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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
(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(s) 1-5, 8 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Naoi (US20080280208) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on July 25th, 2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Naoi discloses a secondary battery ([002]) comprising:
A plurality of sheet-like positive electrode (cathodes-20 & 40, Fig. 3, [0064]);
A plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes (anodes-10 & 30, Fig. 3, [0064]): and
A belt-like separator placed between the plurality of sheet-like positive electrodes and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes (separator-50, Fig. 3, [0064]); and
An adhesive tape (fastening tape-70 acts as adhesive tape, [0066]), wherein
The plurality of sheet-like positive electrodes and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes are alternatively stacked with the separator interposed therebetween (Fig. 3),
The belt-like separator is continuously folded in a zigzag shape to be interposed between the plurality of sheet-like positive electrodes and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes (separator-50 has folds-60 which form zigzag shape, [0064], Fig. 3), and
Folds of the continuously folded belt-like separator are away from ends of the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes by a distance for preventing the plurality of sheet-like positive electrodes and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes from being pressed by the folds of the belt-like separator (Fig. 3), and
The belt-like separator is secured by the adhesive tape to an electrode in at least one outermost layer of a group of electrodes being the plurality of sheet-like positive electrodes and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes stacked together on an outer surface of an outermost electrode, and the belt-like separator located in an outermost layer in a stacking direction is entirely covered with an adhesive tape (fastening tape-70 fastenings the separator to the entirety of the electrode body, wherein the outer surface of the outermost layer of the separator is entirely covered with the adhesive tape, Fig. 9, [0066]).
Regarding Claim 2, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi further discloses a cover configured to contain the plurality of sheet-like positive electrodes the plurality of sheet-like negative electrode and the belt-like separator stacked together (case-150 includes cover that contains entire electrode assembly, Fig. 12, [0107]),
Wherein the belt-like separator covers at least part of an upper surface of an electrode located in an uppermost layer in a stacking direction or at least part of a lower surface of an electrode located in a lowermost layer in the stacking direction, among the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes stacked together, with a leading end part or a terminal end part of the belt-like separator (Fig. 9 shows separator-50 covering at least part of an upper surface of an electrode in the uppermost layer and a lower surface of an electrode in the lowermost layer in the stacking direction, [0066]).
Regarding Claim 3, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi further discloses wherein the belt-like separator covers all around a group of electrodes being the plurality of sheet-like positive electrodes and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes stacked together by wrapping a leading end part or a terminal end part of the belt-like separator around the group of electrodes (Fig. 9, separator-50, electrodes-30/40, [0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi further discloses wherein a length of the belt-like separator in a crease direction of the continuous folding is longer than a length of the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes (Fig. 4 shows the separator length in a crease direction is longer than a length of the negative electrodes, [0087]).
Regarding Claim 5, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi further discloses wherein the belt-like separator is continuously folded back and forth along a short side of the plurality of sheet-like positive electrode and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes (Fig. 4, separator-50, anode-10/30, cathode-20/40, [0087]).
Regarding Claim 8, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi further discloses wherein the adhesive tape is configured to secure a leading end or a terminal end of the belt-like separator, wherein the leading end part or the terminal end part of the belt like separator that covers an electrode in an outermost layer in the stacking direction is entirely covered with the adhesive tape (fastening tape-70 acts as the adhesive tape, Fig. 9, [0066]).
Regarding Claim 9, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi further discloses wherein the belt-like separator does not cover a center part of an upper surface of an electrode located in an uppermost layer in the stacking direction or a center part of a lower surface of an electrode located in a lowermost layer in the stack direction among the plurality of sheet-like positive electrode and the plurality of sheet-like negative electrodes stacked together (the examiner is interpreting “center part of lower surface of an electrode” to mean the portion that is in the thickness direction of the electrode, as shown in the instant specification figures, belt-like separator-50 does not cover middle part of positive electrode or negative electrode, Fig. 3, [0064]).
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.
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoi (US20080280208) in view of Okuda (US20150017509).
Regarding Claim 6, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi discloses wherein at a leading end and a terminal end of the belt-like separator, the first surface of the belt-like separator faces outward, and the second surface of the belt-like separator faces inward (Fig. 3-6 belt-like separator-50, [0064]).
Naoi does not directly disclose wherein the belt-like separator has a first surface, and a second surface being a back side of the first surface and covered with ceramic.
Okuda discloses a belt-like separator ([0045]) that has a coated portion that is coated with a ceramic ([008]). Okuda teaches that this structure provides improved durability ([005]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Naoi with the teachings of Okuda to have wherein the belt-like separator has a first surface, and a second surface being a back side of the first surface and covered with ceramic. This modification would yield the expected result of improved durability.
Regarding Claim 7, Naoi discloses the limitations as set forth above. Naoi discloses wherein at a leading end and a terminal end of the belt-like separator, the first surface of the belt-like separator faces outward, and the second surface of the belt-like separator faces inward (Fig. 3-6 belt-like separator-50, [0064]).
Naoi does not directly disclose wherein the belt-like separator has a first surface, and a second surface has less adhesive strength against a specified adhesive tape than the first surface.
Okuda discloses a belt-like separator ([0045]) that has a coated portion that is coated with a ceramic ([008]). Okuda teaches that the separator sheets can be joined with adhesion or taping ([0067]). Okuda teaches that this structure provides improved durability ([005]).
The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim and absent any qualitative values or criticality, “the second surface has less adhesive strength” can be interpreted to mean that the first surface and second surface have different adhesive properties, where the second surface has less adhesive strength. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that because Okuda teaches a ceramic coating on one side of the separator side, that Naoi modified by Okuda would produce a separator with a first surface and a second surface where the second surface would have less adhesive strength than the first surface.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Naoi with the teachings of Okuda to have wherein the belt-like separator has a first surface, and a second surface has less adhesive strength against a specified adhesive tape than the first surface. This modification would yield the expected result of improved durability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728