DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 07/04/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 05/09/2024 and 01/08/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 05/09/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by CN 114213983 to Chen (Chen, machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a sealing tape comprising: a substrate layer, and an adhesive layer on the substrate layer (claim 9), wherein the substrate layer comprises an ethylene vinyl acetate resin (claim 4) comprising an ethylene-derived repeating unit and a vinyl acetate-derived repeating unit, the vinyl acetate-derived repeating unit is 10% (para 71, It is noted that a specific example in the prior art which is within a claimed range anticipates the range. See MPEP 2131.03 ) in amount based on 100 wt.% of the ethylene vinyl acetate resin, and the sealing tape is for a rechargeable lithium battery (claim 9). As such, instant claim 1 anticipated by Chen.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation “wherein the substrate layer and the adhesive layer have different longitudinal swelling rates in response to impregnation with an electrolyte solution” since substrate layer of Chen has substantially similar composition as claimed the claimed properties are inherently present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. the specific output energy density), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation “wherein the adhesive layer has a T-peel peel strength of greater than or equal to about 60 gf/cm, measured at a peeling speed of 60 mm/min and a peeling angle of 180 degrees, with respect to a substrate to be attached”: since substrate layer of Chen has substantially similar composition as claimed the claimed properties are inherently present. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties, and thus, the claimed property (i.e. the specific output energy density), is necessarily present in the prior art material. The courts have held that “[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Chen discloses wherein the acrylate-based adhesive is a copolymer of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and 4-hydroxybutylacrylate, cross-linked with toluene diisocyanate (para 76).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 114213983 to Chen (Chen, machine translation) as evidenced by US 20110287302 to Kim (Kim).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses a rechargeable lithium battery (claim 9), comprising: a cylindrical battery case; a wound-type electrode assembly in the cylindrical battery case ( para 2, para 139) the sealing tape between bare cell and battery case (para 134-141) and an electrolyte solution impregnated in the wound-type electrode assembly and the sealing tape. Even Chem does not expressly state that electrode assembly is would type, it considered inherently present since it is typical for cylindrica; batteries as evidenced by Kim.
Alternatively, It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wound type electrode typical for cylindrical batteries as evidenced by Kim in the cylindrical battery of Chen in order to better fitting the electrode assembly in the battery case.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses wherein a portion of the sealing tape is exposed to an outside of the outermost layer of the wound-type electrode assembly (para 141, since tape fill the gap between cell and cell case it is necessarily outside of the outermost layer).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses wherein a portion of the sealing tape is between the outermost layer of the wound-type electrode assembly and the inner layer thereof, and a rest of the sealing tape is between the outermost layer of the wound-type electrode assembly and the cylindrical battery case (para 130-144)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 114213983 to Chen (Chen, machine translation) in view of US 20090027831 to Tasaki (Tasaki).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 9 and incorporated therein. Chen does not expressly disclose wherein the wound-type electrode assembly is a stack in which a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode are sequentially stacked and wound so that the negative electrode is the outermost layer.
Tasaki teaches a wound electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode, a separator, and a negative electrode are sequentially stacked and wound so that the negative electrode is the outermost layer (Abstract), which can be used in a cylindrical battery (para 90). Therefore, such structural device is well known in the art. . It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wound type electrode assembly of Tasaki in the battery of Chen, because the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 114213983 to Chen (Chen, machine translation) in view of US 20110287302 to Kim (Kim).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 9 and incorporated therein. Chen does not expressly disclose wherein a length of the sealing tape is about 0.8 times to about 1.5 times a circumference of the wound-type electrode assembly.
Kim teaches a cylindrical secondary battery comprising a wound electrode assembly and a tape attached at least part of an outer surface of the electrode assembly (Abstract, Fig. 1). Kim also teaches that the tape e attached to the outer circumference of the electrode assembly is defined as more than 0.5 and less than 1. or entire outer circumference of the electrode assembly (para 31, 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize a ratio between the tape length and the outer circumference of the electrode assembly base on Kim disclosure in order increasing the movement preventing effect of the electrode assembly (para 81).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 114213983 to Chen (Chen, machine translation).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Chen does not expressly disclose wherein a gel fraction of the adhesive layer is greater than or equal to about 70 wt.%. However,
since the criticality of an amount of the gel fraction in the range greater than or equal to about 70 wt.% a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such range in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such feature serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Chen, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the amount of the gel fraction by routine experimentation as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record CN 114213983, US 20110287302, US 20090027831 fail to teach or suggest each and every limitation of claim 3. Claim 4 depend on claim 3 and objected as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights