DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 20 are indefinite. The limitation “an adhesion force of the adhesion layer after soaking in a test electrolyte is 50 N/m to 200 N/m” is ambiguous because it is not clear whether “a test electrolyte” just means “anything that can be described as an electrolyte” or a particular (class of) electrolytes. It is further unclear because the pulling geometry is absent, and so provides indefinite conditions for determining whether the prior art meets the limitation. The unit of “N/m” is an extrinsic quantity that depends on the conditions of testing, rather than being an intrinsic property of the material. The claims have been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be inherent properties of the claimed adhesion layer compositions (e.g. claim 5).
Claims 12-20 refer to “the secondary battery according to claim 11” but claim 11 is actually directed towards “An electronic apparatus.” It is unclear whether or how dependent claims 12-20 actually depend on claim 11, because they refer to an incorrect antecedent.
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.
(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 1-3, 8, 10, 11-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2022/0131217 to Kim et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches:
a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 110 a housing 120, and an adhesion layer 230 (Fig. 2A, abstract, ¶ 0077)
the housing comprising upper and lower housing bodies 121/122, the lower body having an accommodation portion for the electrode assembly, the upper body covering the lower body recess (Fig. 2A)
the adhesion layer provided on a bottom surface of the recess opposite to the upper housing body (Fig. 2A)
the housing being a metal housing formed from aluminum (¶ 0070)
wherein the adhesion layer adheres the assembly to the housing (¶ 0005)
PNG
media_image1.png
702
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kim teaches:
adhesion layer 230 on an inner side wall of the recess (Fig. 2A)
Regarding Claim 3, Kim teaches:
upper housing being plate shaped, with the adhesive also being provided on the surface of the upper housing in at least some embodiments (Fig. 9A, ¶ 0025)
Regarding Claims 8 and 10, Kim teaches:
the adhesion layer is selected from binders including polyacrylate, PVDF, and polyacrylonitrile (¶ 0075)
peel strengths of 300-2500 gf/25 mm (¶ 0020)
Regarding Claim 11, Kim teaches:
an electronic apparatus (¶ 0002) comprising a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 110 a housing 120, and an adhesion layer 230 (Fig. 2A, abstract, ¶ 0077)
the housing comprising upper and lower housing bodies 121/122, the lower body having an accommodation portion for the electrode assembly, the upper body covering the lower body recess (Fig. 2A)
the adhesion layer provided on a bottom surface of the recess opposite to the upper housing body (Fig. 2A)
the housing being a metal housing formed from aluminum (¶ 0070)
wherein the adhesion layer adheres the assembly to the housing (¶ 0005)
Regarding Claim 12, Kim teaches:
adhesion layer 230 on an inner side wall of the recess (Fig. 2A)
Regarding Claim 13, Kim teaches:
upper housing being plate shaped, with the adhesive also being provided on the surface of the upper housing in at least some embodiments (Fig. 9A, ¶ 0025)
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, Kim teaches:
the adhesion layer is selected from binders including polyacrylate, PVDF, and polyacrylonitrile (¶ 0075)
peel strengths of 300-2500 gf/25 mm (¶ 0020)
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.
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.
Claims 4, 9, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0131217 to Kim et al.).
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, Kim teaches:
dot matrix layers for the adhesive layers that have “edges” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, wherein a distance from “an edge” of the layer to a corresponding outer side of the upper or lower housing likely falls within 6-10 mm
Although Kim does not explicitly teach the lengths involved, it teaches the dot matrix covering the bottom and top, and at least one of the edges would very likely fall within the claim range for an ordinary battery of conventional dimensions. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A.
Regarding Claims 9 and 19, Kim teaches:
thicknesses for the adhesive layer between 1 and 50 microns (¶ 0019)
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 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of adhesive layer thickness including the instantly claimed because Kim discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
Claims 5-7 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2022/0131217 to Kim et al.) in view of Koga (US Patent No. 11,811,087 to Koga et al.).
Regarding Claims 5-7 and 15-17, Kim teaches:
a wide range of conventional polymers in the art for the adhesive binders, including polymethylmethacrylates, butylacrylate, acrylonitrile, vinyl acetate, etc. (¶ 0024)
Kim does not explicitly teach:
the claimed copolymer(s) (claim 5/15)
the claim mass ratio (claim 6/16)
an additive (claim 7/17)
Koga, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a bonding adhesive for a lithium battery, teaches copolymers encompassing polybutyl acrylate-co-styrene butadiene (columns 7-8). Sasaki further teaches inclusion of additives, such as thickeners like cellulose (column 15), and includes an example with a copolymer that is 58% SBR and 40% butyl acrylate (example 2, Table 1). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use the adhesive binders of Koga in Kim, since Kim teaches conventional binders with similar monomers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 113097611 to Sheng et al. — another likely § 102 reference on at least claim 1
EP 2273601 to Kim — cylindrical battery with adhesion layer in metal housing
JP 2019-142448 to Miura et al. — another likely § 102 reference on at least claim 1
US 2020/0185787 to Ming et al. — another likely § 102 reference on at least claim 1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights