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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Application No. 18/193,967 to Li et al. assigned to Ningde Amperex Technology Ltd., Ningde, China, filed on 03/31/2023 and published as U.S. PG Publication 2023/0246248A1 on 08/03/2023 is in response to applicant’s arguments/remarks and claim amendment filed 03/17/2026. Applicant’s response has been fully considered.
This application is a continuation application of PCT Application S.N. PCT/CN2021/076385, filed on 02/09/2021.
Status of Claims
The status of the claims stand as follows:
Currently amended 1, 11
Canceled 2, 12
4.3 Original 3-10, 13-20
Claims 1, 3-11, 13-20 are currently pending in this application. All the pending claims are under full consideration.
Terminal Disclaimer
Applicant has filed a terminal disclaimer on 03/17/2026 in response to the non-final Office Action dated 12/19/2025 regarding the provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of Claims 1-20 as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 of co-pending Application No. 17/709,577 (reference application) filed 03/31/2022.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/17/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Application 17/709,577 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Withdrawal of Double Patenting Rejection
The double patenting rejection of claims 1-20 over claims 1, 3-14, 16-20 of co-pending U.S. Application No. 17/709,577 filed 03/31/2022 presented in the previous non-final Office action dated 12/19/2025 has been withdrawn in view of applicant filing of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 03/17/2026 disclaiming the terminal part of the statutory term of any patent granted on the instant application which would extend beyond the expiration date of the full statutory term of any patent granted on pending reference Application Number 17/709,577.
Withdrawal of Claim Objection
The objection to claim 2 and 12 because of an unclear claim language is rendered moot by the cancelation of the claims. Therefore, the objection to claim 2 and 12 is withdrawn in this Office action.
Claim Rejections -35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim 1, 3, 10-11, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2004/0142236) in view of Cho et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0244318)
Regarding claim 1 and 11 Kim discloses a battery unit (Kim paragraph 0021) equivalent to the electrochemical device; the battery unit comprising a positive electrode plate, a separator and a negative electrode plate, all disposed in sequential order (Kim paragraph 0021) and called electrode unit (Kim paragraph 0021), the electrode unit is equivalent to the electrode assembly, and will be referred as electrode assembly hereafter; the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are equivalent the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate. The electrode assembly 31 include a positive electrode plate 32, a negative electrode plate 33 and a separator 34 interposed therebetween (Kim Fig. 3, paragraph 0032) has a wound structure (Kim Fig. 3, 4, paragraph 0039) and is accommodated in the case 310 (Kim Fig. 3, paragraph 0031), the case being equivalent to the housing. The electrode assembly 31 has two flat-shape sections that are opposite each other and are connected by two rounded edge bend-shape sections, which are also opposite each other (Kim Fig. 3, 4, 5; see below annotated Fig. 3 and 5 of Kim) equivalent to the first section, a first bend section, a second section, and a second bend section connected sequentially in that order. Kim discloses the electrode assembly has a positive electrode, a separator, a negative electrode and a second separator stacked in that order and are then wound into an elliptical shape (Kim paragraph 0047); thus, the outer most coil of the first section is a separator 34 (Kim Fig. 4, 5, 0046, 0047).
The electrode assembly include a finishing tape 40 to cover a winding completion portion of the electrode unit 31 (Kim paragraph 0048), and the finishing tape include an adhesive layer 42 (Kim paragraph 0049) equivalent to the first bonding piece, to prevent the electrode unit from being unwound (Kim paragraph 0048). Kim discloses the battery can be used in portable electronic device (Kim paragraph 0005) as recited in claim 11.
Kim is silent about a second bonding piece that bonds outer most coil of the separator with the housing. Cho discloses a secondary battery includes an electrode assembly comprising a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate and a separator interposed therebetween, the electrode assembly may be a wound-type electrode assembly, a case for accommodating the electrode assembly, a finishing material having an adhesive property on a surface of an electrode assembly (Cho paragraph 0011, 0012, 0030) to attach the electrode assembly to the pouch (Cho paragraph Fig. 3, 0032, 0036), considered equivalent to the second bonding piece, and improves the adhesion between the case and the electrode assembly, and thus prevent the movement of the electrode assembly and the bending of an electrode tab in the interior of the case (Cho paragraph 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Kim by the finishing material of Cho having an adhesive property to bond the electrode assembly to the pouch to prevent the movement of the electrode assembly and the bending of an electrode tab in the interior of the case (Cho paragraph 0010). Such a modification according to the MPEP is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Kim is silent about the bonding force of the finishing tape 40 to cover a winding completion portion of the electrode unit 31 (Kim paragraph 0048), considered equivalent to the first bonding piece. Cho also is silent about the bonding force of the finishing material having an adhesive property on a surface of an electrode assembly (Cho paragraph 0011, 0012, 0030) to attach the electrode assembly to the pouch (Cho paragraph 0032, 0036), considered equivalent to the second bonding piece.
However, Kim teaches that a finishing tape provided on an outermost surface of the electrode unit, comprising an adhesive layer having a low adhesive strength, and a polymer film layer coated with the adhesive layer, wherein the finishing tape is detachably attached to the electrode unit so as to detach in response to the electrode unit deforming (Kim paragraph 0021). Cho on the other hand teaches the finishing material can improve the adhesion between the case and the electrode assembly (Cho paragraph 0010), and the electrolyte (sic) (electrode) assembly 10 may be adhered closely to the pouch 20, thereby reinforcing the adhesion between the electrode assembly 10 and the pouch 20 (Cho paragraph 0010); thus, the finishing material of Cho must have a high bonding force.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the outer finishing material attaching the electrode assembly to the housing (Cho paragraph 0010) have a higher bonding force than the bonding force of the finishing tape of Kim having a low adhesive strength for the reasons provided by both Kim and Cho (Kim paragraph 0021; Cho paragraph 0010). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143 ID).
Regarding the actual values of the bonding force of the adhesive layer of Kim, equivalent to the first bonding piece, and the finishing material of Cho, equivalent to the second bonding piece, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have optimized through routine experimentation the bonding force of the finishing tape of Kim and the finishing material of Cho as disclosed by Kim (Kim paragraph 0021) and Cho (Ch paragraph 0010) to achieve the desired property as disclosed by references (Kim paragraph 0021; Cho paragraph 0010). See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Kim and Cho are silent about a ratio of the overlap area between an orthogonal projection of the first bonding piece on a plane in which the second bonding piece is located to an area of the second bonding piece is greater than or equal to 70%. However, such an overlap ratio can be determined by routine experimentation to achieve the desired revel of boding for each of the first bonding piece and the second bonding piece. According to the MPEP, “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” (See MPEP 2144.05 II.).
PNG
media_image1.png
459
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 4
PNG
media_image2.png
553
669
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kim Fig. 5
Regarding claim 3 and 13 Kim discloses a wound electrode assembly of stacked positive electrode, separator and negative electrode in that order, and has a wound structure (Kim paragraph Fig. 3, 4, 5, 0021, 0032, 0039). Kim also discloses the outermost coil of the electrode plates 32, 33, in the first section, i.e. the flat section, is the first electrode plate, the first electrode plate comprises a first current collector and a first active material layer disposed on the first current collector (Kim paragraph 0043), the outermost coil of the first current collector in the first section comprises an outer surface, the outer surface is oriented toward the outermost coil of the separator in the first section, and the outer surface is not coated with the active material layer (Kim Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10 the case 310 disclosed by Kim (Kim Fig. 3, paragraph 0031) is considered equivalent to the packaging bag.
Regarding claim 20 Kim discloses the electronic device include such as cellular phones, note-book type computers, camcorders and the like (Kim paragraph 0005), all have accommodation chambers for accepting batteries, equivalent to the electrochemical device. It would, therefore, have been obvious to have included bonding element, equivalent to the seventh bonding piece, to hold the batteries firmly in place.
Claim 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2004/0142236) in view of Cho et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0244318) as applied to claim 3 and 13, and further in view of Lim (U.S. PG Publication 2008/0299450).
The discussion of Kim and Cho as applied to claim 3 and 13 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 4 and 14 Kim and Cho are silent about the outer surface of the electrode is coated with a ceramic layer. Lim discloses a lithium secondary battery which comprises a jelly- roll-type electrode assembly including first electrode and second electrode having different polarities and a separator interposed between the electrode plates (Lim paragraph 0018). Lim discloses a ceramic film is coated on an active material of the first electrode plate, and on a first surface of an active material uncoated part of the second electrode plate (Lim paragraph 0018). Lim teaches a ceramic film is used to prevent internal electrical shorts between electrodes, even at high temperatures (Lim paragraph 0014, 0039, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Kim as modified by Cho by coating the outer surface of the electrode by a ceramic layer for achieving the benefit of preventing internal electrical short between the electrodes as taught by Lim (Lim paragraph 0014, 0039, 0048). According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Claim 5-9, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2004/0142236) in view of Cho et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0244318) as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of Morimoto et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2006/0222937)
The discussion of Kim and Cho as applied to claim 1 and 11 is fully incorporated here and relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 5 and 15 Kim and Cho are silent about the end part of the separator is located in the bend section and the battery comprising a third bonding piece. Morimoto discloses spiral electrode rectangular battery (Morimoto paragraph 0010), that has wound electrode body having a first and second flat portions opposite each other and are connected by two rounded bend portions that are also opposite each other; thus, the first flat portion (equivalent to the first section), the first bend portion, the second flat portion (equivalent to second section) and the second bend portion are connected sequentially in that order to form a flat electrode body with two opposite sides rounded bend portion connecting the two flat portions (see Morimoto annotated Fig. 2 below); and the end part of the separator 3 is located in the bend portion and covered by an insulating tape adhesive layer 14 provided with an adhesive layer( (Morimoto Fig2; See annotated Fig. 2 of Morimoto below) considered equivalent to the third bonding piece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have modified the electrode assembly of Kim as modified by Cho by an adhesive layer in the bend portion to bond the separator to the surface of the bend section to the benefit of fixing the separator to the outer surface of the bend section. Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
PNG
media_image3.png
528
753
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Morimoto Fig. 2
Regarding claim 6 and 16 Morimoto is silent about the adhesive layer considered equivalent to the third bonding piece further bonds an outer layer of at least one of the first section or the second section. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have increased the size of the adhesive layer of Morimoto and to extend it beyond the curved section towards the first section or the second section. Such a modification is considered change in size. According to the MPEP change in size of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 7 and 17 Morimoto discloses a second insulating tape attached to the rounded edge 12 (Morimoto Fig. 2) equivalent to the second bend section; and the second insulating tape is considered equivalent to the fourth bonding piece, and holds the end of the outer-most electrode plate 6 to the electrode unit 10 (Morimoto paragraph 0028), the outer-most electrode plate considered equivalent to the first electrode plate.
Regarding claim 8 and 18 Cho discloses a second finishing material having an adhesive property on a surface of an electrode assembly (Cho paragraph 0011, 0012, 0030) to attach the electrode assembly to the pouch (Cho Fig. 3, paragraph 0032, 0036), considered equivalent to the fifth bonding piece.
Regarding claim 9 and 19 Morimoto discloses two adhesive layers 13, 14, in the two bend portions (Morimoto Fig. 2, paragraph 0028, 0029), and considered equivalent to the third bonding piece and fourth bonding piece but is silent about an adhesive layer in the second section equivalent to a sixth bonding piece. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included an adhesive tape on the second section for enhancing the bonding of the electrode plates with the separator. According to the MPEP a rearrangement or duplication of parts is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is provided. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.
Response to Argument
In the response file on 03/17/2026 applicant has amended the claims of application. Limitation of claim 2 is added to claim 1 and limitation of claim 12 has been added to claim 11. Claims 2 and 12 have been canceled. Applicant has also filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome the double patenting rejection.
Applicant traverses the objection to the claims, the double patenting rejection and the 103 rejections of the claims.
As noted above in this Office action the cancelation of claim 2 and 12 have renders the objection to the claims moot. Therefore, the objection to claim 2 and 12 have been withdrawn.
Examiner also notes that the filed terminal disclaimer has been reviewed and approved and made of record. The terminal disclaimer overcomes the double patenting rejection. Therefore, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn in this Office action.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 103 applicant argues that the combination of Kim and Cho does not disclose the quantitative spatial coordination required by amended claim 1, that being the ratio of the area of overlap between the first boding piece and second bonding piece. Examiner agrees that Kim and Cho are silent about such a relation, which was indicated in the Office action. However, determining the relative positions of the first bonding piece and the second bonding piece for an effective bonding would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, and so would the degree of overlap between the two bonding pieces for an effective bonding.
Applicant presents experiments data of the bonding force of the first bonding piece and the second bonding piece, and the ratio of their overlap. However, the presented date is limited in scope and does not show if the claimed advantage of low percentage of tearing of the aluminum foil or percentage of blowoff of sealing flap is true over the entire claimed range, including intermediate data points. Thus, it is valid and proper to argue that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to find the optimum conditions by routine experimentation. Thus, the previously presented rejection is still considered proper and valid. This Office actin is made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00 pm,.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights