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 on 07/24/2026:
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-21 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16-17 have been amended. Claim 21 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pages 9-10, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 5-7, 9, 12-14, and 17 have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
While the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn, the Examiner maintains that the limitations of claim 11 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product (as set forth in the prior art rejection of claim 11).
In regards to a prior art rejection focusing on the limitations of claim 11:
Without knowing the specific monomers, their reactivity ratios, how they are processed, etc., there is no way to conclude intrinsically that the initial first monomer relative to a second monomer will be in anyway maintained in the final copolymer composition. Since we do not know how reactive these first/second monomers are, their processing conditions, how they become a polymer (i.e., bind, ring opening, losing pieces), the product-by-process claim is evaluated to impart no further structure to the final polymer composition, because, without an explicit polymer composition teaching, there is simply no way to know what the final ratio of these initial monomers is within the polymer.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pages 11-14, filed 07/24/2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 of the claims have been fully considered. The rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims and Applicant’s arguments.
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 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “…wherein, based on a total mass of the at least one monomer, a mass percent of the initiator is less than or equal to 5%”.
Claim 17 depends from claim 16 which recites “…wherein a polymerization method used to form the polymer coating layer by in-situ polymerizing and curing the at least one monomer comprises one or more selected from light-initiated polymerization, radiation-initiated polymerization, and polymerization initiated using an initiator”.
Claim 17 does not set forth that the polymerization method used to form the polymer coating layer is the “polymerization initiated using an initiator”. Therefore, the claim is unclear because if one were to choose one of the other polymerization methods, such as “light-initiated polymerization” or “radiation-initiated polymerization”, what initiator would be present?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu et al (US 20220246992 A1).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 22 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P92), comprising:
a negative electrode plate (negative electrode plate 221 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P92); and
a positive electrode plate (positive electrode plate 222 in Fig. 5) containing a positive active material (positive active substance layer 2220b in Fig. 8), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive bend portion (one of bending portions 2220 in Figs. 5 and 8) and a positive flat straight portion connected to the positive bend portion (one of the sections in-between bending portions 2220 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P92-93);
wherein:
at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion comprises a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions (barrier layer 223 in Figs. 5 and 8; the barrier layer coats a part of the positive active substance layer to prevent particles from releasing the ion to the negative electrode plate so that at least a part of active substance in the positive active substance layer loses activity, and loses an ability of releasing the ion; the ions can be lithium ions; see entire disclosure and specially P93-96),
and a ratio of an ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to an ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion satisfies 0 ≤λ1/λ2< 1 (the barrier layer coats a part of the positive active substance layer to prevent particles from releasing the ion to the negative electrode plate so that at least a part of active substance in the positive active substance layer loses activity, and loses an ability of releasing the ion; the barrier layer is only provided on the bending portions as seen in Fig. 8; therefore, the ionic conductivity of the positive bend portion is less than the ionic conductivity of the positive flat straight portion).
Regarding the limitation “the polymer coating layer being directly located on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion”:
The polymer coating layer (barrier layer) is disclosed to be intercalated into the at least a part of the positive active material layer of the positive bend portion, and the polymer coating layer (barrier layer) is disclosed coat at least a part of the particles in the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion (P93). Further, the particles in the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion are disclosed to be able to be completely covered in the polymer coating layer (barrier layer) (P95).
Therefore, the polymer coating layer (barrier layer) would be directly located on greater than 0% to 100% of the surfaces of particles of the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion, which would overlap the claimed limitation of the polymer coating layer being directly located on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion. 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)
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS) in view of Hasumi et al (US 20090202824 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Kasamatsu disclose a secondary battery (see entire disclosure and especially the Abstract and P1, 12, 16, 41-42) including an electrode assembly (electrode body 10 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P10), comprising:
a negative electrode plate (negative electrode plate 14 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P17; and
a positive electrode plate containing a positive active material (positive electrode plate 13 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P17, 19, 24-25), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive bend portion and a positive flat straight portion connected to the positive bend portion (positive bend portion is drawn to at least one of bend portions 12 in Fig. 1; positive flat straight portion is drawn to the straight portions of electrode group 11 shown between bend portions 12 in Fig. 1; see entire disclosure and especially P17);
wherein:
at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion comprises a polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16 in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P18, 20-21); and
a ratio of an ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to an ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion satisfies 0 ≤λ1/λ2< 1 (the resin tape includes a base material layer that does not pass lithium ions (P20) and is only on the bent portions 12; the positive flat straight portion includes positive electrode mix layers 13b having lithium ion conductivity (P19) and does not include the resin tape; therefore, the ionic conductivity of the positive bend portion is less than the ionic conductivity of the positive flat straight portion).
However, Kasamatsu does not meet the limitation wherein the polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16 ) comprises one or more selected from a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt.
Analogous art is a term used to connect multiple prior arts that are in the same field of endeavor. Kasamatsu and Hasumi are analogous art due to their disclosed contents including resin/polymer adhesive tapes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hasumi teaches a tape substrate that can be used in an adhesive tape (P8). Hasumi teaches the tape substrate can comprise a resin composition along with a plasticizer (P7, 46). Hasumi teaches the plasticizer is used for modification of the molding processability, fluidity and hardness of the tape substrate (P47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hasumi and provided to the polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16) a plasticizer, given Hasumi teaches a plasticizer can be used for modifying the molding processability, fluidity and hardness of a tape substrate used for an adhesive tape.
The limitation of “a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions” renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, Kasamatsu’s resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the resin tape 16 of Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 3, Kasamatsu discloses wherein the electrode assembly has a jelly-roll structure, and the positive bend portion is at least an innermost one of a plurality of positive bend portions in the jelly-roll structure (see Figs. 1-2 and P18).
Regarding claim 4, Kasamatsu discloses wherein a thickness of the polymer coating layer is 0.01 μm to 50 μm (in P21 the thickness of base material layer of the resin tape 16 is 1-12 µm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kasamatsu teaches the polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16) includes polyethylenes, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, or polyimides (P21) and a plasticizer (see the rejection of claim 1 above). Modified Kasamatsu is silent to the total mass of the pieces of the polymer coating layer.
Hasumi further teaches a blending amount of the plasticizer is in a range of from 0.1 to 20 parts by mass, and preferably from 0.1 to 5 parts by mass to 100 parts by mass of the resin composition (P47). Hasumi teaches if the amount of the plasticizer is less than 1 part by mass, the modification of the molding processability and others for the tape substrate can be insufficient; on the other hand, if the amount exceeds 20 parts by mass, tackiness of the tape itself might deteriorate (P47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Hasumi and provided wherein the plasticizer is used in the polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16) of modified Kasamatsu in an amount of 1-20 parts by mass, given Hasumi teaches this allows for balancing of the modification of the molding processability and others for a tape substrate with the tackiness of the tape.
In this way, modified Kasamatsu would meet the limitation wherein, based on a total mass of the polymer coating layer, the polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16) comprises a polymer at a mass percent of greater than or equal to 5% and less than 100% (polyethylenes, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, or polyimides provided in the base material layer at a range of 80-99 mass %) and the plasticizer at a mass percent in a range from 0% to 80% (1-20 mass %).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the tape substrate as taught by Hasumi with the polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16) of modified Kasamatu, given both are known base/substrate layers for an adhesive tape, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
In this way, modified Kasamatsu would meet the limitation wherein, based on a total mass of the polymer coating layer, the polymer coating layer (tape substrate of Hasumi) comprises a polymer at a mass percent of greater than or equal to 5% and less than 100% (the resin composition of the tape substrate of Hasumi would be provided in a range of 80-99 mass %, given the plasticizer of Hasumi is taught to be provided in a range of 1-20 mass %) and the plasticizer at a mass percent in a range from 0% to 80% (the plasticizer of Hasumi is taught to be provided in a range of 1-20 mass %).
Regarding claim 8, Kasamatsu’s resin tape’s base material layer include polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, base material layer of the resin tape 16, of modified Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The limitation of “the polymer coating layer is formed by in-situ polymerizing and curing a coating composition that comprises at least one monomer” renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, modified Kasamatsu’s base material layer of the resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the base material layer of the resin tape 16 of modified Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kasamatsu’s resin tape’s base material layer includes polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, base material layer of the resin tape 16, of modified Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The requirements of the first monomer being “ring-opening polymerizable” or comprising a “polymerizable unsaturated bond” does not impart any implicit structure to the final product other than that the final product is a polymer, because the monomer’s “ring-opening polymerizable” or “polymerizable unsaturated bond” could be used up/disappear in subsequent method steps of achieving the base material layer that already reads upon claim 1 and includes at least one monomer. The cross-linkable feature also adds no implicit structure.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the at least one monomer comprises both the first monomer and the second monomer, and a mass ratio of the first monomer to the second monomer is in a range from (1 to 99):(99 to 1)”.
Claim 1, of which claim 11 ultimately depends, is a product claim. Claim 1 recites a polymer coating layer. Claim 8 and thus claim 9, of which claim 11 also depends from, is a product-by-process claim. Claim 9 recites that “the at least one monomer” of claim 8 can include a first monomer and second monomer.
The claim does not set forth how reactive the first monomer and second monomers are or that their final mass ratio is maintained in the final polymer coating layer. For example, if the first monomer is going to have a polymerizable bond or a ring opening effect, are we losing pieces of these monomers along the process route? It is known that a final copolymer can have a different weight or mole ratio of incorporated monomers compared to the initial starting monomer feed. Without knowing the specific monomers, their reactivity ratios, how they are processed, etc., there is no way to conclude intrinsically that the initial first monomer relative to a second monomer will be in anyway maintained in the final copolymer composition. Since we do not know how reactive these first/second monomers are, their processing conditions, how they become a polymer (i.e., bind, ring opening, losing pieces), the product-by-process claim is evaluated to impart no further structure to the final polymer composition, because, without an explicit polymer composition teaching, there is simply no way to know what the final ratio of these initial monomers is within the polymer.
The limitations of claim 11 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product.
Regarding claim 14, Kasamatsu’s resin tape’s base material layer includes polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of modified Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
Claim 1, of which claim 14 ultimately depends, is a product claim. Claim 1 recites a polymer coating layer. Claim 8 of which claim 14 depends from, is a product-by-process claim.
The claim does not set forth how reactive the plasticizer or electrolyte salt are or that their final mass ratio is maintained in the final polymer coating layer. For example, are the plasticizer or electrolyte salt used up during the formation process? The claim does not set forth what the final mass ratio of the plasticizer and electrolyte salt are in the obtained polymer, the claim only sets forth mass ratios in regards to the product-by-process limitation.
The limitations of claim 14 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “wherein a viscosity of the coating composition is in a range from 3 cp to 100 cp”.
Claim 15 does not reference the finalized polymer coating layer, but instead the coating composition that is cured to form the polymer coating layer. This coating composition is used within a method of making the polymer coating layer and does not impart final structure to the final product of the polymer coating layer.
As stated in the rejection of claim 8, Kasamatsu’s resin tape’s base material layer includes polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, base material layer of the resin tape 16, of modified Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The limitation of “the polymer coating layer is formed by in-situ polymerizing and curing a coating composition that comprises at least one monomer”, and thus the recitation of “wherein a viscosity of the coating composition is in a range from 3 cp to 100 cp”, renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, modified Kasamatsu’s base material layer of the resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the base material layer of the resin tape 16 of modified Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Kasamatsu’s resin tape’s base material layer includes polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, base material layer of the resin tape 16, of modified Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
The limitation of “wherein a polymerization method used to form the polymer coating layer by in-situ polymerizing and curing the at least one monomer comprises one or more selected from light-initiated polymerization, radiation-initiated polymerization, and polymerization initiated using an initiator” renders the claim a product-by-process claim, wherein the Courts have held:
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
There is no evidence that the product-by-process language as recited imparts specific structural characteristics to the product. As such, modified Kasamatsu’s base material layer of the resin tape 16 appears to meet the structure set forth. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the base material layer of the resin tape 16 of modified Kasamatsu. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
It is noted that the polymer coating layer may be formed at any time, separately from the electrode assembly, and then combined therewith. The above product-by-process steps are not limited to occurring at a given time or location, with the polymer coating layer being capable of being in-situ polymerized and cured on, for example, a Teflon substrate and made ready to apply to an electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Kasamatsu’s resin tape’s base material layer includes polyethylene, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, and polyimides. Therefore, the polymer coating layer, resin tape 16, of modified Kasamatsu comprises at least one monomer.
Claim 1, of which claim 17 ultimately depends, is a product claim. Claim 1 recites a polymer coating layer. Claim 8 and claim 16 of which claim 17 depends from, are a product-by-process claims.
The claim does not set forth that the polymerization method used is the “polymerization initiated using an initiator”. Further, the claim does not set forth what the final mass percent of the initiator is in the obtained polymer, the claim only sets forth a mass percent in regards to the product-by-process limitation.
The limitations of claim 17 do not appear to impart any structure to the final product.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS) in view of Hasumi et al (US 20090202824 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Oono (US 20210305619 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Kasamatsu does not explicitly state wherein the ratio of the ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to the ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion satisfies0 ≤λ1/λ2≤ 0.9.
In a similar field of endeavor, Oono teaches as the thickness of an ionic conductive polymer layer decrease, the resistance decreases (P58).
From the teaching of Oono, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the ionic resistivity/ionic conductivity of a polymer layer is a result-effective variable based upon the thickness of the polymer layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have optimized, through routine experimentation, the ionic conductivity / ionic resistivity of the positive bend portion (thereby, optimizing the ratio of the ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to the ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion) based upon the skilled artisan’s desired thicknesses for the resin tape of Kasamatsu to have at the positive bend portion. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS) in view of Hasumi et al (US 20090202824 A1) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Takamura et al (US 20130071740 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kasamatsu teaches the polymer coating layer (base material layer of the resin tape 16) includes polyethylenes, polypropylenes, polyethylene terephthalates, polyvinyl alcohols, or polyimides (P21). Modified Kasamatsu does not meet the limitation wherein the polymer coating layer comprises one or more of a first monomer or second monomer meeting the limitations as set forth in claim 12.
In a similar field of endeavor, Takamura teaches a pressure sensitive adhesive tape used around a lead of an electrode disposed in an inner part of a winding structure of the battery (P5). Takamura further teaches the pressure-sensitive adhesive tape includes a pressure sensitive adhesive layer formed on a substrate (P36).
Takamura teaches a polymer component contained in a pressure-sensitive adhesive which forms the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer of the pressure-sensitive adhesive tape can include an acrylic polymer (P38). Takamura teaches the acrylic polymers include a polymer obtained by copolymerizing a low Tg monomer for imparting adhesion as a main monomer, a high Tg monomer for imparting adhesive property or cohesive property as a comonomer and a functional group--containing monomer for improving adhesive property (P39).
Takamura teaches the low Tg monomer used can be methyl (meth)acrylate or ethyl (meth)acrylate (P40). Takamura teaches the high Tg monomer used can be acrylonitrile (P43). Takamura teaches the functional group--containing monomer can be acrylic acid (AA) (P45).
Takamura further teaches a substrate can be made of polyethylene or polypropylene (P60).
While Takamura teaches the pressure sensitive adhesive tape being used around a lead of an electrode rather than on a positive bend portion of a positive electrode plate, it is still an adhesive tape known to be utilized in an inner part of a winding structure of a battery and it still includes an adhesive layer formed on a substrate/base material layer, therefore, one of ordinary skill would recognize it could also be used on a positive bend portion of a positive electrode plate in an inner part of a winding structure of a battery. If a technique has been used to improve one device (utilize a pressure sensitive adhesive tape formed of a substrate/base material layer and an adhesive layer around a lead of an electrode disposed in an inner part of a winding structure of a battery), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way (utilize a pressure sensitive adhesive tape formed of a substrate/base material layer and an adhesive layer on a positive bend portion of a positive electrode plate in an inner part of a winding structure of a battery), using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. See MPEP § 2141 (III) Rationale C, KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the resin tape (16) of modified Kasamatsu with the pressure sensitive adhesive tape of Takamura, given Takamura teaches it as a known adhesive tape to be utilized in an inner part of a winding structure of a battery, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
From this modification, the polymer coating layer of modified Kasamatsu can be drawn to the polymer component contained in the pressure-sensitive adhesive which forms the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer of the pressure-sensitive adhesive tape of Takamura utilized in modified Kasamatsu. In this manner, the polymer coating layer includes a first monomer (drawn to the acrylonitrile used to form the polymer component) and a second monomer (drawn to either the methyl (meth)acrylate, ethyl (meth)acrylate, or acrylic acid used to form the polymer component; the Examiner notes these materials for the first monomer and second monomer are the materials set forth in Applicant’s specification at P126-130).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu et al (US 20190386344 A1, as given in the 05/14/2024 IDS) in view of Hasumi et al (US 20090202824 A1) as applied to claim 18, further in view of Morimoto (US 20040061503 A1).
Regarding claims 19-20, modified Kasamatsu does not meet the limitation wherein the secondary battery is provided within a battery module that is provided within a battery pack.
In a similar field of endeavor, Morimoto teaches a battery power source device employed as a power source for a motor to drive vehicles such as hybrid cars includes a battery pack block, having a plurality of battery modules connected in series, each battery module having a plurality of rechargeable batteries (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Morimoto and selected the secondary battery of modified Kasamatsu to be provided with a plurality of other secondary battery in a battery module provided inside a battery pack (battery pack block), given Morimoto teaches this allows rechargeable batteries to be used as a power source for a motor to drive vehicles such as hybrid cars.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (US 20220246992 A1) in view of Tomatsu et al (US 20150045509 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 22 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P92), comprising:
a negative electrode plate (negative electrode plate 221 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P92); and
a positive electrode plate (positive electrode plate 222 in Fig. 5) containing a positive active material (positive active substance layer 2220b in Fig. 8), wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive bend portion (one of bending portions 2220 in Figs. 5 and 8) and a positive flat straight portion connected to the positive bend portion (one of the sections in-between bending portions 2220 in Fig. 5; see entire disclosure and especially P92-93);
wherein:
at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion comprises a polymer coating layer capable of obstructing migration of active ions (barrier layer 223 in Figs. 5 and 8; the barrier layer coats a part of the positive active substance layer to prevent particles from releasing the ion to the negative electrode plate so that at least a part of active substance in the positive active substance layer loses activity, and loses an ability of releasing the ion; the ions can be lithium ions; see entire disclosure and specially P93-96),
and a ratio of an ionic conductivity λ1 of the positive bend portion to an ionic conductivity λ2 of the positive flat straight portion satisfies 0 ≤λ1/λ2< 1 (the barrier layer coats a part of the positive active substance layer to prevent particles from releasing the ion to the negative electrode plate so that at least a part of active substance in the positive active substance layer loses activity, and loses an ability of releasing the ion; the barrier layer is only provided on the bending portions as seen in Fig. 8; therefore, the ionic conductivity of the positive bend portion is less than the ionic conductivity of the positive flat straight portion).
Wu discloses the polymer coating layer (barrier layer) is a glue layer (P31). Wu discloses the glue layer may be a hot melt adhesive, a photosensitive adhesive, an instant adhesive, a one-component epoxy adhesive, a one-component silicone, a one-component polyurethane, a two-component epoxy, a two-component silicone or a two-component polyurethane glue (P131).
However, Wu does not disclose the polymer coating layer comprising one or more selected from a plasticizer and an electrolyte salt.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tomatsu teaches a hot-melt adhesive for electric instruments such as a lithium ion battery (P1). Tomatsu teaches the hot-melt adhesive is excellent in solvent resistance and adhesion (P15). Tomatsu teaches the hot-melt adhesive can include an olefin based modified polymer (A) and a plasticizer (P62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Tomatsu and substituted the polymer coating layer (barrier layer that can be a glue layer of a hot melt adhesive) of Wu with the hot-melt adhesive for electric instruments of Tomatsu, given both are known hot melt adhesive layers, Tomatsu teaches their hot-melt adhesive is excellent in solvent resistance and adhesion, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
From this modification, modified Wu meets the limitation wherein the polymer coating layer comprises a plasticizer.
Regarding claim 5, the polymer coating layer (barrier layer of Wu that is the hot melt adhesive of Tomatsu) is disclosed to be intercalated into the at least a part of the positive active material layer of the positive bend portion, and the polymer coating layer (barrier layer of Wu that is the hot melt adhesive of Tomatsu) is disclosed coat at least a part of the particles in the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion (P93). Further, the particles in the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion are disclosed to be able to be completely covered in the polymer coating layer (barrier layer of Wu that is the hot melt adhesive of Tomatsu) (P95).
Therefore, the polymer coating layer (barrier layer of Wu that is the hot melt adhesive of Tomatsu) would be directly located on greater than 0% to 100% of the surfaces of particles of the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion, which would overlap the claimed limitation of the polymer coating layer being directly located on 80% to 100% of surfaces of particles of the at least a part of the positive active material of the positive bend portion. 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)
Conclusion
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights