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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on April 30, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on February 3, 2026 have been received and entered. Claim 1 was amended to incorporate the limitation “wherein the fixing part is spaced from an edge of the first electrode closest to the winding center of the electrode assembly in a winding direction of the electrode assembly”, which was not presented before. Claims 2 and 10-12 were amended. Claims 19 and 20 were added. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shim et al. (KR 20150071250 A, see machine translation for citation).
The applicant argues (see Remarks page 6 and 7) that the amended features are not disclosed or made obvious by the prior art of record, including Shim. The taping part 5 of Shin covers the uncoated region at the end of the electrode and therefore covers the edge of the electrode closest to the winding center. Therefore, Shim does not disclose or suggest the subject matter of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the amended feature was not presented before and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Upon further consideration new ground(s) of rejection have been made in view of Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1).
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches several embodiments of a wound electrode assembly, wherein two electrodes are interposed by a separator in a stacked configuration [0008]. According to one embodiment, an electrode assembly (320), including a negative electrode and a positive electrode, is taught [0071 and Fig. 9]. The negative electrode comprises a negative electrode plate (121) (current collector), a negative electrode coating portion (126a-b) formed on the negative electrode plate (121) (current collector) and two electrode tabs (124a and b) formed on the uncoated parts of the negative electrode plate (121) (current collector) [0072 and Fig. 9]. The negative electrode further comprises a cover tape (326c) (fixing part) on the negative electrode coating portion (126b), which is next to the negative electrode plate (121) (current collector) uncoated part comprising the negative electrode tab (124a), to fix an inside region of the electrode assembly (320) [0072, 0073 and Fig. 9].The positive electrode comprises a positive electrode plate (122) (current collector), a positive electrode coating portion (127a-b) formed on the positive electrode plate (122) (current collector) and an electrode tab (125) formed on the uncoated part of the positive electrode plate (122) (current collector) [0074 and Fig. 9].
From Fig. 6, which is an illustration of the winding process for an electrode assembly according to an embodiment of the present invention, can be observed the presence of separators (123) between the electrodes and also can be observed that the negative electrode tab (124a) is closer to the winding center than negative electrode tab (124 b) [0045 and Fig. 6]. Substituting the electrodes shown on Fig. 6 by the ones taught on Fig. 9, and if the negative electrode is selected as the “first electrode”, the limitations “wherein the first electrode includes a fixing part on the electrode active material layer and wherein the fixing part is spaced from an edge of the first electrode closest to the winding center of the electrode assembly in a winding direction of the electrode assembly” are met.
Park does not teach the feature wherein the electrode active material layer is “provided to an edge portion closest to a winding center of the electrode assembly”.
Barone teaches an electro-chemical storage device (200) comprising a rolled structure (210) [0034, 0035 and Fig. 4]. The rolled structure (210) is formed by alternating sheets of cathodes (204) and anodes (208), having separators (206) interposed between them [0034 and Fig. 4]. Both the cathodes (204) and anodes (208) have a coated portion “extending to the edge” of the respective electrodes and extensions (212 and 214) which extends from the active portion of the cathode/anode (204/208) electrode and are an integral part of it [0034 and Fig. 4]. It is taught that the above referred extensions, which are a result of the active material coating to the edge of the electrodes, provides a way for electrical and thermal coupling of the respective electrodes and it can be cut into tabs of the desired shape to create integral tabs for each electrode sheet [0034 and 0040].
Park is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode stacked and wound, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector, and wherein the first electrode includes a fixing part on the electrode active material layer, fixed to at least a part of the separation membrane, and wherein the fixing part is spaced from an edge of the first electrode closest to the winding center of the electrode assembly in a winding direction of the electrode assembly.
Barone is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode stacked and wound, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector.
If the negative electrode (first electrode) of Park is modified to have an electrode design similar to the anode (208) taught by Barone, the claimed limitation would be met.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode (first electrode) of Park to meet the limitation wherein the electrode active material layer is “provided to an edge portion closest to a winding center of the electrode assembly”, because Barone teaches that with an electrode design meeting this feature, an electrode extension is formed which provides a way for electrical and thermal coupling of the respective electrode and it can be cut into tabs of the desired shape to create integral tabs for each electrode sheet.
Regarding claim 2, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion the limitation “wherein the fixing part does not contact an uncoated portion of the first electrode in which the electrode active material layer is not provided” is met.
Regarding claim 3, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion and Fig. 6 and 9 teachings, the limitations “wherein the separation membrane includes a first separation membrane provided between the first electrode and the second electrode, and a second separation membrane provided to a surface opposite to a surface facing the first separation membrane of the first electrode” are met. The feature “wherein at least one of the first separation membrane and the second separation membrane is fixed to the fixing part” is also met, from Fig. 6 winding process illustration.
Regarding claim 6, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Fig. 6 and 9 teachings, because the electrode assembly (320) only employ the cover tape (326c) (fixing part) on a portion of the negative electrode coating portion (126b), the limitation “wherein in a portion except for the fixing part, the first electrode, the separation membrane, and the second electrode are not fixed” is met.
Regarding claim 7, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the recited limitations are met.
Regarding claim 13, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From Figure 1 above, the cover tape (326 c) (fixing part) would be fixed to part of the separator (123) “at two points provided at edge portions facing each other in a winding axis direction of the electrode assembly, and one point provided between the two points”.
Regarding claim 15, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Park further teaches that a secondary battery (100) including an electrode assembly (120) accommodated in a battery case (110) and having a top opening [0039 and Fig. 2]. From Fig. 2 a first insulation plate (128) having holes (128 a-c) is interposed between the electrode assembly (120) and the bottom portion (111) of the case (110) [0055]. From Fig. 3 can be observed that the negative electrode tabs (124 a and b) are riveted though the holes (128 b and c) in the bottom of the battery case (110). From Fig. 2 and 3, a cap assembly (130) is employed to seal the battery case (110) top opening [0057]. The cap assembly (130) comprises a cap-up (131), which typically is considered an electrode terminal, which is insulated from the outer battery case (110) by an insulation gasket (138) [0057]. Because the electrode assembly shown in Fig. 9, is an embodiment of the present invention, it can replace the electrode assembly (120) and be housed as described above to create a secondary battery (100).
Regarding claim 16, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 15. From Fig. 3 can be observed that the negative electrode is connected to the bottom of battery case (110) by its negative electrode tabs (124 a and b). It is also shown that the positive electrode (second electrode) is connected to the cap-up (131) through a connection ring (135) installed under the safety plate (133), a cap-down (136) coupled to the connection ring (135) and a sub-plate (137) electrically connected to the positive electrode tab (125) [0057]. The insulation gasket (138) insulates al the previous cap components from the battery case (110) [0057].
Regarding claim 19, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion, the claimed limitation is met.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mizawa et al. (WO 2018180748 A1, see machine translation for citation), evidenced by Angenendt, G. (About the anode overhang effect and how to manage it, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 4, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the fixing part does not overlap the second electrode in an unwinding state of the electrode assembly”.
Mizawa teaches a wound electrode body (14) which has a positive electrode (11), a negative electrode (12) and a separator (13) between them [0010 and Fig. 2]. The positive electrode (11) comprises a strip-shaped positive electrode current collector (30) and a positive electrode active material layer (31) formed on the current collector [0021]. The negative electrode (12) comprises a strip-shaped negative electrode current collector (35) and a negative electrode active material layer (36) formed on the current collector [0027]. It is taught that the width and length of the negative electrode (12) is greater than the positive electrode (11) [0020 and Fig. 3].
Angenendt evidence that the intentional design choice where the anode extends beyond the edges of the cathode in a battery cell is done to mitigate the risks associated with a cathode overhang, which can lead to increased dendrite growth, accelerated aging, and potential safety concerns [p. 2; par. 2].
Mizawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode stacked and wound, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector.
If the negative electrode (first electrode) of Park and Barone is further modified to be larger and wider than the positive electrode, because of claim 1 discussion and modifications, the “fixing part will not overlap the second electrode in an unwinding state of the electrode assembly”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode (first electrode) of Park and Barone to meet the limitation “wherein the fixing part does not overlap the second electrode in an unwinding state of the electrode assembly”, because Mizawa teaches a geometry that achieves the referred feature and Angenendt evidence that this is done to mitigate the risks associated with a cathode overhang, which can lead to increased dendrite growth, accelerated aging, and potential safety concerns.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shim, H. (KR 20150071250 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 5, Park and Barone teaches all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the fixing part has a width of 12 mm or less”.
Shim teaches a jelly roll type electrode assembly comprising a stack (10) in which a negative electrode (2), a first separator (3), a positive electrode (1) and a second separator (3’) are sequentially stacked and wounded [0018 and Fig. 1]. The negative electrode (2) includes a negative electrode current collector (22) and a negative electrode slurry (21) applied to both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector (22) and including a negative electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder [0021]. The positive electrode (1) includes a positive electrode current collector (12) and a positive electrode slurry (11) (applied to both surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (12) and including a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder [0020]. From Fig. 6 embodiment can be observed that a taping unit (5) (fixing part) is attached to the first and second separator (3 and 3’) facing the positive electrode (1) slurry (11) and its uncoated area (13) where the positive electrode lead (14) is located and the negative electrode (2) slurry (21) and its uncoated area (23) where the negative electrode lead (24) is located [0033]. Shim further teaches that the taping unit (5) (fixing part) may be 3-10 mm (12 mm or less) in the case of a minor axis perpendicular to the winding direction (width) [0037].
Shim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode stacked and wound, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector and wherein the first electrode includes a fixing part fixed to at least a part of the separation membrane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the “fixing part width” range disclosed by Shim because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Kim et al. (US 20060093922 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Park further teaches that its cover tape (326 c) (fixing part) may be made of a general insulating material, such as PP or PET, but is not limited thereto [0073]. Park and Baron does not teach the feature “wherein the fixing part is a lamination tape”.
Kim teaches a composite material tape which can be employed to adhere a portion of a separator with a portion of a coated region of an electrode collector [0015]. The composite material tape has an organic base and an adhesive layer on at least one surface of the organic base, wherein the organic base may comprise a material selected from the group consisting of PI, PET, PP, PPS, PE, PPE and mixtures thereof [0010]. The composite material tape of the current invention presents an improved insulation and heat-resistant characteristics.
Kim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely a composite material tape which can be employed to adhere a portion of a separator with a portion of a coated region of an electrode collector.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover tape (326 c) (fixing part) of Park to be similar to the composite material tape of Kim, because it presents an improved insulation and heat-resistant characteristics.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Park in view of Barone and Kim. However, Park in view of Barone and Kim teach all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, the lamination tape may be a tape having an adhesive layer that may be laminated on at least one surface and may be a tape having adhesive layers that may be laminated on both surfaces [p. 27; line 14-17]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. “wherein the fixing part is a lamination tape” would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20060093922 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, evidenced by Singh et al. (Thermal degradation of waste plastics under non-sweeping atmosphere: Part 1: Effect of temperature, product optimization, and degradation mechanism, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 9, Park, Barone and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 8, except “wherein a heat decomposition temperature of the lamination tape is 180°C or higher”.
Singh evidence that virgin PP and PET, which are two of the possible base materials for the modified cover tape (326 c) (fixing part/ lamination tape) of Park in view of Barone and Kim, start its thermal decomposition above 300 °C and 350 °C, respectively [p. 398; Fig. 2]. From Sing evidence, the claimed limitation is overlapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the thermal decomposition ranges evidenced by Singh because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20060093922 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Terajima et al. (JP H11176476 A, see machine translation for citation), evidenced by Battery University (BU-410: Charging at High and Low Temperatures, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Park, Barone and Kim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 8, except “wherein a room-temperature adhesive force of the lamination tape is 20 gf/100 mm to 40 gf/100 mm” (claim 10) and “wherein the lamination tape has an adhesive force at 40°C or higher” (claim 11).
Terajima teaches an adhesive tape or sheet for fixing the end portion of a spiral-shaped battery element formed by laminating sheet-shaped electrodes and separators and then winding them in a spiral shape [0001]. It is taught that it is desirable that the adhesive strength to a specific adherend be less than 20 gf/10 mm, preferably about 10 to 0 gf/10 mm, because if the adhesive strength is 20 gf/10 mm or higher [0006]. It is further taught that the adhesive tape or sheet of the present invention have the effect of not suppressing the expansion of battery elements during battery charging, relieving stress, reducing stress on the constituent materials of the elements, and avoiding the deterioration of battery characteristics caused by these factors [0015].
Battery University evidence that common rechargeable batteries can be charged at temperatures going from -20 °C to 50 °C [Table 1]. From the previous evidence the adhesive tape or sheet taught by Terajima will have adhesive force at “room temperature and at 40°C or higher”.
Terajima is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an adhesive tape or sheet for fixing the end portion of a spiral-shaped battery element formed by laminating sheet-shaped electrodes and separators and then winding them in a spiral shape.
Regarding claim 10 limitations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the adhesive strength ranges disclosed by Terajima because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11 limitations, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover tape (326 c) (fixing part/ lamination tape) of Park, Barone and Kim to meet the limitation “wherein the lamination tape has an adhesive force at 40°C or higher”, because Terajima teaches an adhesive tape having the effect of not suppressing the expansion of battery elements during battery charging, relieving stress, reducing stress on the constituent materials of the elements, and avoiding the deterioration of battery characteristics caused by these factors, and battery University evidences that common batteries are charged at temperatures going from -20 °C to 50 °C.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) and Kim et al. (US 20060093922 A1) as applied to claim 8 above.
The Office realizes that all of the claimed effects or physical properties are not positively stated by Park, Barone and Kim. However, Park, Barone and Kim teaches all of the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. According to the original specification, the lamination tape may have adhesive force at room temperature at about 40°C or more, 45°C or more, 50°C or more, 55°C or more, 60°C or more, or 65°C or more [p. 28; line 22-23 and p. 29; line 22-24]. It is further taught that the lamination tape has adhesive force at a predetermined temperature or higher, which means that it may have larger adhesive force than room-temperature adhesive force [p. 29; line 11, 12 and 17-19]. Therefore, the claimed effects and physical properties, i.e. the claimed change rate of the adhesive force of the lamination tape satisfying Equation 1, would expectedly be achieved by a composition with all the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making. See MPEP § 2112.01. If it is the applicant' s position that this would not be the case: (1) evidence would need to be provided to support the applicant' s position; and (2) it would be the Office' s position that the application contains inadequate disclosure that there is no teaching as to how to obtain the claimed properties with only the claimed ingredients, claimed amounts, and substantially similar process of making.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Shim (KR 20150071250 A, see machine translation for citation) evidenced by Battsysbattery (Complete List of Cylindrical Lithium Battery Models, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 14, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “wherein the fixing part is fixed to the separation membrane by 40% or more of a length of the electrode assembly in a winding axis direction”.
Shim teaches a jelly roll type electrode assembly comprising a stack (10) in which a negative electrode (2), a first separator (3), a positive electrode (1) and a second separator (3’) are sequentially stacked and wounded [0018 and Fig. 1]. The negative electrode (2) includes a negative electrode current collector (22) and a negative electrode slurry (21) applied to both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector (22) and including a negative electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder [0021]. The positive electrode (1) includes a positive electrode current collector (12) and a positive electrode slurry (11) (applied to both surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (12) and including a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder [0020]. From Fig. 6 embodiment can be observed that a taping unit (5) (fixing part) is attached to the first and second separator (3 and 3’) facing the positive electrode (1) slurry (11) and its uncoated area (13) where the positive electrode lead (14) is located and the negative electrode (2) slurry (21) and its uncoated area (23) where the negative electrode lead (24) is located [0033]. Shim further teaches that the taping unit (5) (fixing part) may may have a length of 20 to 100 mm in the case of a major axis parallel to the winding direction [0037].
Battsysbattery evidence that the most common cylindrical batteries have a height ranging from 34-70 mm [p. 2; 2. Types of cylindrical lithium-ion batteries continued on p. 3].
Shim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode stacked and wound, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector and wherein the first electrode includes a fixing part fixed to at least a part of the separation membrane.
From common knowledge, any electrode assembly placed on an arbitrary cylindrical cell will be shorter in height than the cylindrical housing height, therefore it would be less than the common cylindrical batteries height range evidenced by Battsysbattery above. From this previous rationale, if the cover tape (326c) (fixing part) of Park in view of Barone is modified to have a length of 20 to 100 mm in the case of a major axis parallel to the winding direction as taught by Shim, the feature “wherein the fixing part is fixed to the separation membrane by 40% or more of a length of the electrode assembly in a winding axis direction” will be overlapped.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the length range disclosed by Shim because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 17 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Shim, H. (KR 20150071250 A, see machine translation for citation).
Regarding claim 17, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1, except “battery pack including at least one battery cell according to claim 15”.
Shim teaches a jelly roll type electrode assembly comprising a stack (10) in which a negative electrode (2), a first separator (3), a positive electrode (1) and a second separator (3’) are sequentially stacked and wounded [0018 and Fig. 1]. The negative electrode (2) includes a negative electrode current collector (22) and a negative electrode slurry (21) applied to both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector (22) and including a negative electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder [0021]. The positive electrode (1) includes a positive electrode current collector (12) and a positive electrode slurry (11) (applied to both surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (12) and including a positive electrode active material, a conductive material, and a binder [0020]. From Fig. 6 embodiment can be observed that a taping unit (5) (fixing part) is attached to the first and second separator (3 and 3’) facing the positive electrode (1) slurry (11) and its uncoated area (13) where the positive electrode lead (14) is located and the negative electrode (2) slurry (21) and its uncoated area (23) where the negative electrode lead (24) is located [0033]. Shim further teaches a medium-or large-sized battery module or a battery pack, comprising a plurality of secondary batteries containing the above described jelly roll type electrode assembly, which can be used as a power source for medium and large devices such as electric vehicles, among others [0040 and 0041].
Shim is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode stacked and wound, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector and wherein the first electrode includes a fixing part fixed to at least a part of the separation membrane.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary battery (100) of Park and Barone to meet the limitations of a “battery pack including at least one battery cell according to claim 15”, because Shim teaches that it can be used as a power source for medium and large devices such as electric vehicles, among others.
Regarding claim 18, Park, Barone and Shim teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 17. From claim 17 discussion the feature “a vehicle including at least one battery pack according to claim 17” is achievable.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 20190252732 A1) in view of Barone (US 20130252054 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Mizawa et al. (WO 2018180748 A1, see machine translation for citation), evidenced by Angenendt, G. (About the anode overhang effect and how to manage it, see NPL documents for citation).
Regarding claim 20, Park and Barone teach all the elements of the current invention in claim 1. From claim 1 discussion and Park Figures 6 and 9, because the cover tape (326c) (fixing part) is placed on a leading edge of the negative electrode coating portion (126b), but not on the negative electrode coating portion (126b), a “width of the edge portion (total) in the winding direction of the electrode assembly is greater than a width of the fixing part in the winding direction”.
Park and Barone does not teach “wherein the edge portion is a portion of the first electrode that does not overlap the second electrode in an unwinding state of the electrode assembly”.
Mizawa teaches a wound electrode body (14) which has a positive electrode (11), a negative electrode (12) and a separator (13) between them [0010 and Fig. 2]. The positive electrode (11) comprises a strip-shaped positive electrode current collector (30) and a positive electrode active material layer (31) formed on the current collector [0021]. The negative electrode (12) comprises a strip-shaped negative electrode current collector (35) and a negative electrode active material layer (36) formed on the current collector [0027]. It is taught that the width and length of the negative electrode (12) is greater than the positive electrode (11) [0020 and Fig. 3].
Angenendt evidence that the intentional design choice where the anode extends beyond the edges of the cathode in a battery cell is done to mitigate the risks associated with a cathode overhang, which can lead to increased dendrite growth, accelerated aging, and potential safety concerns [p. 2; par. 2].
Mizawa is analogous art to the current invention because it is concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely an electrode assembly comprising: a first electrode, a separation membrane, and a second electrode stacked and wound, wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode includes a current collector and an electrode active material layer provided on the current collector.
If the negative electrode (first electrode) of Park and Barone is further modified to be larger and wider than the positive electrode, because of claim 1 discussion and modifications, the “the edge portion of the first electrode will not overlap the second electrode in an unwinding state of the electrode assembly”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the negative electrode (first electrode) of Park and Barone to meet the limitation “wherein the edge portion is a portion of the first electrode that does not overlap the second electrode in an unwinding state of the electrode assembly”, because Mizawa teaches a geometry that achieves the referred feature and Angenendt evidence that this is done to mitigate the risks associated with a cathode overhang, which can lead to increased dendrite growth, accelerated aging, and potential safety concerns.
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 GILBERTO RAMOS RIVERA whose telephone number is (571) 272-2740. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, 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.
/G.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights