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
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakahiro et al. (US 2017/0338459 A1, hereinafter Nakahiro, cited by applicant).
Re Claim 5. Nakahiro teaches a secondary battery (para. 108) comprising an electrode body including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator (para. 107);
an electrolyte (para. 107); and
a battery case for accommodating the electrode body and the electrolyte in an inside thereof (para. 107),
wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material layer on positive electrode current collector (para. 111),
the negative electrode includes a negative electrode active material layer on negative electrode current collector (para. 117),
the separator includes an adhesion layer on a surface of the separator (para. 28), and
a formula (2): A = 10 (Example 6, 0.15 N/15 mm = 10 N/m) is satisfied,
where A (N/m) represents a peel strength at an interface between the separator and the negative electrode active material layer,
B (N/m) represents a peel strength at an interface between the negative electrode active material layer and the negative electrode current collector, and
C (N/m) represents a peel strength in the negative electrode active material layer.
Nakahiro does not expressly teach that a formula (1): A ≥ B > C is satisfied.
However, since Nakahiro and the claimed battery employ substantially similar manufacturing process (para. 199 & 200), it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (A ≥ B > C is satisfied) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Nakahiro. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
When the reference discloses all the limitations of a claim except a property or function, and the examiner cannot determine whether or not the reference inherently possesses properties which anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention but has basis for shifting the burden of proof to applicant as in In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2112- 2112.02.
Re Claim 6. Nakahiro teaches wherein the peel strength A at the interface between the separator and the negative electrode active material layer is 10 N/m (Example 6).
Re Claim 7. Nakahiro teaches wherein the adhesion layer includes an adhesive, and the adhesive is any of an acrylic resin type adhesive (para. 49) and a fluorine resin type adhesive (para. 64).
Re Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15. Nakahiro teaches wherein an air permeability of the separator is 162 sec/100 ml (Example 6).
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.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahiro as applied to claims 5 and 6 above, respectively and further in view of Kwon et al. (KR 2018/0315971 A1, hereinafter Kwon).
The teachings of Nakahiro have been discussed above.
Re Claims 10 and 16. Nakahiro fails to specifically teach that the adhesion layer has a prescribed pattern.
The invention of Kwon encompasses separator having electrode adhesive layer. Kwon teaches that the adhesion layer has a prescribed pattern (para. 55).
In view of Kwon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Nakahiro to make the adhesion layer having a prescribed pattern, since Kwon teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to improve adhesion to a desired degree and to facilitate transport of ions or an electrolyte (para. 55).
Re Claims 11 and 17. The combination teaches the adhesion layer has, in a plan view, at least one of a dot shape, a stripe shape (Kwon, para. 55).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahiro as applied to claim 5, 6, and 14 above, respectively and further in view of Akita et al. (US 2015/0340678 A1, hereinafter Akita).
Re Claims 12 and 18. Nakahiro fails to specifically teach that the separator further comprises a heat resistant layer.
The invention of Akita encompasses lithium ion secondary battery. Akita teaches that the separator (Fig. 6, item 240) further comprises a heat resistant layer (item 241).
In view of Akita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Nakahiro to employ a heat resistant layer, since Akita teaches the advantage of using it, which is to reduce resistance increase even in use under high-rate conditions (para. 13).
Re Claims 13 and 19. Nakahiro fails to specifically teach the separator is folded in a winding shape, and the electrode body includes a plurality of positive electrodes including the positive electrode and a plurality of negative electrodes including the negative electrode in the separator.
Akita teaches that the separator (item 24) is folded in a winding shape (Fig. 2), and the electrode body (item 120) includes a plurality of positive electrodes (item 22) including the positive electrode and a plurality of negative electrodes (item 23) including the negative electrode in the separator.
In view of Akita, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Nakahiro to have the separator folded in a winding shape, and the electrode body including a plurality of positive electrodes including the positive electrode and a plurality of negative electrodes including the negative electrode in the separator, since Akita teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to produce the battery by conventional process (para. 65-71).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahiro in view of Akita as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Kwon.
Nakahiro in view of Akita fails to specifically teach that the adhesion layer has, in a plan view, at least one of a dot shape, a stripe shape, a wavy shape, a band shape, or a broken line shape.
The invention of Kwon encompasses separator having electrode adhesive layer. Kwon teaches that the adhesion layer has, in a plan view, at least one of a dot shape, a stripe shape (para. 55).
In view of Kwon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Nakahiro in view of Akita to have the adhesion layer, in a plan view, at least one of a dot shape, a stripe shape, since Kwon teaches the advantage of doing it, which is to improve adhesion to a desired degree and to facilitate transport of ions or an electrolyte (para. 55).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, regarding claim 5, applicant argued that Nakahiro does not teach peel strength value corresponding to B or C, and relationship of A ≥ B > C.
The examiner agrees that Nakahiro does not teach peel strength value corresponding to B or C, and relationship of A ≥ B > C. However, since Nakahiro and the claimed battery employ substantially similar manufacturing process (para. 199 & 200), it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (A ≥ B > C is satisfied) would have naturally flowed following the teachings of Nakahiro. See MPEP 2112.01 & In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2145 & Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)
On page 8, regarding claim 5, applicant argued that the manufacturing process of Nakahiro is not substantially similar to the claimed process, because Nakahiro teaches broader ranges of pressure and time.
The examiner disagrees with this because the examiner is relying on specific example of Nakahiro (para. 199 & 200), which is inside the ranges that applicant is using (claim 1).
Applicant also argued that the process of Nakahiro would not inherently satisfy the claimed formulas (1) and (2), because the identical processing produces adhesive strength differing by a factor of five in Table 1.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s conclusion, since Nakahiro is using different ratio of adhesive resin to acrylic resin. Therefore, one would conclude that using different ratio of adhesive resin to acrylic resin would produce different adhesive strength.
Applicant also argued that the examiner provided no finding that the negative electrode of Nakahiro is substantially identical to any negative electrode encompassed by claim 5.
The examiner disagrees with this because claim 5 does not recite any specific material or composition for the claimed negative electrode. In addition, the negative electrode of Nakahiro (para. 195) is substantially similar to the disclosed negative electrode of applicant (para. 51).
On page 9, regarding claim 5, applicant argued that the manufacturing condition for the test cell for the adhesive strength is different from the manufacturing condition the examiner is relying on.
The manufacturing condition for the test cell for the adhesive strength is still inside the ranges that applicant is using (claim 1). Therefore, the test cell of Nakahiro would satisfy both claimed formulas (1) and (2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood from the texts. Only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out to emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, however, each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E YOON whose telephone number is (571)270-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM- 5 PM.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/KEVIN E YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
9/27/2026
Prosecution Insights