – paragraph [0028]), wherein the packaging film comprises a first recess and a second recess; the first recess and the second recess are configured for accommodating the electrode assembly, the first recess has a depth greater than the second recess, the first surface faces a bottom surface of the first recess, and the second surface faces a bottom surface of the second recess (see figure 4) which allows for a sufficiently securing bonding force that prevents the position of the power generation element 40 with respect to the exterior member 50 from being shifted laterally beyond an allowable dimension when the unit cell 100 receives an impact (paragraphs [0029-0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention filed to include a recessed packaging film in the battery cell of Kawate et al. as such prevent shifting of the electrode assembly as taught by Ono et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 12,074,331 newly cited, teaches adhesive tapes on a winding core in various locations (figure 6) considered relevant to the claims.
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 Nicholas P D'Aniello whose telephone number is (571)270-3635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm 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.
/NICHOLAS P D'ANIELLO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights