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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has complied with all of the conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e).
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 04/25/2023 and 12/26/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 04/25/2023 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 04/25/2023 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “is folded and extends through between the adjacent first electrode and second electrode” is grammatically incorrect and is suggested to be replaced with (something like) --is folded and extends between adjacent first and second electrodes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zama et al. (WO 2019/064740 A1; hereinafter “Zama”; hereinafter US 2020/0243895 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent).
Regarding claim 1, Zama discloses a battery (Title) comprising:
a stacked body (10) including a first electrode (positive electrode 100), a second electrode (negative electrode 200) having an area larger than that of the first electrode (as shown in Figs 3 and 8; see also [0048]), and a separator (300) separating the first electrode and the second electrode from each other (as shown in Fig 3; see also [0038]); and
a first adhesive member (adhesive tape 410) provided on a side surface of the stacked body (as shown in Fig 8).
Zama further discloses that an outer edge of the second electrode covered with the first adhesive member (as shown in Fig 8, right side edge of negative electrode 200) is positioned within a distance from an outer edge of the first electrode in a direction from the stacked body towards the first adhesive member (as shown in annotated Fig 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Zama does not explicitly disclose what such a distance is, and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the distance is equal to or more than 0% and equal to or less than 200% of a thickness of the second electrode.
Zama is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the disclosed “distance” should be greater then 0% of the thickness of the second electrode because the second electrode must necessarily have some thickness, and there is some actual “distance” between the outer edge of the first electrode from the outer edge of the second electrode, i.e. a “distance” greater than 0%. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely select the overlapping portions of the disclosed ranges (greater than 0% significantly overlaps with 0% to 200%) because selection of overlapping portions of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Regarding claim 2, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zama further discloses that the first adhesive member is provided on a portion of the side surface of the stacked body directed to a same side as that of a portion provided with a tab connected to the first electrode or the second electrode (each are on the right side, as shown in Fig 8).
Regarding claim 3, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zama further discloses that a length from a portion of the side surface of the stacked body provided with a tab connected to the first electrode or the second electrode to an opposite side thereof (i.e. the horizontal length of the battery, as shown in Fig 8) is longer than a length from a portion of the side surface of the stacked body directed to a side direction of a portion provided with a tab of the first electrode or the second electrode to an opposed portion therefore (i.e. the vertical length of the battery, as shown in Fig 8, and which is shorter than the horizontal length, i.e. the battery is rectangular).
Regarding claim 4, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zama further discloses that the separator is folded and extends through between the adjacent first electrode and second electrode (as shown in Fig 3; see also [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zama further discloses that the separator includes a ceramic (e.g. TiO2, [0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zama further discloses that a tab connected to the first electrode (not explicitly labeled as such, but tab corresponding with positive electrode 100) and a tab connected to the second electrode (not explicitly labeled as such, but tab corresponding with negative electrode 200) are positioned on an opposite side of the stacked body (as shown in Fig 8, positive tab is positioned on lower right side and negative tab is positioned on the opposite, upper right side).
Regarding claim 7, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zama further discloses a second adhesive member (also labeled adhesive tape 410) provided on a portion of the side surface of the stacked body directed to a side direction of a portion provided with a tab connected to the first electrode or the second electrode (as shown in Fig 8, adhesive tape is positioned at vertical top of the battery, i.e. a side direction to the tab portions).
Regarding claim 8, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Zama further discloses that the first electrode is a positive electrode (positive electrode 100) and the second electrode is a negative electrode (negative electrode 200).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zama et al. (WO 2019/064740 A1; hereinafter “Zama”; hereinafter US 2020/0243895 A1 will be referenced as the English language equivalent), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jo et al. (US 2017/0309871 A1; hereinafter “Jo”).
Regarding claim 6, Zama discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Assuming, arguendo, that Zama does not disclose the recited tabs being positioned on opposite “sides” of the stacked body with sufficient specificity, the following prior art reference is applied.
Jo teaches a pouch-type secondary battery (Title). Jo teaches that electrode tabs may be disposed on one side of an electrode assembly (as shown in Fig 5), or may be disposed on opposite sides (as shown in Fig 4).
Jo is analogous prior art to the current invention because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely batteries.
Before the effective filing date of the current invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the tabs of Zama may be routinely disposed on either one side or opposite sides of an electrode assembly, as either is a simple routine engineering choice, as suggested by Jo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wang et al. (US 20201/0043881 A1) discloses battery cell insulation;
Katase et al. (US 2019/0190099 A1) discloses a battery cell;
Jo et al. (US 2018/0145376 A1) discloses an electrode assembly separator having insulation enhancing parts; and
Takahashi et al. (US 2015/0349375 A1) discloses a secondary battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ERWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3101. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6am-3pm PDT.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 12/10/2025