DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment filed on November 28, 2025 was received. Claim 1 was amended. New claim 21 was added.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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
Claim 10 is 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, at lines 9-10, recites, “a value of the porosity of the barrier layer is greater than 0 and less than or equal to 1”. Claim 10, at lines 1-2, recites, “the porosity of the barrier layer is 10% to 70%.” The porosity of the barrier layer cannot both be (a) greater than 0 and less or equal to 1; and (b) between 10% and 70%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-12, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kano et al. (hereinafter “Kano”) (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0233301A1, already of record) in view of Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”) (CN 205992575U, cited by Applicant; see English machine translation already of record).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8, Kano teaches an electric storage element 110A comprising a negative electrode 130, a positive electrode 140, and a separator 150 which are stacked and wound around a winding core 112 (see paragraphs 90 and 92; FIGS. 2 and 3). A plurality of protective tapes 161, 162, 163 and 164 (barrier layers) are provided in a radial portion of the electric storage element 110A that corresponds to the location of a negative electrode terminal 131. The protective tapes are resin films that are substantially impermeable to ions (see paragraphs 94, 105 and 106).
Protective tape 161 is provided so as to cover the negative electrode terminal 131 (see paragraph 94). Protective tape 162 is provided on the positive electrode 140 so as to be positioned between the winding core 112 and the negative electrode terminal 131 (see paragraph 105). Protective tape 163 is provided on the opposite side of the negative electrode 130 from protective tape 161 (see paragraph 94). Protective tape 164 is provided on the positive electrode 140 so as to be positioned between the negative electrode terminal 131 and the periphery of the electric storage element 110A.
Kano is silent as to ratio of a thickness of the barrier layer to a porosity of the barrier layer that is larger than or equal to 3.5 microns and smaller than or equal to 2000 microns.
Li teaches a coiled battery comprising a positive pole sheet, a negative pole sheet, and a separator between the positive and negative pole sheets. Positive sheet bending portions 8 of the positive pole sheet are provided with strips of insulating tape 9 made of PET (barrier layers spaced apart from each other in the bending direction; polyethylene terephthalate) having a thickness that is 10-50 microns (see paragraph 24; FIGS. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adapted the strips of insulating tape as taught by Li to the electric storage element of Kano because Li teaches that when there is no lithium ion deintercalation on the bending part of the positive electrode sheet on the positive electrode sheet, there is no active lithium ion on the corresponding bending part of the negative electrode sheet, which eliminates the possibility of metal lithium precipitation at the bending part of the negative electrode sheet, thereby leading to improved safety performance of the battery (see paragraph 18).
Although the combination of Kano with Li as set forth above does not explicitly address a porosity of the insulating tape strips, the thickness range taught by Li is such that effectively any porosity value may result in a thickness to porosity ratio that is within the claimed range. For example, 1% porosity for a 10 micron thickness strip results in a ratio value of 1000. A 99% porosity value for a 10 micron thickness strip results in a ratio value of approximately 10.1.
Regarding claim 3, Kano teaches that the ion permeation rates of the protective tapes 161, 162, 163 and 164 are lower than the ion permeation rate of the separator 150 (see paragraphs 94, 105 and 106).
Regarding claim 5, Kano teaches that protective tape 162 is provided between the innermost portions of the negative electrode 130 and the positive electrode 140 (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Kano teaches that an end of the negative electrode 130 is received within the winding core 112 at the center of the electric storage element 110A (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 9, although Kano and Li are silent as to at least one through hole, it has been by the courts that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, although Kano and Li are silent as to a porosity of the barrier layer, it is well within the ambit of the ordinary artisan to adjust the porosity of the barrier to achieve a desired effect in preventing the passage of ions therethrough. It is noted that Kano teaches that the protective tapes may be formed of polypropylene (see paragraph 122), which is consistent with the macromolecular polymers set forth in paragraph 87 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 12, Kano teaches that the width of the positive electrode 140 may be 24 mm while the width of the negative electrode 130 may be 27 mm (see paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches that the length of the insulating tape 9 spans the positive electrode sheet coating in the width direction (see paragraph 24). The length of the insulating adhesive tape can also be less than the size of the positive electrode slurry along the width direction of the positive electrode sheet (see paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 15, Kano teaches that the protective tape 164 is provided on the positive electrode 140 opposite the outermost portion of the negative electrode 130 (see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 18, it has been by the courts that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 19, Kano teaches that the electrochemical storage element 110A may be provided within a housing 120 which is sealed with a lid (see paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 20, it is well known in the art to house a plurality of individual cells within a single battery module, particularly for use in electric vehicles where a plurality of battery modules are required for a single vehicle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 21 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art neither teaches nor suggests the electrode assembly of claim 21, specifically wherein the barrier layer comprises inorganic oxide.
The closest prior art is Kano and Li. Kano teaches that the protective tapes may comprise materials resistant to heat and the electrolyte such as polyimide, polypropylene, polyphenylene sulfide, etc. (see paragraph 122). Li teaches that the insulating tape may be made of a PET material (see paragraph 24). Kano and Li are thus both silent as to an inorganic oxide.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHAN J ESSEX whose telephone number is (571)270-7866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 6:00 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
/STEPHAN J ESSEX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727