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 § 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 4-6 recites the limitation "the winding core" in claim 4 line 2, claim 5 lines 2 and 3 and claim 6 line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsubishi (JP 2003086233 as cited within the IDS sent on 10/11/2024).
As to claim 1, Mitsubishi discloses a method of manufacturing a battery ([0001], page 1, discussed throughout) comprising a wound electrode assembly ([0005], [0008], page 2, figure 7, discussed throughout), the wound electrode assembly having a strip-shaped first separator (figures 5-7 #7, discussed throughout), a strip-shaped positive electrode sheet (figure 7, 9 #2 and 3, discussed throughout), a strip-shaped second separator (figures 5-7 #7, discussed throughout), and a strip-shaped negative electrode sheet wound around a winding axis in a predetermined winding direction (figure 7 #5 and #6, discussed throughout), the positive electrode sheet being bonded with the first separator via a first adhesive layer (figure 7 #10, [0008], pages 2 and 3, joining member, discussed throughout), and the positive electrode sheet being bonded with the second separator via a second adhesive layer (figure 7 #10, [0008], pages 2 and 3, joining member, discussed throughout), the method comprising:
a first formation step of forming the first adhesive layer on a surface of the first separator (figure 7, page 3, applying the joining member (first adhesive layer) to the active material layer of the positive electrode; discussed throughout);
a second formation step of forming the second adhesive layer on a surface of the positive electrode sheet (figure 7, page 3, applying the joining member (second adhesive layer) to the active material layer of the positive electrode; discussed throughout); and
a lamination step of laminating the first separator, the positive electrode sheet, the second separator, and the negative electrode sheet (figure 7, page 2, discussed throughout).
As to claim 2, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, at the lamination step, the first separator, the positive electrode sheet, the second separator, and the negative electrode sheet are wound as being transported and overlaid in a predetermined order (figure 7, page 2, discussed throughout),
at the first formation step, the first adhesive layer is formed on a surface in a side to be overlaid on the positive electrode sheet of the first separator being transported at the lamination step (figure 7, pages 2 and 3, discussed throughout; the adhesive is placed on the active material layer and with the winding the first separator is being transported as it is being wound), and
at the second formation step, the second adhesive layer is formed on a surface in a side to be overlaid on the second separator of the positive electrode sheet being transported at the lamination step (figure 7, pages 2 and 3, discussed throughout; the adhesive is placed on the active material layer and with the winding the second separator is being transported as it is being wound).
As to claim 3, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, the first separator has a first region in the vicinity of a winding initiation end of the first separator (figure 7 #7, discussed throughout),
in the first region, there exists a region where the first adhesive layer is not formed and/or a region where the first adhesive layer is formed having a basis weight less than that of the first adhesive layer formed at a region facing the positive electrode sheet in the first separator (figure 7 there is no #10 within the first region, page 3, and discussed throughout).
As to claim 4, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, the first region is formed extending to a region not in contact with the winding core (figure 7 #9, discussed throughout) in the first separator (figure 7, the first region can extend till the point where #10 is introduced; discussed throughout).
As to claim 7, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, at a region corresponding to an outermost surface of the wound electrode assembly in the first separator and the second separator, there exists a region where a corresponding adhesive layer is not formed and/or a region where a corresponding adhesive layer is formed having a basis weight less than that of the corresponding adhesive layer formed at a region facing the positive electrode sheet in a corresponding separator (figure 7 and 8, discussed throughout; this is easiest seen in that the adhesive in on the positive electrode active material layer and at the end of the wound electrode there a region without the positive electrode active portion thus no adhesive therefore reading on the instant claimed invention).
As to claim 8, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, a formation area of the first adhesive layer formed in the first separator is larger than that of the second adhesive layer formed in the positive electrode sheet in a state where the wound electrode assembly is unfolded (figure 7 #10, this is because the two layers #10 do not start at the same time; discussed throughout).
As to claim 9, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, in the vicinity of a winding termination end of the first separator on a surface of a side where the first adhesive layer is formed in the first separator, there exists the region where the first adhesive layer is not formed and/or the region where the first adhesive layer is formed having a basis weight less than that of the first adhesive layer formed at the region facing the positive electrode sheet in the first separator (figure 7 #7 and #10, discussed throughout).
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 5, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, the first separator and the negative electrode sheet are fed to the winding core from one side of a vertical line passing through a winding center of the winding core and extending in a vertical direction (figure 7, discussed throughout). However, Mitsubishi is silent to wherein, the first separator and the positive electrode sheet are fed to the winding core from one side of a vertical line passing through a winding center of the winding core and extending in a vertical direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to switch the positive electrode and the negative electrode as a mere rearrangement of parts baring any criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsubishi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toshiba (JPH10241722 as cited within IDS 1/2/2025).
As to claim 5, Mitsubishi is silent to wherein, the first separator and the positive electrode sheet are fed to the winding core from one side of a vertical line passing through a winding center of the winding core and extending in a vertical direction.
Toshiba discloses a method of producing a wound electrode body ([0006], discussed throughout) wherein the separator, negative electrode are within one side of the winding core and a separator and the positive electrode are withing the other side of the winding core. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to more the positive electrode and separator within Mitsubishi (figure 7) to the winding core as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
As to claim 6, Mitsubishi discloses wherein, the first separator is fed to the winding core from the one side of the vertical line passing through the winding center of the winding core and extending in the vertical direction (figure 7, #7, discussed throughout). Mitsubishi is silent to wherein, the second separator is fed to the winding core from the other side.
Toshiba discloses a method of producing a wound electrode body ([0006], discussed throughout) wherein the separator, negative electrode are within one side of the winding core and a separator and the positive electrode are withing the other side of the winding core. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to more the positive electrode and separator within Mitsubishi (figure 7) to the winding core as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights