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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on March 18, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no burden exists to examine all claims of the application, as evidenced by the International Search Report, which examined all claims.
This is not found persuasive because arguments regarding burden are drawn to US restriction practice. However, the application is a 371 Application, which follows PCT rules of lack of unity (see MPEP 1850). Thus, the arguments cannot be found to be persuasive, and the reasons for lack of unity set forth in the original restriction requirement is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 13, 2023, July 18, 2024, November 20, 2024, and August 18, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings received June 13, 2023 are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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.
Claim 1 recites “jelly-roll type” (line 2). It is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claim is, as it is unclear what “type” is intended to convey. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). Since claims 2-7 are dependent upon claim 1, they are rejected for the same reason.
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.
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) 1-7 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 a jelly-roll type 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0210823 (Yuan et al.) shows specifics regarding a protective layer and viscosity (para 0022-0023).
Note: The application has been evaluated in full for informality issues. The absence of any sections indicates an absence of any such issues.
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