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
In response to the amendment received July 28, 2026:
Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 8-14 withdrawn as being drawn to unelected inventions.
The previous 112 rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
The previous prior art rejection is maintained. Thus, the action is final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2015-170395A (Kuze et al.) in view of JP 2015-120781A (Sanai).
As to claim 1, Kuze et al. teach a manufacturing method of for providing a corrosion prevention layer on a cylindrical secondary battery [1] (fig. 1; para 0061) including an electrode assembly (seen in fig. 3) having a structure in which a first electrode (positive electrode [11]), a second electrode (negative electrode [12]), and a separator (first separator [13], second separator [14]) interposed therebetween are wound in one direction based on a winding axis (fig. 3), a battery can [2] accommodating the electrode assembly, the battery can including a metal plated layer (plating layer [60]) (fig. 7; para 0053), and a connection lead plate [50] joining the battery can [2] and the electrode assembly (figs. 1-2, 5-7; para 0051), the method comprising:
applying a resin to a portion (para 0059-0060) where the metal plated layer (plating layer [70]) is welded to the connection lead plate [50] (figs. 7-8; para 0058); and
forming the corrosion prevention layer (protective layer [90]) (para 0060),
wherein the resin for the corrosion prevention layer includes one or more liquid materials (droplets via spray or inkjet) (para 0060).
Kuze et al. do not teach that (a) the corrosion prevention layer is formed by curing the resin using ultraviolet rays, wherein the one or more liquid materials are ultraviolet curable, and (b) wherein the one or more liquid materials have a viscosity of 1 cP to 5000 cP.
However, with respect to (a), Sanai et al. teach of a coating layer which is cured via ultraviolet ray (thus indicating the material is ultraviolet curable, presence of viscosity indicating liquid) (para 0001, 0019, 0101). The substitution of one method of forming the film for another (i.e. replacing the method of spraying/inkjet printing (in Kuze et al.) with curing an ultraviolet curable liquid via ultraviolet rays (in Sanai et al.)) would yield the predictable result of providing a coating layer, wherein the substituted methods and their functions were known in the art (to form a resin layer). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) to substitute one method of forming the film (the method of spraying/inkjet printing) with another (curing an ultraviolet curable liquid via ultraviolet rays) as the substitution would yield the predictable result of providing a coating layer, wherein the substituted methods and their functions were known in the art (to form a resin layer). “When considering obviousness of a combination of known elements, the operative question is thus "whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions." Id . at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” See MPEP §2141(I).
With respect to (b), Sanai et al. indicate that viscosity is a result effective variable regarding curable components, as if it is too high, then a cured film with a uniform thickness cannot be obtained, and if it is too low (too little of the material), then sufficient adhesion cannot be achieved (para 0019). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use viscosity in the workable/optimum range of 1-5000 cP, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). Also, see MPEP §2144.05(II)(B).
As to claim 2, Kuze et al. do not teach (a) the resin further includes a light emitting material, and (b) checking an application state of the corrosion prevention layer resin on the battery can by ultraviolet rays.
Regarding (a), Sanai et al. teach of using fluorescent material which may emit light, and regarding (b), using the fluorescent material to see if light is emitted to check on the application state of the resin by ultraviolet rays (presence or absence of film using UV-LED) (para 0084, 0127). The motivation for having the resin further including a light emitting material, and checking an application state of the corrosion prevention layer resin on the battery can by ultraviolet rays is to easily distinguish between the presence and absence of the cured film in order ensure that the film satisfies the necessary film property requirements (para 0127). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made (as applicable to pre-AIA applications) or effectively filed (as applicable to AIA applications) for having the resin further including a light emitting material, and checking an application state of the corrosion prevention layer resin by ultraviolet rays is to easily distinguish between the presence and absence of the cured film in order to ensure that the film satisfies the film property requirements.
(Note: The combination renders obvious the application of Sanai to Kuze et al.’s corrosion prevention layer, as applied to the battery can, as Kuze’s layer is applied to the battery can.)
As to claim 3, Kuze et al. teach the is at least one selected from an epoxy-based, an acrylate-based, a silicon-based, or a urethane-acrylate-based resin (epoxy, para 0059). (Note: Epoxy materials are also in Sanai; see para 0011.)
As to claim 4, the combination renders the limitation obvious, as Sanai, relied upon to teach curing with ultraviolet rays, teach that curing is done using a 120 W/cm lamp on a material with a conveyor speed 10 m/min (para 0121), and thus an interpretation can be taken that a curing time in forming the corrosion prevention layer is 5 seconds or more and 30 seconds or less, as an interpretation can be made that this time is applied to any length of portion of the material (in light of the speed and lamp), barring specification as to the time regarding a specific length of material. Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Zletz, 893F.2d 319, 321-22,13 USPQ2d, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). (For full details of the combination, see the rejection to claim 1, incorporated herein but not reiterated herein for brevity’s sake.)
As to claim 5, Kuze et al. teach the battery can [2] includes iron (para 0054).
As to claim 6, Kuze et al. teach the metal plated layer (plating layer [60]) includes nickel (para 0054).
As to claim 7, Kuze et al. teach a thickness of the corrosion prevention layer (protective layer [90]) is 10-200 µm (para 0058) (overlaps the claimed range of more than 1 µm and less than 10 µm, thus renders the range obvious). “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Sanai (active energy ray-curable coating agent composition) to modify Kuze (corrosion prevention layer made of thermosetting resin by spraying/in droplet form), since Sanai is for electrodes (internal structures of a lithium ion battery) and not an external surface of a battery can.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unsure why a different coating method would not provide predictable results. Specifically, when Sanai’s method is applied to metals (para 0103). No proof or reasoning is provided as to why the methods are not compatible for substitution purposes (i.e. no predictable). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that Sanai’s teaching regarding adjusting content of components within a curable component is not drawn to a specific viscosity range.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sanai’s teaching is drawn to the fact that viscosity in general is a result effective variable, and thus discovery of the result effective variable (i.e. within the claimed range) would be obvious. Obviousness of result effective variables is supported by MPEP §2144.05(II)(B). Thus, the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the claimed viscosity results in layer with a uniform thickness and without air bubbles having excellent properties of heat resistance, thermal conductivity, etc. (citing p 14, line 22 – p 15, line 8 of the disclosure).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument appears to be akin to unexpected results. However, no data has been presented. Thus, the burden to show unexpected results has not been met. Examiner suggests reviewing MPEP 716.02 in full to see the burden that must be met to show unexpected results. Thus the argument is not persuasive, and the rejection of record is maintained.
Applicant argues that the dependent claims are distinct from the prior art of record for the same reason as the independent claim.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection with respect to the independent claim has been maintained, and thus the rejections to the dependent claims are maintained as well.
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 EUGENIA WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-4942. The examiner can normally be reached a flex schedule, generally Monday-Thursday 5:00 -7:30 (AM) and 9:45-3:15 ET.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/EUGENIA WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights