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 amendment filed on April 30, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 6-7 are currently amended. Claims 1 and 4-7 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-3 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to claims 6 and 7 have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on February 4, 2026.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “includes a core exposed portion” should read “include a core exposed portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation "the separators" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, which claim 5 depends upon, recites “a separator” in line 5, but not plural “separators”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the limitation of claim 5 as the “a separator” of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2016122628 A, machine translation relied upon herein) in view of Deng et al. (CN 107768676 A, machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 1, Takano discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (paragraph 0001) comprising:
a laminated film outer housing formed by joining film members (paragraph 0065, exterior body that is a laminate film); and
a flat-shape electrode assembly housed in the laminated film outer housing, and formed by winding a positive electrode of an elongated shape and a negative electrode of an elongated shape, which oppose each other with a separator of an elongated shape therebetween, in a flat shape (paragraphs 0026 and 0063-0065, flat wound element 1a inserted into laminate film, formed by winding a strip-shaped negative electrode 20, a strip-shaped separator 30, a strip-shaped positive electrode 10, and a strip-shaped separator 30), wherein
the positive electrode includes a positive electrode core of an elongated shape, and a positive electrode mixture layer provided over the positive electrode core (paragraph 0027, positive electrode 10 includes a positive electrode current collector 11 and a positive electrode actual material layer 12), and includes a positive electrode non-coated portion at a midway in a longitudinal direction of the positive electrode, where the positive electrode mixture layer is not present and the positive electrode core is exposed at a position interposed between coated regions of the positive electrode mixture layer in the longitudinal direction of the positive electrode, and (paragraph 0067 and Fig. 3, notch 12a without positive electrode active material layer 12 at a midway), and
the negative electrode includes a negative electrode core of an elongated shape, and a negative electrode mixture layer provided over the negative electrode core (paragraph 0045, negative electrode 20 includes a negative electrode current collector 21 and a negative electrode active material layer 22), and includes a negative electrode non-coated portion at an outermost circumferential portion in a longitudinal direction of the negative electrode, where the negative electrode mixture layer is not present and the negative electrode core is exposed (paragraph 0048 and Figs. 1 and 2b, uncoated portion without negative electrode active material layer 22 formed at the end of negative electrode 20),
the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery further comprises: a positive electrode tab joined to and electrically connected to the positive electrode non-coated portion (paragraph 0075, positive electrode current collector tab 13 welded to notch 12a); and a negative electrode tab joined to and electrically connected to the negative electrode non-coated portion (paragraph 0070, negative electrode current collector tab 23 welded to uncoated portion of negative electrode), and
the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab are positioned on a same side with respect to a virtual plane which passes approximately a center of the flat-shape electrode assembly in a thickness direction and which is approximately orthogonal to the thickness direction of the flat-shape electrode assembly (Fig. 1, tabs 13 and 23 on the bottom half of the flat wound element 1a).
Takano does not disclose that the negative electrode core is exposed at a position interposed between coated regions of the negative electrode mixture layer in the longitudinal direction of the positive electrode.
Deng et al. discloses that the negative electrode core is exposed at a position interposed between coated regions of the negative electrode mixture layer in the longitudinal direction of the positive electrode ([0021]-[0022], [0027], and Fig. 2, negative electrode with blank area 3 between active material coating 2).
Takano and Deng et al. are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the negative electrode mixture layer of Takano with the teachings of Deng et al., and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would reduce uneven thickness of the negative electrode, improving cell energy density and cell performance (Deng et al. [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Takano discloses the limitations of claim 1. Takano further discloses wherein opposing locations, of the positive electrode, which respectively oppose, via the separators, both surfaces of the negative electrode core within a region where the negative electrode tab is in contact with the negative electrode core includes a core exposed portion where the positive electrode core is exposed (paragraphs 0038 and 0067 and see Annotated Fig. 1 below, negative electrode active material layer 22 and opposing locations including notch 12b).
Takano Annotated Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
478
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2016122628 A) in view of Deng et al. (CN 107768676 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizutani (JP 2006310222 A, machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claim 4, modified Takano discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Takano does not disclose wherein a thickness of the positive electrode tab is less than a thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer, and a thickness of the negative electrode tab is less than a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer.
Mizutani discloses wherein a thickness of the positive electrode tab is less than a thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer (paragraph 0055, positive electrode lead 2 with thickness 70 μm and positive electrode active material layer 3 with thickness 122 - 12 = 110 μm), and a thickness of the negative electrode tab is less than a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer (negative electrode lead 7 with thickness 70 μm and negative electrode active material layer 5 with thickness 108 - 8 = 100 μm).
Mizutani is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as taught by modified Takano to incorporate the teachings of Mizutani using known methods so that wherein a thickness of the positive electrode tab is less than a thickness of the positive electrode mixture layer, and a thickness of the negative electrode tab is less than a thickness of the negative electrode mixture layer, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of producing an effective secondary battery. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2016122628 A) in view of Deng et al. (CN 107768676 A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Moriyama et al. (US 2019/0252667 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Takano discloses the limitations of claim 5. Modified Takano does not disclose wherein the positive electrode non-coated portion and the core exposed portion are present only at a part, in a width direction, of the positive electrode of the elongated shape, and the negative electrode non-coated portion is present only at a part, in a width direction, of the negative electrode of the elongated shape.
Moriyama et al. discloses wherein the positive electrode non-coated potion and the core exposed portion are present only at a part, in a width direction, of the positive electrode of the elongated shape (paragraphs 0019 and 0042 and Fig. 3, second regions 37A and 37B of positive electrode mixture layers 35A and 35B), and the negative electrode non-coated portion is present only at a part, in a width direction, of the negative electrode of the elongated shape (paragraph 0056, negative electrode 12 can have basically the same structure as positive electrode 11).
Moriyama et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as taught by modified Takano to incorporate the teachings of Moriyama et al. so that wherein the positive electrode non-coated potion and the core exposed portion are present only at a part, in a width direction, of the positive electrode of the elongated shape, and the negative electrode non-coated portion is present only at a part, in a width direction, of the negative electrode of the elongated shape. Doing so would potentially prevent entry of electrically conductive foreign materials, reducing the decrease in open-circuit voltage and reducing the occurrence of internal short circuiting (Moriyama et al. paragraph 0020).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano (JP 2016122628 A) in view of Deng et al. (CN 107768676 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eo et al. (US 2020/0044225 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Takano discloses the limitations of claim 1. Modified Takano does not disclose wherein the laminated film outer housing comprises: a first portion including a recess which houses the flat-shape electrode assembly; a second portion which is folded back at a one-side end in a height direction of the first portion and which does not have a recess; and a welding portion provided on both sides of the recess and on an other-side end in the height direction, and which seals the laminated film outer housing, the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab are sandwiched by the first portion and the second portion at the other-side end in a state in which the laminated film outer housing is sealed, and each of the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab protrudes from the welding portion, from a back surface portion side of the laminated film outer housing, approximately in parallel to the back surface portion.
Eo et al. discloses wherein the laminated film outer housing (paragraph 0039 and Fig. 1A, pouch case 120) comprises:
a first portion including a recess which houses the flat-shape electrode assembly (paragraph 0039 and Fig. 1A, second case part 122 with recess 123);
a second portion which is folded back at a one-side end in a height direction of the first portion and which does not have a recess (paragraph 0039 and Fig. 1A, first case part 121); and
a welding portion provided on both sides of the recess and on an other-side end in the height direction, and which seals the laminated film outer housing (paragraphs 0041 and 0043 and Fig. 1A, sealing part 124 and welded region of first case part 121 and second case part 122),
the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab are sandwiched by the first portion and the second portion at the other-side end in a state in which the laminated film outer housing is sealed (paragraph 0043 and Fig. 3, outer circumferential tab 115 and inner circumferential tab 114 are outwardly drawn through welded region), and
each of the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab protrudes from the welding portion, from a back surface portion side of the laminated film outer housing, approximately in parallel to the back surface portion (Fig. 3, outer circumferential tab 115 and inner circumferential tab 114 protrude from welded region and back of pouch case 120, approximately parallel to first case part 121).
Eo et al. is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of non-aqueous electrolyte secondary batteries. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery as taught by modified Takano to incorporate the teachings of Eo et al. using known methods so that wherein the film outer housing comprises: a first portion including a recess which houses the flat-shape electrode assembly; a second portion which is folded back at a one-side end in a height direction of the first portion and which does not have a recess; and a welding portion provided on both sides of the recess and on the other-side end in the height direction, and which seals the laminated film outer housing, the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab are sandwiched by the first portion and the second portion at the other-side end in a state in which the laminated film outer housing is sealed, and each of the positive electrode tab and the negative electrode tab protrudes from the welding portion, from a back surface portion side of the laminated film outer housing, approximately in parallel to the back surface portion, and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a secondary battery with a laminated film outer housing. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 6 with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot 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.
Applicant’s arguments on page 6 with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant's arguments that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., including the non-coated portion at the other opposing location, opposing the other surface of the negative electrode core) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Lines 3-6 of amended claim 5 recite “opposing locations, of the positive electrode, which respectively oppose, via the separators, both surfaces of the negative electrode core within a region where the negative electrode tab is in contact with the negative electrode core includes a core exposed portion where the positive electrode core is exposed”, which does not require a second “non-coated portion at the other opposing location”. Amended claim 5 requires the opposing locations to include “a core exposed portion”, which is disclosed by Takano (see Annotated Fig. 1 above, negative electrode active material layer 22 and opposing locations including notch 12b). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Takano discloses the additional limitations of amended claim 5, and amended claim 5 is rejected over Takano in view of Deng et al.
Applicant’s arguments on page 7 with respect to claim 4, 6, and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s arguments that “the modifications to Takano proposed by the Office would impermissibly change the principle of Takano”, “one would not be motivated to make these modifications”, “one would not have had a reasonable expectation of success”, and “the presently claimed subject matter can achieve distinctive and significant advantageous effects that are beyond what can be expected from the cited references”, Applicant has not provided any reasoning or evidence for such arguments.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the teachings, suggestions, or motivations for the combination of references in the rejection of claims 4, 6, and 7 have been provided in the prior Office Action and this Office Action. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because of the reasons set forth above, and claim 4 is rejected over Takano in view of Deng and Mizutani, amended claim 6 is rejected over Takano in view of Deng and Moriyama, and amended claim 7 is rejected over Takano in view of Deng and Eo.
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 Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:45AM - 4:45PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.
/J.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 18 June 2026
Prosecution Insights