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 papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2023, 5/1/2025 and 10/27/2025 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and a copy with initials is attached herewith.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 12/29/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 2 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.
8. Claim 2 attempts to define the subject-matter in terms of the result to be achieved ("stronger adhesion" of the polymer film). But should have been in terms of how the effect is to be achieved. Paragraph [0056] mentions that what is meant by adhesion is, in fact, a peeling force. The description does not give a hint, however, how a difference in peeling force is achieved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joon et al (KR 101739626 B1) in view of Kim et al (EP 3598555 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Joon discloses an electrode assembly accommodated in a pouch-type battery case (10) and comprising a unit stack part, wherein the electrode assembly has a structure in which basic units (1500), each of which is composed of a cathode (1131), a separator (1115), an anode (1151) and a separator (1115) which are stacked, are sequentially stacked, a first auxiliary unit (1510) is further stacked above the top layer of the basic units (1500), the first auxiliary unit (1510) has the separator (1115), the anode (1151) and a polymer film part (1300) which are placed from the top layer of the basic units, a second auxiliary unit (1530) is further stacked below the bottom layer of the basic units (1500), and the second auxiliary unit (1530) has the cathode (1131 ), the separator (1115), the anode (1151) and a polymer film part (1300) which are placed from the lowest layer of the basic units [Fig. 1-2, 26-28; paragraphs 0019, 0037, 0092, 0097-0111].
Joon does not explicitly teach that the polymer film is flat or is concavely curved toward a cell stack part so that the distance between the reference surface, which connects both edges in the transverse direction, and the central part is less than 1 mm. However, Joon teaches that the polymer film part (1300) has no pores and has a predetermined rigidity, and thus even if the polymer film part is attached together with a single-sided electrode, the single-sided electrode may not bend [fig. 27-28; paragraph 0037] and the difference amounts to a change which a person skilled in the art could make, as necessary, and the differences would not be considered to produce any remarkable effects.
Joon remains silent that the polymer film has a thickness equal or greater than that of the separator. However, Kim teaches that the protection layer (10) may be laminated on the outermost electrode to suppress or offset the bending or twisting force during the rolling [paragraph 0029]. Therefore, the same objective technical problem (reducing bending) is addressed via the same technical effect (improving the rigidity of the stack). When attempting to impart rigidity on the stack, and as a matter of routine optimization, the skilled person would undoubtedly consider using a layer thickness greater than that of separator layer.
Therefore, the claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art (KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)) and an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized such a substitution without undue experimentation and with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Joon and Kim both mention that the polymer film is to be bonded/adhered [Joon: paragraph 0100 and Kim: paragraph 0013]. And the skilled person knows that the layers within the electrode assembly can be, but do not have to be bonded. Having stronger adhesion between the polymer film and the outermost electrode than between the rest of the layers is evident.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches that the protection layer (10) may be laminated on the outermost electrode to suppress or offset the bending or twisting force during the rolling [paragraph 0029]. Therefore, the same objective technical problem (reducing bending) is addressed via the same technical effect (improving the rigidity of the stack). When attempting to impart rigidity on the stack, and as a matter of routine optimization, the skilled person would undoubtedly consider using a layer thickness greater than that of separator layer.
Regarding claim 4, Joon teaches that the polymer film parts (1300) are placed on the upper surface of the anodes (1151) [Fig. 26-27; paragraphs 0097-0111].
Regarding claim 5, Joon teaches that the polymer film parts (1300) can be made of a material of polyethylene terephthalate, polypropylene, polyethylene and polyimide, or can be made of any one selected from the group consisting of composites thereof [paragraph 0019].
Regarding claims 6-7, Joon teaches that the basic units ( 1500), each of which is composed of a cathode ( 1131 ), a separator ( 1115), an anode (1151) and a separator (1115) which are stacked, are sequentially stacked, and a first auxiliary unit (1510), which is further stacked above the top layer of the basic units (1500), comprises the separator (1115), the anode (1151) and a polymer film part (1300) from the top layer of the basic units [Fig. 26-27; paragraphs 0097-0111].
Regarding claim 8, Joon teaches a first auxiliary unit (1510) is further stacked above the top layer of the basic units (1500), the first auxiliary unit (1510) has the separator (1115), the anode (1151) and a polymer film part (1300) which are placed from the top layer of the basic units, a second auxiliary unit (1530) is further stacked below the bottom layer of the basic units (1500), and the second auxiliary unit (1530) has the cathode (1131 ), the separator (1115), the anode (1151) and a polymer film part (1300) which are placed from the lowest layer of the basic units [Fig. 26-28; paragraphs 0019, 0037, 0092, 0097-0111]. Joon remains silent that the polymer film has a thickness equal or greater than that of the separator. However, Kim teaches that the protection layer (10) may be laminated on the outermost electrode to suppress or offset the bending or twisting force during the rolling [paragraph 0029]. Therefore, the same objective technical problem (reducing bending) is addressed via the same technical effect (improving the rigidity of the stack). When attempting to impart rigidity on the stack, and as a matter of routine optimization, the skilled person would undoubtedly consider using a layer thickness greater than that of separator layer.
Regarding claim 9, Joon does not explicitly teach that the polymer film is flat or is concavely curved toward a cell stack part. However, Joon teaches that the polymer film part (1300) has no pores and has a predetermined rigidity, and thus even if the polymer film part is attached together with a single-sided electrode, the single-sided electrode may not bend [fig. 27-28; paragraph 0037] and the difference amounts to a change which a person skilled in the art could make, as necessary, and the differences would not be considered to produce any remarkable effects.
Regarding claim 11, Joon teaches that the first and second auxiliary units of the electrode assembly stored in the battery case can further comprise a separator outside the anode, and a polymer film can be used instead of the separator [ paragraph 0092].
Regarding claim 12, Joon teaches a secondary battery comprising a pouch type battery case; and an the electrode assembly of claim 8 accommodated in the battery case [Fig. 1-2, 26-28; paragraphs 0019, 0037, 0092, 0097-0111].
Regarding claim 13, Joon teaches that the first and second auxiliary units of the electrode assembly stored in the battery case can further comprise a separator outside the anode, and a polymer film can be used instead of the separator [ paragraph 0092].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571) 272-3066. 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.
/MUHAMMAD S SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights