DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are pending in the application. New grounds of rejection have been added for claims 12-18 as a result of the amendment to the claims submitted 2/11/2026. Claims 19-20 remain objected to. Claims 1-9 and 11 remain allowed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (JP 2017/050215, see Machine Translation) in view of Yi et al. (US 2016/0268580).
Regarding claim 12, Masuda et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a secondary battery (ref 1) comprising: an electrode assembly (Fig 1, [0053], [0041]) in which a plurality of electrodes (refs 2, 3) and at least one separator (ref 4) are alternately stacked in a stack (Fig 1, [0043]), such that at least one interface ([0043]) is defined between a surface ([0043], Fig 2) of the at least one separator (ref 4) and a first one of the plurality of electrodes (one of refs 2, 3, Fig 2); a battery case (ref 6) accommodating the electrode assembly (Fig 1, [0053]) and an electrolyte solution (ref 7) therein, an adhesive application mark ([0043], [0047], Fig 2, refs 8) on the surface of the at least one separator (ref 4) along the at least one interface ([0043]), wherein the adhesive is dissolvable ([0014], [0015]) by the electrolyte solution (ref 7), and an electrode tab (ref 23, Fig 1) is positioned at an end (Fig 1) of the first electrode (ref 2), but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of separators, and an adhesive layer is disposed between the electrode tab and the at least one separator, and the adhesive layer comprises a second adhesive that is not dissolved in the electrolyte solution.
Yi et al. discloses in Figs 1-11, a rechargeable battery ([0055]) including a stacked electrode assembly (ref 110) comprising a plurality of electrodes (refs 11, 12) and separators (refs 13) stacked together ([0076]-[0078], Figs 8-9). The separators (refs 13) have a first adhesive thereon ([0081]) to secure with the electrodes (refs 11, 12) and tabs (refs 150) including adhesive portions (refs 20a) thereon, stacked together with the separators (refs 13) such that the first adhesive ([0081]) and the tab adhesive portions (refs 20a) are there between the stacked structure. This configuration enhances the adhesion of the stacked structure ([0060]-[0063], [0081]).
Yi et al. and Masuda et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the adhesives (tab and separator adhesives) disclosed by Yi et al. to the structure of Masuda et al. to enhance the adhesive bonding between the tab and separator, enhancing battery structural integrity and performance.
Regarding claim 13, modified Masuda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the adhesive layer (between tab and separator) is defined by an arrangement of a plurality of spaced-apart dots of the second adhesive.
Masuda et al. discloses applying adhesive to adjoin contacting battery components in a pattern of spaced apart islands (Fig 2, [0044]). This configuration minimizes amount of adhesive used while maximizing bonding strength along an entire surface of the two battery components. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the bonding between the electrode tab and separator in the aforementioned manner to minimize amount of adhesive used while maximizing bonding strength between the tab and separator.
Regarding claim 14, modified Masuda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the adhesive application mark includes a plurality of dots spaced apart (Fig 2, refs 8) on the surface ([0043], applied to separator) of the at least one separator (ref 4) along the at least one interface ([0043]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Masuda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the adhesive is an acrylate-based adhesive ([0018], [0019]), and the electrolyte solution (ref 7) is an organic solvent ([0020]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Masuda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the plurality of electrodes include a first electrode (ref 2) and a second electrode (ref 3), the at least one separator (ref 4) includes an upper separator (one of ref 4, Fig 1, [0041]-[0042]) and a lower separator (another of ref 4, Fig 1, [0041]-[0042]), and the plurality of electrodes (refs 2, 3, etc.) and the at least one separator (refs 4) are alternately stacked (Fig 1, [0041]-[0042]) in the following order (Fig 1, [0041]-[0042]): the lower separator (one of ref 4), the first electrode (ref 2), the upper separator (another of ref 4), and the second electrode (ref 3).
Regarding claim 18, modified Masuda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the adhesive is completely dissolved ([0015], insoluble portion is 30% by mass or less, noting zero is included in stated range) into the electrolyte solution (ref 7) such that none of the adhesive remains on a surface of the first electrode (ref 2).
Further regarding limitations recited in claim 18, which are directed to method of making said secondary battery (e.g. “adhesive…dissolved”) it is noted that said limitations are not given patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113 and 2114.
The final static end structure of the secondary battery is being afforded full patentable weight. Claim 9 requires an adhesive completely dissolved in the electrolyte solution and a mark on the surface of the at least one separator as a final, static end structure. A process of forming the mark is not being afforded patentable weight (the dissolving process is not afforded patentable weight. Claim 18 suggests the secondary battery is subjected to an adhesive dissolving process in an electrolyte, and it is this dissolving process that is not being afforded patentable weight).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuda et al. (JP 2017/050215, see Machine Translation) in view of Yi et al. (US 2016/0268580) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheverton et al. (US 2014/0037857).
Regarding claim 17, modified Masuda et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the mark does not include any components of the adhesive.
Cheverton et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a battery ([0001]) including a separator that is marked for identification purposes ([0059]).
Cheverton et al. and Masuda et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the non-adhesive containing mark disclosed by Cheverton et al. onto the separator of Masuda et al. to aid in identifying the separator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 11 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Reasons for allowance were stated in the 11/14/2025 office action at P6-7 and are therefore not being repeated here.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Reasons for allowance were stated in the 11/14/2025 office action at P6-7 and are therefore not being repeated here.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 12-18 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725