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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted 02/28/2024 was received and has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing submitted 02/28/2024 were received and are approved by the examiner.
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.
Claim 3 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is not clear to the examiner the meaning of the terms “where the adhesion layer is arranged” in claim 3. According to applicant’s claim 1 and Fig. 3, the adhesive layers (6) includes an adhesion layer non-formed region (E) that is void of the adhesion. While applicant’s specification states that “ ‘the area of the region where the adhesion layer 6 is arranged on one surface of the separator 26’ can refer to a total area of the adhesion layer 6 arranged in a shape of dots (outer peripheral regions) and the adhesion layer non-formed regions E in a plan view of the first surface of the separator 26,” it does not state that it always must. Therefore, it is unclear to the examiner if the scope of claim 3 is attempting to limit the area where the adhesion layer is arranged to include the non-formed region E, or not. The terms are indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For purpose of examination, so long as an area without a non-formed region overlaps or approaches the claimed range, it will read on claim 3.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (U.S. 20220238958).
With respect to claim 1, Cho discloses a method for manufacturing a storage device (lithium secondary battery) ([0035]), the storage device including a flat wound electrode body (spiral-wound product) configured such that a strip-shaped first electrode (112 – negative electrode) and a strip-shaped second electrode (114 – positive electrode) are wound with a strip-shaped separator (113) interposed therebetween (Fig. 3), the method comprising:
a winding step of winding the first electrode and the second electrode with the separator interposed therebetween to manufacture a wound body ([0035]); and
a pressing step (compressing) of pressing the wound body to form the wound body into a flat wound electrode body ([0035]), wherein
in the winding step, as the separator, a separator (113) including an adhesion layer (1) arranged in a shape of a plurality of dots (3 - rings) on at least one surface of the separator is used (Fig. 1),
each of the dots (3) of the adhesion layer includes an adhesion layer non-formed region (center) in a central portion thereof when viewed from top (Fig. 1),.
Cho does not disclose that in the pressing step, an area of the adhesion layer non-formed region when viewed from top is reduced to 1/2 or less. As it is explained that the adhesive is added via nozzles coat the plurality of rings ([0106]), it is clear that the adhesive is added in a liquid form. Thus, when the would body is pressed, the liquid would naturally disperse and shrink the voided center of the ring, however the exact change of area is not given. However, Cho does teach that in order to maintain an adhesive force between the electrode and the separator, it is important to find an optimum numerical range of the particle diameter of the ring pattern and a width of the ring (thickness (d) of the ring ([0043]). Since the teaching above regarding the size of the ring is a result-effective variable, as it affects the adhesive forces within the cell, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to try and arrive at the claimed range, as there is only a finite number of results yielded in the change of area of the center during pressing, and there is a design need as specified by Cho to control the adhesive forces within the cell (In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)).
With respect to claim 3, Cho discloses in the winding step (Fig. 1), a separator (113) configured such that a ratio of an area of a region in a first surface of the separator where the adhesion layer is arranged (area occupied by rings) to an area of the first surface (porous substrate) is 5 to 30% ([0017]), thus overlapping the claimed range of 0.1 or less.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to claim 4, Cho discloses in the winding step (Fig. 1), a separator (113) configured such that the particle diameter range of the ring pattern 1 and the thickness range of the ring of the ring pattern 3 specifically belong to greater than or equal to 50% and specifically, greater than or equal to 60% or greater than or equal to 80% of the ring pattern 1 based on 100% of the total number of the ring pattern 1 ([0044]), thus resulting in an overlap of the claimed limitation a ratio of an area of the adhesion layer non-formed region (empty center) to an area of the adhesion layer (ring) when viewed from top is 0.2 or more and 0.8 or less is used. It is noted that the difference here is the prior art comparing the size of the thickness of the ring shown as “d” in Fig. 2 vs. the overall size of the ring, wherein the instant application is comparing the size empty center of the ring vs. the overall size of the ring. In either case, the resultant ranges when comparing the relative dimensions would overlap, as one can subtract “d” from the overall size of the ring and arrive at the empty center of the ring for the prior art.
Applicant is reminded that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toyoda et al. (U.S. 20150333308).
With respect to claim 2, Cho discloses an adhesive layer (see above rejection of claim 1), but does not disclose an arranging layer wherein the adhesion layer is formed with an adhesive, a solvent, and a dispersion medium, and a removing step of removing the solvent or dispersion medium from the adhesion layer.
Toyoda disclose a separator comprising an adhesive layer ([abstract]) and teaches an arranging step of arranging an adhesion layer slurry including an adhesive (particulate polymer) and a dispersion medium that can disperse the adhesive at least on one surface of the separator (formed on the heat-durable layer of the separator) ([0165-0166]); and a removing step (drying) of removing the dispersion medium from the adhesion layer slurry on the separator ([0169]). Toyoda further teaches that the above formed adhesive layer results in a separator having good adhesion property with the electrodes ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the arranging and removing steps taught by Cho to the manufacturing method disclosed by Cho in order to have a resulting separator with good adhesion property with the electrodes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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 (572)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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/WYATT P MCCONNELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights