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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2023 and 02/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0355951 A1) .
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a jelly-roll type electrode assembly (Figure 11; wound electrode; [0003]), comprising an electrode plate and a separation layer disposed on at least one surface of the electrode plate (Figure 3; separator 130 interposed between the electrodes 110 and 120), wherein the jelly roll type electrode assembly comprises a first region and a second region, wherein a second region is a rollback region of the jelly roll type electrode assembly (Figure 11; the wound rollback region of the wound electrode assembly can be the second region).
Lee further discloses regions of the electrode having bonding interfaces 140 that fixe the electrode to the separator and have a bonding gradient wherein the bonding force varies throughout the electrode (Figure 4; [0087-0091]) such that the central region 151 has a higher bonding force that the outer regions 152, 155).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses different regions in which the electrode and separator are bound together that have different bonding forces and thus Lee discloses having different regions of the separator/electrode layer having a greater bonding force ([0020-0021]). Lee is silent with respect to wherein a rollback region is a wound region of the electrode assembly and has a weaker bonding force than the first region, however, this is deemed to be met through a simple rearrangement of parts as a skilled artisan can rearrange the bonding gradient regions to the regions that contain the rollback portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the bonding gradient regions of Lee such that the wound rollback region is a region that contains the weaker bonding force as a simple rearrangement of parts. Lee discloses wherein the outer peripheral regions from the central region contain the decreased bonding regions and thus when wound the outer peripheral regions of the wound electrode would have a decreased bonding region in the rollback region. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the jelly roll type electrode assembly has a thickness of the separation layer between 1-50 micrometers ([0050] separator has a thickness of 5-300 micrometers). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses an electronic device comprising an electrochemical device comprising the jelly roll type electrode assembly of claim 1 ([0002] battery comprising the electrode assembly that can be used within phones, computers, cars etc.)
Claims 1-4, 6, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0355951 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2015/0357671 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a jelly-roll type electrode assembly (Figure 11; wound electrode; [0003]), comprising an electrode plate and a separation layer disposed on at least one surface of the electrode plate (Figure 3; separator 130 interposed between the electrodes 110 and 120), wherein the jelly roll type electrode assembly comprises a first region and a second region, wherein a second region is a rollback region of the jelly roll type electrode assembly (Figure 11; the wound rollback region of the wound electrode assembly can be the second region).
Lee further discloses regions of the electrode having bonding interfaces 140 that fixe the electrode to the separator and have a bonding gradient wherein the bonding force varies throughout the electrode (Figure 4; [0087-0091]) such that the central region 151 has a higher bonding force that the outer regions 152, 155).
PNG
media_image1.png
708
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses different regions in which the electrode and separator are bound together that have different bonding forces and thus Lee discloses having different regions of the separator/electrode layer having a greater bonding force ([0020-0021]). However, Lee is silent with respect to wherein a rollback region is a wound region of the electrode assembly and has a weaker bonding force than the first region.
Park discloses an electrode assembly having a separator that is partially bonded to the electrode and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor. Park discloses wherein an electrode assembly is wound and wherein the surface adhesive strengths between the separator and the electrode depends on the binder content used ([0033-0035] Figure 1). Park discloses wherein an increase binder content increases the adhesive strength between the separator and the electrode ([0033-0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the rollback regions of Lee to have a binder content that is less than the binder content of the central portion of the electrode-separator bonding region as taught by Park as the binder content can determine the adhesive strength between the separator and electrode and thus through the modification the rollback region of the wound electrode would have a decreased binder content that would result in a decreased bonding force. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious through the modification.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses wherein a difference between the bonding force F1 of the separator layer to the surface of the electrode plate in the first region and the bonding force F2 of the separation layer to the surface of the electrode plate in the second region is 1-15 N/m (Park [0034] 1 gf/cm-9 gf/cm different that is taught which corresponds to 0.98 to 8.83 N/m). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses wherein a difference between the bonding force F1 of the separator layer to the surface of the electrode plate in the first region and the bonding force F2 of the separation layer to the surface of the electrode plate in the second region is 5-10 N/m (Park [0034] 1 gf/cm-9 gf/cm different that is taught which corresponds to 0.98 to 8.83 N/m). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Park further discloses wherein the bonding force F1 of the separator layer to the surface of the electrode plate is 1-30 N/m ([0034] 3-10 gf/cm that corresponds to 2.94-9.8 N/m). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein tabs can extend from the electrode assembly (Figure 1; tabs 21 and 22). Lee is silent with respect to wherein the first region comprises a first subregion and a second subregion, a bonding force F3 of the separation layer to the electrode plate in the second subregion is greater than a bonding force F4 of the separator layer to the electrode plate in the first subregion. Lee and Park disclose wherein a plurality of bonding regions are present along the electrode/separator interface and that the binder content of some regions can affect the bonding force of different regions. While, modified Lee is silent with respect to the subregions of the first region it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the same principals disclosed by Lee and Park and divide the first region into a plurality of subregions that can have different binder content/bonding forces such that the second subregion has a greater bonding force than the first subregion that contains the tab in order to provide a gradient of bonding forces within the electrode-separator interface as taught by Lee. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 6 are rendered obvious through the combination.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein tabs can extend from the electrode assembly (Figure 1; tabs 21 and 22). Lee is silent with respect to wherein the positive and negative tabs are disposed in the second region, however, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to rearrange the location of the tabs to be disposed within the second region as a simple rearrangement of the location of the tabs with reasonable expectation of success. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 11 are rendered obvious through the modification. The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the jelly roll type electrode assembly has a thickness of the separation layer between 1-50 micrometers ([0050] separator has a thickness of 5-300 micrometers). 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses an electronic device comprising an electrochemical device comprising the jelly roll type electrode assembly of claim 1 ([0002] battery comprising the electrode assembly that can be used within phones, computers, cars etc.)
Claims 5, 7, 9-10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0355951 A1) and Park et al. (US 2015/0357671 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Arai et al. (US 2019/0207189 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 4. Lee discloses a bonding force for the first separation layer to be between 2.94-9.8 N/m ([0034] 3-10 gf/cm that corresponds to 2.94-9.8 N/m). Park discloses wherein the adhesion strength can be adjusted based on the amount of binder present in the layer. While Lee disclose a value that is merely close to the lower range as claimed, Lee is silent with respect to the bonding force being between 10-20 N/m.
Arai discloses a composition for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries. Arai discloses wherein an electrode and separator can have a peel strength of 10-20 N/m as a larger peel strength indicates better functional layer adhesiveness ([0192-0197]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the bonding force between the separator and electrode of Lee to be between 10-20 N/m as taught by Arai to ensure better functional adhesiveness between the separator and electrode. A skilled artisan can adjust the adhesive strength/bonding strength to be more or less to achieve the desired adhesive effect and thus a bonding strength of 10-20 N/m would have been obvious in view of the disclosures of Lee, Park and Arai.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the separation layer comprises polymer fibers ([0050] separator sheets or non-woven fabrics of polymers form the separator and would read on the polymer fibers); the polymer fibers comprise a binder ([0014] separator includes a polymer binder).
Lee is silent with respect to the content of the binder in the first and second regions. Park discloses a binder content difference between two regions, however, is also silent as to a specific binder content within the regions.
Arai discloses a composition for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries. Arai discloses wherein a separator can contain a binder that is between 1-99% mass of a binder to obtain a separator with improved battery cycle characteristics and provide sufficient adhesiveness ([0107-0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the amount of binder used in the separation layer first and second regions to be between 5-25 wt% and 2-20 wt% respectively as Arai discloses that the binder can be provided between 1-99 mass % in order to achieve certain desired characteristics and adhesiveness. Park already discloses wherein the first layer has a binder content that is 2-10% lower than the second region and thus the broad range claimed would have been obvious as a skilled artisan can adjust the binder percentages to at least overlap 5-25 wt% and 2-20 wt% for the first and second regions as the binder content is shown to be known between the claimed ranges. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Lee further discloses wherein the separation layer further comprises inorganic particles, and a percentage of a volume of the inorganic particles in a total volume of solid matter in the separator layer is not greater than 40% ([0014] separator can contain inorganic particles; [0052-0058] thickness of the separator can be 2-20 micrometers and the size of the inorganic particles can be 0.2-5 micrometers and is just a portion of the separation layer and thus can be less than 40% the volume of the separation layer and it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the inorganic particles to take up only a portion of the separation layer as a matter of size for the separation layer). The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Lee further discloses wherein the inorganic particles comprise a binder ([0014] the separator includes inorganic particles and a polymer binder for fixing the inorganic particles to the porous substrate).
Lee is silent with respect to in the first region, a content of the binder in the inorganic particles is 4-7 wt% and in the second region, the content of the binder in the inorganic particles is 3-15 wt%.
Arai discloses a composition for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries. Arai discloses wherein a separator can contain a binder that is between 1-99% mass of a binder to obtain a separator with improved battery cycle characteristics and provide sufficient adhesiveness ([0107-0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the amount of binder used in the separation layer first and second regions to be between 4-7 wt% and 3-15 wt% respectively as Arai discloses that the binder can be provided between 1-99 mass % in order to achieve certain desired characteristics and adhesiveness and thus can be applied to the inorganic particles/binder material used in the separator layer. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Lee further discloses wherein the polymer fibers comprise at least one of a polyvinylidene fluoride ([0104 Example 1 PVdF used in the separator; [0050] separator sheets or non-woven fabrics of polymers form the separator and would read on the polymer fibers); the polymer fibers comprise a binder ([0014] separator includes a polymer binder).
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Lee further discloses wherein the inorganic particles comprise at least one of hafnium oxide, strontium titanium oxide, tin oxide etc. as well as other materials ([0055] contains a sample of possible inorganic particles).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7. Lee is silent with respect to the specific material of the binder according to claim 14.
Arai discloses a composition for a secondary battery and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of secondary batteries. Arai discloses wherein a separator can contain a binder that is between 1-99% mass of a binder to obtain a separator with improved battery cycle characteristics and provide sufficient adhesiveness ([0107-0108]). Arai further discloses wherein a polymer binder can be made of polymers such as styrene-butadiene rubber ([0089]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to substitute and use the styrene butadiene rubber for the polymer binder material as taught by Arai as Arai discloses the material to be a known binder material for use in batteries and separators. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0355951 A1), Park et al. (US 2015/0357671 A1) and Arai et al. (US 2019/0207189 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Channu et al. (US 2018/0309106 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee discloses all the claim limitations of claim 7, however, is silent with respect to wherein the binder comprises an inorganic filler at a 5-10 wt%.
Channu discloses a separator having shutdown and non-shutdown capabilities for electrochemical device and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Channu discloses wherein filler materials made of inorganic or organic compounds can be added for safety purposes such as calcium oxide in an amount less than 30 percent by weight ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the calcium oxide inorganic filler at a mass percentage less than 30 percent such as between 5-10% of the polymer component of the binder in order to aid in the safety of the separator and battery cell as taught by Channu. 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, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okamoto (JP 2002093404 A-as cited in the IDS)- discloses a flat battery having a wound shape wherein the bending parts are not coated and thus are not adhered through the curved region of the battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. 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.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728