CTNF 18/287,233 CTNF 89180 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-5 are currently pending in the application and are being examined on the merits in this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244284) . Regarding claim 1, Jo teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (i.e., rechargeable battery) (100) (see figure 2), comprising: an electrode assembly (10) (paragraph [0033]) in which a positive electrode (11) and a negative electrode (12) are wound with a separator (13) interposed therebetween (paragraph [0040]-[0041]) (see figure 4); and an exterior housing (i.e., case) (34) the electrode assembly (paragraph [0035]), wherein the positive electrode has a positive electrode current collector (111) and a positive electrode mixture layer (i.e., active material layer) (112) formed on a surface of the positive electrode current collector (paragraph [0041]), and a surface of the separator facing the positive electrode mixture layer (112) (see figure 4) includes: a high-friction region (i.e., heat resistive layer) (132 adjacent to 112) formed within a range of two or more windings and less than six windings in a winding direction (see figure 4) from a position facing an inner winding end of the positive electrode mixture layer (112) (paragraph [0045]); and a low-friction region (131 and 132 adjacent to 13a) (paragraph [0045]) adjacent to the high-friction region in the winding direction (see figure 4). PNG media_image1.png 418 674 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claim 4, Jo teaches wherein the separator includes, at least on a surface facing the positive electrode mixture layer, an inorganic particle layer including inorganic particles (i.e., ceramics - which are known to be generally made of inorganic powder particles) (paragraph [0012], [0056]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244284) . Regarding claims 2-3, Jo teaches the battery as described above in claim 1 including the separator with a high-friction region and a low-friction region. Jo does not explicitly articulate the specifics of the friction coefficient of the high-friction region and the low-friction region respectively as recited in the instant claim. However, as indicated above, the Jo teaches the low-friction region, is the region where layer 131 and 132 is located and is adjacent to layer 13a which is described as a lubrication unit (paragraph [0045]). The high-friction region is the region where the other layer 132 is adjacent to the positive electrode active material 112. It is clear that Jo recognizes a friction difference in region as one region includes a lubrication unit which is interpreted as having a reduced friction. It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to select appropriate friction coefficient values through routine optimization of a result-effective variable, as friction coefficient directly affects the degree of resistance between components. Furthermore, the claimed values fall within ranges that are conventionally recognized in the art as representative of relatively high and relatively low friction surfaces, respectively. Selecting such values would have been a predictable design choice to achieve the intended functional distinction between the regions, absent showing of criticality or unexpected results . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244284) as applied to claim s 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0025658) . Regarding claim 5, Jo teaches the battery as described above in claims 1 and 4 including the inorganic particle layer (i.e., ceramics - which are known to be generally made of inorganic powder particles) (paragraph [0012], [0056]). Jo does not teach the specifics of an average particle diameter of the inorganic particles included in the high-friction region is less than or equal to 0.3 µm. Shi, directed to a separator (abstract), teaches a ceramic separator made of inorganic particles having an average particle diameter of 0.05 to 10µm (paragraph [0138]). Shi teaches the separator improves safety, cycle life and performance (paragraph [0138]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Jo to include inorganic particles having an average particle diameter of 0.05 to 10µm, an expect an improvement in safety, cycle life and performance as suggested by Shi. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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. /CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723 04/25/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/287,233 Page 2 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/287,233 Page 3 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/287,233 Page 4 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/287,233 Page 5 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/287,233 Page 6 Art Unit: 1723 Application/Control Number: 18/287,233 Page 7 Art Unit: 1723
Prosecution Insights