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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 2 on line 8 each recite "a wound electrode body". It is unclear if this is the same body recited earlier in each claim. For the purpose of examination, claims 1 and 2, line 8 each read on "the wound electrode body". Dependent claims fall herewith.
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 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, 3-4, and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US PG Pub 2021/0344048).
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a method of manufacturing an electricity storage device including a wound electrode body having a flat shape (abstract), the wound electrode body including a first electrode having a strip shape, a second electrode having a strip shape, and a separator (e.g. having a strip shape (as shown in Fig. 1A), the first electrode and the second electrode being wound with the separator interposed therebetween (as shown in Fig. 1A), the method comprising the steps of:
winding the first electrode and the second electrode with the separator interposed therebetween to produce a wound body (para. 0056); and
after the winding step, pressing the wound body to form a wound electrode body having a flat shape (as shown in Figs. 4 and 8),
wherein the separator partially having an adhesive layer on at least one surface thereof is used in the winding step, the adhesive layer includes a first adhesive region and a second adhesive region, and a thickness T1 of the first adhesive region is 2 times or more a thickness T2 of the second adhesive region (per para. 0236 and example 6 in Table 1 has a first region thickness of 1 micron which is 2 times the 0.5 micron thickness of the second region).
Regarding claim 3, Sato teaches the adhesive layer is arranged in dots in plan view (paras. 0089-0090 and as shown in Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Sato teaches the adhesive layer is arranged linearly in plan view (as shown in Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 7, Sato teaches a main component of a resin constituting the first adhesive region is the same as a main component of a resin constituting the second adhesive region (paras. 0213 and 0222).
Regarding claim 8, Sato teaches before the winding step, forming the adhesive layer on at least one surface of the separator (para. 0222).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Maruhashi (US PG Pub 2023/0006263).
Regarding claim 5, Sato does not explicitly teach this feature.
However, Marushashi teaches a ratio of a formed area of the adhesive layer on one surface of the separator to an area of the one surface of the separator in plan view is 0.0013 to 0.3, thus partially overlapping the claimed range.
A prior art range which encompasses, partially overlaps, or touches the claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, in the absence of any unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.05.I and In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP § 2144.05.II and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Sato does not explicitly teach this feature.
However, Marushashi teaches a ratio of a formed area of the first adhesive region to an area of the adhesive layer in plan view is up to 0.3 (claims 6-8), thus partially overlapping the claimed range.
A prior art range which encompasses, partially overlaps, or touches the claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, in the absence of any unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.05.I and In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP § 2144.05.II and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745