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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0024] “is press-molded into a flat shape” should read “which is then press-molded into a flat shape”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1 recites the limitation "the separator" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase "with a second adhesive layer existed on a surface of the second separator" in line 11 of the claim renders the claim indefinite since the metes and bounds of this particular phrase cannot be determined. It is not clear what the phrase "is existed" would mean in the context of this claim. For example, due the use of the past tense word "existed" it is not clear if the second adhesive layer must merely have been present at some point and is no longer required to be present or if the second adhesive layer still is present within the battery. For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting this phrase to mean that the second adhesive layer exists (e.g. is present) on a surface of the second separator.
Regarding Claims 2-9, these dependent claims depend from independent Claim 1 and incorporate the limitations therein. Accordingly, dependent Claims 2-9 are rejected for the reasons set forth above in regards to independent Claim 1.
Regarding Claims 3, 4, 6 and 7, these claims use the phrase “is existed” and “is not existed” in a similar way to Claim 1. For the reasons stated above, these claims are also rendered indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the Office is interpreting the claims as if the word “present” was substituted for each instance of the word “existed”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 4 and 6 inherit the limitations of Claim 1 due to their dependency on Claim 1. Lines 10 and 11 of Claim 1 sets the limitation that a second adhesive layer is present on a surface of the second separator. However, claims 4 and 6 do not include that limitation as it is stated that "the second adhesive layer is not existed" in lines 2 and 3 of the respective Claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S Patent 11949127 B2), in view of Yamane (JP 2015069730).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a battery comprising a wound electrode body in which a strip-shaped positive electrode and a strip-shaped negative electrode are wound around in a predetermined winding direction around a winding axis via a strip-shaped separator (Abstract, FIG. 7B) wherein;
the battery includes a first separator and a second separator as the separator (Col 11. Line 19, first separator 541, second separator 542. Fig 5)
the second separator includes a region positioned outward from a winding terminal edge of the first separator (Col 15, Line 50, first region 740a. FIG 7B)
the second separator includes an extending portion extending beyond the winding terminal edge of the first separator in the winding direction (Col 15, Line 50, first region 740a. FIG 7B)
at least a part of the extending portion and a region positioned inward from the extending portion in the second separator are bonded together with a second adhesive layer existed on a surface of the second separator (Col 15, Line 55, adhesive layer 744. FIG 7B)
Lee does not teach a heat-resistant layer present on an outermost surface of the wound electrode body. However, Yamane teaches:
a heat-resistant layer is existed on an outermost surface of the wound electrode body. (Par 31, Line 300, heat-resistant layer 144b, Fig 5b.)
Lee and Yamane are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrode batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Yamane by including a heat-resistant layer on the outermost surface of the wound electrode body. Doing so would maintain insulation between the positive and negative electrode during an abnormality (Yamane, Par 4 Lines 34-37).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee and Yamane teach the battery according to Claim 1, and Lee further teaches a battery wherein,
no winding terminal stop tape is disposed in the extending portion (Col 15. Lines 13-16)
Regarding Claim 4, Lee and Yamane teach the battery according to Claim 1, but Lee fails to teach a battery, wherein, in the second separator, the second adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the second separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the second adhesive layer, and in the first separator, a first adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the first separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the first adhesive layer. However, Yamane teaches a battery wherein,
the second adhesive layer is not existed. (Fig 5b.)
Lee and Yamane are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrode batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Yamane by omitting the adhesive layer. Doing so would reduce the volume of the battery, leading to a higher energy density.
Regarding Claim 6, Lee and Yamane teach the battery according to Claim 1, but Lee fails to teach a battery, wherein, on a surface on a side of the second separator in contact with the positive electrode, the second adhesive layer is not existed or the second adhesive layer is existed in a winding beginning region of the second separator, and when the second adhesive layer is existed, the second adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area in the winding beginning region of the second separator than in a region facing the positive electrode. However, Yamane teaches a battery wherein,
on a surface on a side of the second separator in contact with the positive electrode, the second adhesive layer is not existed (Fig 5b.)
Lee and Yamane are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrode batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Yamane by omitting the adhesive layer. Doing so would reduce the volume of the battery, leading to a higher energy density.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee and Yamane teach the battery according to Claim 1, but Lee fails to teach a battery, wherein, on a surface on a side of the first separator in contact with the positive electrode, a first adhesive layer is not existed, or the first adhesive layer is existed in a winding beginning region of the first separator, and when the first adhesive layer is existed, the first adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area in the winding beginning region of the first separator than in a region facing the positive electrode. However, Yamane teaches a battery wherein,
on a surface on a side of the first separator in contact with the positive electrode, a first adhesive layer is not existed (Fig 5b.)
Lee and Yamane are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrode batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the teachings of Yamane by omitting the adhesive layer. Doing so would reduce the volume of the battery, leading to a higher energy density.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yamane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sano et al. (US 2023/0282951).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee and Yamane teach the battery according to Claim 1, but fail to teach a battery wherein, in the second separator, the second adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the second separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the second adhesive layer, and in the first separator, a first adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the first separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the first adhesive layer. However, Sano teaches a battery wherein,
in the second separator, the second adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the second separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the second adhesive layer (Par 10, Lines 1-6. Fig 3.)
in the first separator, a first adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the first separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the first adhesive layer. (Par 10, Lines 1-6. Fig 3.)
Lee, Yamane, and Sano are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrode batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Yamane to incorporate the teachings of Sano by adhering the positive electrode to both of the separators. Doing so would improve the productivity of the secondary battery (Sano, Par 10, Lines 6-7).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Yamane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 2022/0320595).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee and Yamane teach the battery according to claim 1 but fail to teach a battery, wherein an area of the second adhesive layer on an outer surface of the second separator positioned on the outermost surface of the wound electrode body is 30% or less of an area of the outer surface. However, Zhao teaches,
an area of the second adhesive layer on an outer surface of the second separator positioned on the outermost surface of the wound electrode body is 30% or less of an area of the outer surface. (Par 8, Lines 9-18)
Lee, Yamane, and Zhao are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrode batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Yamane to incorporate the teachings of Zhao by making the area of the adhesive layer on the surface of the second separator 30%. Doing so would improve the safety of the secondary battery (Zhao, Par 10, Lines 18-22).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yamane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 2021/0344048).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee and Yamane teach the battery according to claim 1 but fail to teach a battery wherein, in the second separator, a weight per area of the second adhesive layer in a region positioned inward from the extending portion is larger than a weight per area of the second adhesive layer in a region facing the positive electrode. However, Sato teaches,
in the second separator, a weight per area of the second adhesive layer in a region positioned inward from the extending portion is larger than a weight per area of the second adhesive layer in a region facing the positive electrode. (Par 14)
Lee, Yamane, and Sato are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lithium-ion batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Yamane to incorporate the teachings of Sato by applying a gradient in the adhesive layer of the second separator. Doing so would inhibit the peeling of the separator (Sato, Par 14, Lines 37-39).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yamane as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Umeyama et al. (JP 2017010878).
Regarding Claim 9, Lee and Yamane teach a battery according to claim 1, wherein the wound electrode body has a flat shape; the wound electrode body includes a pair of curved parts in which outer surfaces are curved and a flat part in which an outer surface connecting a pair of the curved parts is flat, but fail to teach a battery wherein, a winding terminal edge of the positive electrode is positioned at either of the pair of curved parts; and a winding terminal edge of the negative electrode is positioned at either of the pair of curved parts. However, Umeyama teaches,
a winding terminal edge of the positive electrode is positioned at either of the pair of curved parts (Abstract, Figure 13)
a winding terminal edge of the negative electrode is positioned at either of the pair of curved parts (Abstract, Figure 13)
Lee, Yamane, and Umeyama are considered analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wound electrode batteries. It would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Yamane to incorporate the teachings of Umeyama by terminating the electrode in the curved parts of the electrode body. Doing so would reduce the occurrences of steps on the flat surface of a wound electrode body (Umeyama, Abstract).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/358943 in view of Yamane.
Mita et al. (18/358941)
Nowatari et al. (18/358943)
Claim 1: A battery comprising a wound electrode body in which a strip-shaped positive electrode and a strip-shaped negative electrode are wound around in a predetermined winding direction around a winding axis via a strip-shaped separator, wherein the battery includes a first separator and a second separator as the separator; the second separator includes a region positioned outward from a winding terminal edge of the first separator; the second separator includes an extending portion extending beyond the winding terminal edge of the first separator in the winding direction; at least a part of the extending portion and a region positioned inward from the extending portion in the second separator are bonded together with a second adhesive layer existed on a surface of the second separator; and a heat-resistant layer is existed on an outermost surface of the wound electrode body.
Claim 1: A battery comprising a wound electrode body in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are wound around in a predetermined winding direction around a winding axis via a separator, wherein the battery includes a first separator and a second separator as the separator; the second separator includes a region positioned outward from a winding terminal edge of the first separator; the second separator includes an extending portion extending beyond the winding terminal edge of the first separator in the winding direction; a second adhesive layer is existed at least on a part of an inner surface of the extending portion; and the extending portion and a region positioned inward from the extending portion in the second separator are bonded via the second adhesive layer.
Claim 2: The battery according to claim 1, wherein no winding terminal stop tape is disposed in the extending portion.
Claim 2: The battery according to claim 1, wherein no winding terminal stop tape is disposed in the extending portion.
Claim 3: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, in the second separator, the second adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the second separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the second adhesive layer, and in the first separator, a first adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the first separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the first adhesive layer.
Claim 3: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, in the second separator, the second adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the second separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the second adhesive layer, and in the first separator, a first adhesive layer is existed in a region facing the positive electrode, and the first separator and the positive electrode are bonded together with the first adhesive layer.
Claim 4: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, the second adhesive layer is not existed, or the second adhesive layer is existed on an outer surface of the second separator positioned on an outermost surface of the wound electrode body, and when the second adhesive layer is existed, the second adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area on the outer surface than in a region facing the positive electrode.
Claim 4: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, the second adhesive layer is not existed, or the second adhesive layer is existed on an outer surface of the second separator positioned on an outermost surface of the wound electrode body, and when the second adhesive layer is existed, the second adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area on the outer surface than in a region facing the positive electrode.
Claim 5: The battery according to claim 1, wherein an area of the second adhesive layer on an outer surface of the second separator positioned on the outermost surface of the wound electrode body is 30% or less of an area of the outer surface.
Claim 5: The battery according to claim 1, wherein an area of the second adhesive layer on an outer surface of the second separator positioned on the outermost surface of the wound electrode body is 30% or less of an area of the outer surface.
Claim 6: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, on a surface on a side of the second separator in contact with the positive electrode, the second adhesive layer is not existed or the second adhesive layer is existed in a winding beginning region of the second separator, and when the second adhesive layer is existed, the second adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area in the winding beginning region of the second separator than in a region facing the positive electrode.
Claim 6: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, on a surface on a side of the second separator in contact with the positive electrode, the second adhesive layer is not existed or the second adhesive layer is existed in a winding beginning region of the second separator, and when the second adhesive layer is existed, the second adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area in the winding beginning region of the second separator than in a region facing the positive electrode.
Claim 7: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, on a surface on a side of the first separator in contact with the positive electrode, a first adhesive layer is not existed, or the first adhesive layer is existed in a winding beginning region of the first separator, and when the first adhesive layer is existed, the first adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area in the winding beginning region of the first separator than in a region facing the positive electrode.
Claim 7: The battery according to claim 1, wherein, on a surface on a side of the first separator in contact with the positive electrode, a first adhesive layer is not existed, or the first adhesive layer is existed in a winding beginning region of the first separator, and when the first adhesive layer is existed, the first adhesive layer has a smaller weight per area in the winding beginning region of the first separator than in a region facing the positive electrode.
Claim 9: The battery according to claim 1, wherein the wound electrode body has a flat shape; the wound electrode body includes a pair of curved parts in which outer surfaces are curved and a flat part in which an outer surface connecting a pair of the curved parts is flat; a winding terminal edge of the positive electrode is positioned at either of the pair of curved parts; and a winding terminal edge of the negative electrode is positioned at either of the pair of curved parts.
Claim 8: The battery according to claim 1, wherein the wound electrode body has a flat shape; the wound electrode body includes a pair of curved parts in which outer surfaces are curved and a flat part in which an outer surface connecting a pair of the curved parts is flat; a winding terminal edge of the positive electrode is positioned at either of the pair of the curved parts; and a winding terminal edge of the negative electrode is positioned at either of the pair of the curved parts.
Nowatari teaches the same invention as Mita, but fails to teach a heat-resistant layer on the outermost surface of the wound electrode body. However, as previously stated, this limitation is rendered obvious in view of Yamane. It is also noted that Nowatari teaches a positive electrode, negative electrode and separator, while Mita teaches a strip-shaped positive electrode, a strip-shaped negative electrode, and a strip-shaped separator. The claims of Nowatari are broader than the claims in Mita, and therefore encompass the narrower claims. This is a provisional nonstatuatory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
41. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ungorr Nassery whose telephone number is (571)305-5068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/U.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights