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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0034028) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2012/0121968).
Regarding claim 1, Jung et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, a method of manufacturing ([0125], [0127]-[0129]) an electricity storage device ([0134]) comprising a wound electrode body (ref 200), the wound electrode body (ref 200) including a first electrode having a strip shape (ref 210), a second electrode having a strip shape (ref 220), and a separator (ref 20) having a strip shape, the first electrode (ref 210) and the second electrode (ref 220) being wound ([0122]) with the separator (ref 20) interposed there between, the method comprising the steps of: winding ([0122]) the first electrode (ref 210) and the second electrode (ref 220) with the separator (ref 20) interposed there between to produce a wound body (ref 200); wherein the separator (ref 20) used in the winding step has a first adhesive layer (ref 22) and a second adhesive layer (ref 23) on at least one surface of (Fig 3) the separator (ref 20), in the winding step, the first adhesive layer (ref 22) and the first electrode (ref 210) adhere to each other (Fig 3), and the second adhesive layer (ref 23) and the first electrode (ref 210) adhere to each other ([0101]) with a force weaker than ([0101]) an adhesive force ([0101]) between the first adhesive layer (ref 22) and the first electrode (ref 210).
Jung et al. does not explicitly disclose after winding, pressing the wound body to form a wound electrode body having a flat shape, with the second adhesive layer and the first electrode adhere to each other more strongly than in a state prior to the pressing step
Nakagawa et al. discloses in Figs 1-10, a method of making a lithium secondary battery (ref 10) including forming a jelly roll (ref 1) of electrodes + separator and pressing the jelly roll (ref 1, [0030]) to flatten it to fit in a casing (ref 4). This allows the jelly roll (ref 1) to fit into the casing of a particular / rectangular shape ([0030]).
Nakagawa et al. and Jung et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery methods.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the pressing of the jelly roll to flatten it as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. into the method of Jung et al. to fit in the casing of a particular shape. Further, this envisaged combination of Nakagawa et al. and Jung et al. results in in the second adhesive layer and the first electrode adhering to each other more strongly in a finished / flattened state as the wound electrode of Jung et al. is compressed, thereby forcing the second adhesive layer and first electrode into greater contact with each other.
Regarding claim 3, modified Jung et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first adhesive layer (ref 22) is formed in a predetermined pattern (Fig 3), and the second adhesive layer (ref 23) is formed in a predetermined pattern (Fig 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0034028) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2012/0121968) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun (US 2003/0152828).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jung et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the first adhesive layer has adherence under a temperature condition of the winding step.
Sun discloses a battery separator (Abstract) including a heat-activated adhesive ([0034]). This configuration enhances battery performance and safety ([0034]).
Jung et al. and Sun are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, battery separators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the heat activated adhesive of Sun into the adhesives of Jung et al. to enhance battery safety and performance.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 2018/0034028) in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2012/0121968) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (US 2022/0376348)
Regarding claims 4-7, modified Jung et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not disclose the first adhesive layer and the second adhesive layer are each formed in dots
Jeong et al. discloses in Figs 1-8, a secondary battery (Abstract) including an electrode assembly comprising electrodes (refs 110, 150) and separators (refs 210, 250) wound together into an assembly. First and second adhesives are arranged in respective first and second dot patterns on a separator ([0014]-[0016], [0030]-[0031]). This configuration enhances adherence between the separator and electrodes, thereby enhancing overall battery structural integrity and performance ([0002], [0007], [0008]).
Jung et al. and Jeon 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 first and second adhesives of Jung et al. as in dot configuration as disclosed by Jeon et al. to enhance adherence between the separator and electrodes, thereby enhancing overall battery structural integrity and performance.
The reference does not explicitly disclose a diameter of a dot in the first adhesive layer is smaller than a diameter of a dot in the second adhesive layer, nor a thickness T1 of the first adhesive layer is larger than a thickness T2 of the second adhesive layer, nor a value of a ratio (Q/P) of a total formed area Q of the first adhesive layer to an area P of one surface of the separator is 0.01 to 0.3, and a value of a ratio (R/P) of a total formed area R of the second adhesive layer to the area P of one surface of the separator is 0.01 to 0.3, nor the total formed area Q of the first adhesive layer is smaller than the total formed area R of the second adhesive layer.
However, the general amount / thickness / area / placement of the first and second adhesives is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Jeon et al. (see [0014]-[0016], [0020]-[0023], [0030]-[0031], [0002], [0007], [0008]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the amount / thickness / area / placement of first and second adhesive dots will vary the bonding strength / structural integrity of the separator / electrode bonding. Therefore, the bonding strength / structural integrity of the separator / electrode bonding is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the amount / thickness / area / placement of first and second adhesive dots. For that reason, the amount / thickness / area / placement of first and second adhesive dots, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the amount / thickness / area / placement of first and second adhesive dots cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount / thickness / area / placement of first and second adhesive dots in the method of Jung et al. as taught by Jeon et al. to obtain the desired bonding strength / structural integrity of the separator / electrode bonding (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee et al. (US 2021/0242538) discloses in Figs 1-7, a battery separator (ref 100) including an adhesive layer (ref 130) applied in a pattern ([0044]-[0045], Figs 1-3).
Wu et al. (US 2013/0111739) discloses in Fig 1, a secondary battery ([0020]) including a separator ([0036]) including adhesive glue dots applied to a surface thereof ([0036]) for adhering to electrodes ([0036]).
Toyoda et al. (US 2015/0333308) discloses a battery separator ([0025]) including an adhesive layer having variable thickness [0016]-[0020]).
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
Prosecution Insights