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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/01/2023, 11/05/2025, and 05/30/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed on 05/01/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because an English translation is not included and neither is a concise explanation of relevance of the non-English documents. The references not considered have been lined through. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0057], “safter” should read “safer”.
In paragraph [0069], number “120a, 133, and 144” should be reordered to read “133, 120a, and 144” to remain consistent with the accompanying description.
In paragraph [0069], number 144 should be 143.
In paragraph [0100], it is unclear what the “#” symbol is referring to.
The specification has been interpreted with the above modifications applied. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Figure 4, number 402 should read 142.
In Figure 5 (a), number 402 should read 142.
In Figures 9 and 10, the resolution is poor making the some of the text difficult or impossible to read clearly.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “is located in at least one of a location between the outer surface the” should read as “is located in at least one of a location between the outer surface of the”.
The claim has been interpreted with the above modification applied. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 are 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 3 recites the limitation "the first and second directions" in the second line of claim 3. The “first direction” is described in claim 1 of the instant application, but the “second direction” was not described in claim 1 or claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the first separator and the second separator are bent together in the core to extend in a second direction opposite the first direction to extend between the inner surface of the positive electrode and an outer surface of the second separator.” The position of the second separator is described relative to the second separator itself, so the claim is indefinite because the position is not clear. Based on the examiner’s interpretation of Figure 3, “outer surface of the second separator” should read “outer surface of the negative electrode”. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “wherein the separator overlapping portion extends at least approximately 108° around a circumference of the electrode assembly” is unclear as to what the scope of the circumference of the electrode assembly contains. The as filed specifications describe the circumference of the electrode assembly as the “circumference of the inner circumferential surface of the electrode assembly” which is further described as “a circumference of a virtual circle having a center point in the middle of the innermost separator layer and a radius between the center point and the innermost separator layer” [0098]. This disclosure of the circumference appears to contradict part of the as filed specification that describes the separator overlap section as being L+L’=L+L=2L [0099] where L may be 3 mm or longer [0100]. Additionally, the as filed drawings and other embodiment of the claimed inventions appear to indicate that “a circumference of the electrode assembly” recited in claim 13 of the instant application refers to the circumference of the electrode assembly at the point where the separator overlapping portion is located. In light of the disclosure, the limitation of the circumference recited in claim 13 is unclear making the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 2-17, the word “type” renders the claim indefinite because it extends the scope of the expression to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). Claims 6-12 and 16 are also rejected based on their dependency on claims 5 and 15.
Claims 2-17 recite the limitation "The jelly-roll type electrode assembly" in the preamble of each claim. “A jelly-roll electrode assembly” is described in claim 1, but “jelly-roll type assembly” is not described in any of the claims in the instant application. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-12 and 16 are also rejected based on their dependency on claims 5 and 15.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of co-pending Application No. US 18/683127 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following. Claim 1 of co-pending application recites a jelly-roll structured electrode assembly with a first separator, second separator, anode (negative electrode), and cathode (positive electrode). Where all for elements are placed together, and the first separator and second separator overlap each other in two or more layers and are positioned between the anode and cathode. Claim 3 of the co-pending application recites tape attached between first separator and the cathode and between the second separator and the anode. Claim 1 of the instant application does not distinguish between the first and second separators making them interchangeable. Therefore, the limitations of claim 3 of the co-pending application read on claim 1 of the instant application.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 13-15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2024/0274887 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a jelly-roll electrode assembly [0049] that has a first separator, second separator, negative electrode, and positive electrode [0049]. Lee teaches one embodiment of the assembly where the first and second separators are adjacent each other [0056] and [0063]. Figures 7-10 of the reference application also show the first separator and second separator adjacent each other where they are labeled S1 and S2 respectively. The refence separators are recited to overlap [0049] and [0050] in a portion where the separators are in at least 3 or more folds or layers [0058] and these layers are directed toward the core of the electrode assembly between the positive and negative electrode [0059] as shown in Figures 7-9. Lee further teaches a fixing member such as tape (adhesive tape) [0100] used to fix the electrode elements together. This tape is taught to be located between the positive electrode and the first separator [0093].
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches al of the limitations of claim 1 and further that the first separator, second separator, and negative electrode each have a length greater than the length of the positive electrode [0052] and [0054].
Regarding claim 3 and 4, Lee teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and that the separator overlapping portion is located at the end of the positive electrode [0059] and extends in opposite directions from this terminal end of the positive electrode, Figure 10. Lee further teaches that the first and second separators are bent together at the core [0052] and extend in opposite directions [0052] between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, Figure 10.
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the separator overlapping portion extends 10-100% of the circumference of the electrode assembly [0078] and [0082]. This range reads on the limitation of 108° around a circumference of the electrode assembly recited in claim 13 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and that the separator overlapping portion extends in opposite directions away from the terminal end of the positive electrode [0059]. Lee further teaches that these overlapping portions extend past the terminal end of the positive electrode by at least 3 mm [0081].
Regarding claim 15 and 17, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches that the adhesive tape has a porous base layer and an adhesive layer disposed on the porous layer [0100]. Lee further teaches that the tape has a length of 5 mm or more [0101].
Regarding claim 18 and 19, Lee teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches a secondary battery [0006] with a battery case configured to house the electrode assembly [0118]. One embodiment of the batter case taught by Lee is shown in Figure 11 where the electrode is fully enclosed in the battery case. For the enclosed battery case to house the electrode assembly it would inherently comprise a battery cap at an opening of the battery case, therefore, the reference reads on all the limitations of claim 18 of the instant application. Lee further teaches that the battery case may be cylindrical in shape [0119].
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 non-obviousness.
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 1-4, 13, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et. al (JP 2014170664, machine translated copy is attached) and further in view of Kwon et. al (US 2014/0242433).
Regarding claim 1, Mori teaches a wound electrode body (jelly-roll electrode assembly) [0008] that contains a separator (first separator) [0008], a second separator [0015], a positive electrode, and a negative electrode [0008]. Mori teaches that the two or three layers of separators can be stacked together and wound [0061]. Mori also teaches that the separators are stacked between the positive electrode and negative electrode (Figure 9) [0061], and they are wound together toward the core of the electrode assembly [0061] (Figure 9). Mori does not teach an adhesive tape.
Kwon teaches an electrode assembly that is wound into a jelly-roll [0015] where the separator and electrode are bonded together by a tape [0013] that has an adhesive layer [0048]. Kwon also teaches that the electrode can include either an anode (negative electrode) or cathode (positive electrode) [0016]. So, the adhesive tape can be located in at least one of a position between the positive electrode and separators or a location between the negative electrode and the separators. Kwon also teaches that the motivation for using tape is to reduce or prevent a phenomenon where the separator is disconnected when wound into a jelly-roll [0010].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the jelly-roll electrode assembly of Mori with the adhesive tape taught by Kwon to create the jelly-roll electrode assembly recited in claim 1 of the instant application. The motivation to use the adhesive tape with the jelly-roll electrode assembly is to prevent the assembly from being separated.
Regarding claim 2, Mori and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mori further teaches that the first separator, second separator, and second electrode (negative electrode) are first configured in the core of the electrode assembly and wound 270° before the first electrode is attached [0020]. Since the negative electrode, first separator, and second separator are all wound together before adding the positive electrode, they are inherently longer than the positive electrode.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mori and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mori further teaches that the first separator and second separator are wound together at the core [0053] causing the separators to overlap and extend in both radial directions past the positive electrode end (Figure 12). Figure 4 and Figure 12 show an embodiment where the separators are bent together in the core extending in opposite directions where one separator is positioned between the positive electrode and a second separator.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Mori and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mori further teaches that the separator overlapping portion is wound 270° around the circumference of the electrode at the core [0021]. The electrode ends extend in opposite radial directions past the end of the positive electrode (Figure 6). Mori also teaches that a second separator layer can by interposed between the electrodes to prevent a short circuit [0014]. Mori does not teach that the separator overlapping portion extends at least 3 mm past the terminal end of the positive electrode.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the simple modification to the jelly-roll electrode assembly taught by Mori and Kwon as described above by adjusting the length of the separator overlapping portion to a length where the separators can effectively insulate the positive electrode.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Mori and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mori further teaches that the electrode assembly can be used for a secondary battery [0063] that has a cylindrical battery case [0062], and a cap (Figure 1).
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et. al (JP 2014170664, machine translated copy is attached) in view of Kwon et. al (US 2014/0242433) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tajima (US 2016/0204437).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mori and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. Mori and Kwon do not expressly teach the first and second interface each having a friction coefficient of at least 0.4, or a separator that is folded on itself and winds around the axis of jelly-roll as shown in Figure 2 of the as filed drawings of the instant application.
Tajima teaches a stacked electrode where the layers are bent and folded together [0075] (Figure 3B) and the separators and electrodes are in direct contact with each other [0032]. .Tajima also teaches that these folded layers can be stacked together with other folded layers or stacked with non-folded layers as shown in Figure 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
489
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
247
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 3B and 5 from Tajima et. al US 2016/0204437.
When these folded layers are them wound in wound structure (jelly-roll) as shown in Figure 3B of Tajima the separator layers are extend in the first and second directions. Tajima also the teaches that an electrode can be interposed between a folded separator then stacked with another electrode and separators [0138]. The motivation to use this configuration is to control the friction between layers and prevent damage to layers caused when curving a power storage device [0032]. Finally, Tajima teaches how the friction coefficients between the different interfaces of the electrolyte components are adjusted to tailor the interaction between the layers [0158]. One friction coefficient taught by Tajima is 0.6 or less [0069]. The motivation for adjusting the friction coefficient is to control the sliding between the electrode layers [0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the jelly-roll electrode assembly taught by Mori in view of Kwon and further in view of Tajima by stacking the folded the separator layers with electrode layers to surround the electrode layers and by adjusting the friction coefficient at the first and second interfaces to be within the ranges of claims 5 and 6, as taught by Tajima, to control the sliding between the electrode layers.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Mori in view of Kwon and Tajima as shown above. Tajima further teaches that the stacking of the electrode elements can have several embodiments where the separators and electrodes are folded and/or wound together (Figures 3-11). One embodiment in Figure 3A and 3B, shows how the separators extend in opposite directions around the folded end (terminal end) of the positive electrode to control the size of the battery. [0155]
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the simple modification to the jelly-roll electrode assembly taught by Mori in view of Kwon and further in view of Tajima by arranging the electrode and separator layers to create distinct interfaces between the elements optimize the battery structure.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et. al (JP 2014170664, machine translated copy is attached) in view of Kwon et. al (US 2014/0242433) and Tajima (US 2016/0204437) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kasamatsu. et al (US 2024/0204261).
Regarding claims 7 and 10, Mori in view of Kwon, and Tajima teach all the limitations of claim 5 above, but the combination of references does not teach a coating layer with a different friction coefficients.
Kasamatsu teaches a separator that has an inorganic particle layer (coating layer) that is disposed on the separator [0032] and further teaches that the coating can be on one or both surfaces of the separator but preferably on only one [0033]. These coating layer or layers are then tailored to have high and low friction coefficients [0031] for the purpose of protecting the positive electrode and preventing winding deviation in the separator [0030].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the simple modification to the jelly-roll electrode assembly taught by Mori in view of Kwon, Tajima, and further in view of Kasamatsu by coating the separator layer(s) to tailor their friction coefficients to prevent the deformation of the electrode components.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et. al (JP 2014170664, machine translated copy is attached) in view of Kwon et. al (US 2014/0242433) and Tajima (US 2016/0204437) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee J. et al (US 20160126598).
Regarding claim 8, Mori in view of Kwon and Tajima teach all the limitations of claim 5 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach the composition of the coating layer for the separators.
Lee J. teaches that these separator layers in a jelly-roll type electrode assembly [0014] that may have a coating on at least one of their surfaces [0047]. The coating layer can be made up of inorganic particles [0047], a binder polymer [0054], and a lithium salt [0056]. The motivation to coat the separator surfaces is preventing the electrodes from interacting to causing heat damage and preventing mechanical damage from external forces [0026-0027].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the simple modification to the jelly-roll electrode assembly taught by Mori in view of Kwon, Tajima, and further in view of Lee J. by coating the separator layers to tailor their friction and insulating properties for the optimized operation of a battery.
Regarding claim 9, Mori in view of Kwon and Tajima teach all the limitations of claim 5 above, but the combination of references does not expressly teach a first interface between the coating layer of the second separator extending in the first direction and the coating layer of the second separator extending in the second direction such that each coating layer at the first interface directly contacts the other.
Lee J. teaches stacked separator layers that have at least one surface with a coating layer [0047]. Lee J. also teaches that the application of this coating layer to one or more sides of the separators is to create an interface where ions can effectively pass through the coating layer [0055].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the simple modification to the jelly-roll electrode assembly taught by Mori in view of Kwon, Tajima, and further in view of Lee J. by coating the separator layers at the first interface so that the coating layers contact each other when they are in a folded configuration as taught previously.
Claims 15-17, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et. al (JP 2014170664, machine translated copy is attached) in view of Kwon et. al (US 2014/0242433) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et. al (KR 20200050798, machine translation attached).
Regarding claims 15-17, Mori and Kwon teach all the limitations of claim 1 above. While Kwon further teaches that the length of the adhesive tape may be in the range of 5-20 mm [0047] and the thickness of the tape is 10-20 µm [0046], the combination of references does not expressly teach a porous base layer with an adhesive layer or the thickness of the individual layers.
Hwang teaches an adhesive tape that has a porous base layer and an adhesive layer (page 3). Hwang further teaches that the thickness of the porous base layer is 10-200 µm (page 5) and the thickness of the adhesive layer is 10-100 µm (page 4). Hwang teaches that the length and thickness of the tape layers are tailored to optimize the insulating and size properties of the battery (page 3). Lee varies the porosity of the base layer to control the flow of electrons and create an insulating or conducting environment as needed (page 4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the simple modification to the jelly-roll electrode assembly taught by Mori in view of Kwon by adjusting the length and thickness of the adhesive tape to secure the different electrode layers without adding significant bulk to the battery structure and to control the flow of electrons between the layers adhered to the tape. Furthermore, Kwon and Hwang teach ranges for the length of the adhesive tape and the thicknesses of the porous base layer and the adhesive layer which overlap the ranges of claims 16 and 17. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE R ALTVATER whose telephone number is (571)270-3162. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00 am - 4 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291.
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.
/N.R.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights