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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claims 17 and 18 each recites “a second first polymer layer” (emphasis added). There is no support in the Specification for the emphasized portion. Examiner notes that Specification para 0074 states “The tab protection layer is a three-layer structure. A tab protection layer disposed above a metal belt 3-4 consists of first polymer layers 3-1 and 3-3 and a second polymer layer 3-2 disposed therebetween. A tab protection layer disposed below the metal belt 3-4 consists of first polymer layers 3-5 and 3-6 and a second polymer layer 3-6 disposed therebetween” (emphasis added).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
New claims 17 and 18 each recites “the tab protection layer further comprises a second first polymer layer, and the second polymer layer is disposed between the first polymer layer and the second first polymer layer” (emphasis added), rendering each claim unclear as to whether the “first polymer layer” is intended to be the ‘first first polymer layer’ to coincide with the “second first polymer layer”, the “first polymer layer” is in addition to a ‘first first polymer layer’ with the “second first polymer layer”, or some other variation thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al (JP No. 2001307777, machine translation cited below) in view of Zhu et al (CN 108598488, machine translation cited below).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 11, and 13, Yamashita discloses an Li-ion battery (i.e. claimed “electronic apparatus comprising an electrochemical apparatus”) comprising electrodes of lithium batteries (para 0001-0002), wherein each electrode comprises a current collector with an active material layer disposed thereon, an electrolyte, and a tab on the current collector (para 0001-0004); the electrolyte comprises carbonates such as propylene carbonate and ethylene carbonate in addition to other compounds (para 0002). Yamashita further discloses the tab has a tab protection layer comprising a “heat sealing layer” (i.e. claimed “first polymer layer”) (para 0010-0011), wherein the first polymer layer comprises “linear low-density polyethylene” with a melting point in a range of 112oC and higher or “medium-density polyethylene” with a melting point in a range of 120oC and higher (para 0031), with specific examples of 115oC for the linear low-density polyethylene and 125oC medium-density polyethylene (para 0035) (e.g. claimed “TA”).
However Yamashita is limited in that the electrolyte comprising specific amounts of ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, a trinitrile compound, and an ethylene glycol bis(propionitrile) ether is not suggested.
Zhu teaches an electrolyte for a Li-ion battery comprising carbonates such as ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate (para 0001-0002), similar to the Li-ion battery comprising the electrolyte of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate of Yamashita. Zhu further teaches in Example 1 the electrolyte comprises the ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate at respective weight percentages of 25% and 10% in addition to weight percentages of 1% for each of “ethylene glycol bis(propionitrile) ether” (i.e. 1% for the claimed “b%”) and a trinitrile compound of “1,3,6-hexanetrionitrile” (i.e. claimed “1,3,6-hexanetricarbonitrile”, with 1% for the claimed “b%”) (para 0023-0025), which satisfies the claimed “2.0 ≤ a+b ≤ 6.0”. Zhu cites the advantage of the electrolyte as “better room temperature, high temperature and low temperature cycle performance, as well as high temperature storage performance” (para 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the electrolyte of Zhu as the electrolyte of Yamashita to gain the advantages of improved cycle performance for room, high, and low temperatures in addition to storage performance at high temperatures.
In summary, the combination of references Yamashita and Zhu has: Yamashita teaching specific examples of the TA of 115oC for the linear low-density polyethylene and 125oC medium-density polyethylene (para 0035); and Zhu teaching a sum (i.e. claimed “Y%”) of the weight percentages of ethylene carbonate and propylene carbonate to be 35% (para 0025), resulting in 35/115=0.30 or 35/125=0.28, which satisfies the claimed “0.147 < Y/TA < 0.7”.
With respect to claims 2, 4, 12, and 14, modified Yamashita further discloses the tab protection layer further comprises an adhesive film (i.e. claimed “second polymer layer”) (para 0010-0011), wherein the second polymer layer comprises acid-modified random PP (polypropylene) resin of melting point 127oC (e.g. claimed “TB”) (para 0010 and 0035), resulting in TB-TA being 127oC minus either 115oC or 125oC, which satisfies the claimed “0 < TB-TA ≤ 50”.
With respect to claims 5-6 and 15-16, Zhu further teaches the electrolyte also comprises “ethyl propionate” at a weight percentage of 20% (para 0025).
With respect to claims 17 and 18, modified Yamashita further discloses the second polymer layer is sandwiched between two first polymer layers (fig. 8; para 0010 and 0035).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on p. 7-9 filed 2/23/2026 are addressed below.
112 Rejections
Claims 1 and 11 have each been amended to clarify a singular “electrode”; the previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
103 Rejections
Applicant’s arguments on p. 7-9 with respect to amended claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references Yamashita and Zhu being applied in the current rejection.
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 MICHAEL A BAND whose telephone number is (571)272-9815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/MICHAEL A BAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights