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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: "ethoxylated premethylolpropane" should read --ethoxylated trimethylolpropane--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “hard” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hard” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what a "hard" coating layer is, as it could be a coating layer that has a set degree of hardness, a coating layer that is harder than the adhesive layer, or a coating layer made of a material categorized as hard. Examiner interprets a hard coating layer as a layer made by casting or curing.
The term “inorganic sealing tape” in claim 1 is unclear, it is unclear because the claim does not positively recite inorganic particles, so it is unclear as to what makes the sealing tape inorganic if no inorganic components are recited. Examiner interprets the inorganic sealing tape as a sealing tape.
The term “wound-type” in claims 7-11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wound-type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. "The addition of the word "type" to an otherwise definite expression expands the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite." See MPEP 2173.05 . It is unclear as to what would give an electrode assembly a wound-type structure. Examiner interprets wound-type to be any structure that is wound.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130306221 A1) and Kawabe (US 20180316045 A1).
Kim teaches a swelling tape (which corresponds to the claimed sealing tape), which can be used in a battery (Kim, [0009]) and the battery can be a lithium secondary battery (Kim, [0085], [0092]) (which corresponds to the claimed rechargeable lithium battery), the swelling tape may include a substrate layer (which corresponds to the claimed hard coating layer) which is formed by casting (Kim, [0028]) and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, and that the strain of the substrate layer may be 30% or more (Kim, [0020]), wherein Kim defines the strain of the substrate layer as
L
2
-
L
1
L
1
×
100
%
(Kim, [0016], where L1 is the initial length of the substrate layer and L2 is the length of the substrate layer after the fluid contacts the substrate layer), which corresponds to the claimed hard coating having a thickness change rate of greater than or equal to about 30% and less than or equal to about 70%,
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Kim does not explicitly state that the substrate has adhesive properties, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the substrate of Kim necessarily follows the hard coating layer which does not have adhesiveness as claimed,
Kim does not explicitly state that the substrate layer is “hard,” but because the substrate layer of Kim has all the qualities of the claimed hard coating layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the substrate layer of Kim necessarily follows the structure of the hard coating layer,
But, while Kim teaches an pressure-sensitive adhesive layer and that the pressure-sensitive layer can be carious kinds of pressure-sensitive adhesive layers as long as they can satisfy a peel strength of at least 100 gf/ 25 mm (Kim, [0060-0062]) which translates to 40 gf/cm, Kim does not teach the thickness change rate of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer,
However, Kawabe teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive tape including a first base material and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (which corresponds to the claimed adhesive layer), hereinafter referred to as the adhesive layer, formed on the first base material (Kawabe, Abstract), wherein the adhesive layer can swell in electrolytic solution and have a swelling degree of 10% to 150% (which corresponds to the claimed thickness change rate of the adhesive layer being 100% or more and 120% or less), and Kawabe defines the strain of the substrate layer as
T
2
-
T
1
T
1
×
100
%
(Kawabe, [0062], [0122-0124], where T1 is the thickness of the adhesive layer before the immersion and T2 is the thickness of the adhesive layer after the immersion),
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Kawabe teaches that the adhesive layer has a peel strength of 2 N/50 mm (Kawabe, [0013], [0025]) which translates to 40.79 gf/cm, and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the adhesive layer necessarily follows an adhesive layer that has adhesiveness as claimed, furthermore, applicant states that the adhesive layer may achieve a specific peel strength due to its adhesiveness (Instant specification, [0071]);
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the adhesive layer of Kawabe for the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer of Kim such that when the adhesive tape is bonded to a separator, it can satisfactorily fix the separator to the electrode while maintaining the permeability of an electrolytic solution into the separator as taught by Kawabe (Kawabe, [0015]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim modified by Kawabe suggests a structure in which values of the strain of the substrate layer and the swelling degree of the adhesive layer naturally result in ratios that further overlap with the claimed ratio of the thickness change rate of the adhesive layer and the thickness change rate of the hard coating layer being about 1.5:1 to about 3:1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130306221 A1), Kawabe (US 20180316045 A1), and Ansai (US 20180159167 A1).
Kim modified by Kawabe suggests the sealing tape of claim 1 as discussed above but is silent as to the adhesive layer having a gel fraction greater than or equal to about 70 wt %.
However, Ansai teaches an adhesive layer with a gel fraction being 70% or more (Ansai, [0096]), wherein the gel fraction is calculated by
M
2
M
1
×
100
%
wherein M2 is the mass after drying, and M1 is the total mass (Ansai, [0157]), and applicant defines Gel fraction (%) = (W/W0) x 100, and: W is a weight of the dried undissolved component; and W0 is a weight of the initial adhesive layer specimen, that is, 1g (Instant Specification, [0069-0070]).
Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add the characteristic of the gel fraction of Ansai to the adhesive layer of pressure-sensitive adhesive layer of Kawabe to suppress the erroneous operation, thermal runaway, and short circuit of the battery as taught by Ansai (Ansai, [0096]),
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130306221 A1), Kawabe (US 20180316045 A1), and Weber (US 20110081601 A1).
Kim modified by Kawabe suggests the sealing tape as claimed in claim 1, but is silent as to the hard coating layer comprising a second acrylic resin being a copolymer of dipentaerythritol hexaacrylate, pentaerythritol tetraacrylate, and ethoxylated premethylolpropane triacrylate,
However, weber teaches a layer with a main body that can uptake an electrolyte (Weber, [0025], [0030]), that the swelling behavior of the layer can be optimized by combining various monomers and/or crosslinking agents (Weber, [0102]), that suitable bifunctional and polyfunctional monomers include: trimethylolpropane-ethoxylate-triacrylate having a molecular weight of 400 to 1000, pentaerythritol tetraacrylate, and dipentaerythritol penta-/hexa- acrylate (Weber, [0111]), and though Weber does not explicitly teach that the layer has a specific thickness change rate, the layer can be made of the same monomers as claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this layer would necessarily follow the structure of the hard coating layer with the claimed thickness change rate as it has the same composition as the claimed hard coating layer,
Thus it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the layer of Weber for the substrate of Kim such that when using the layer of Weber, it has a high porosity, good ion conductivity and high heat resistance as taught by Weber (Weber, [0024]).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20130306221 A1), Kawabe (US 20180316045 A1), and Sung (KR 20220068760 A) where an English translation is cited and used herein.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches battery that can be a lithium secondary battery (Kim, [0092]) and a manufacture of an electrode assembly and battery including a jelly roll-shaped electrode assembly inserted into a cylindrical can (Kim, [0131]), which corresponds to the claimed rechargeable lithium battery comprising a cylindrical battery case and a wound-type electrode assembly in the cylindrical battery case, and that an electrolyte is inserted into the can (Kim, [0131]), and because the electrolyte is inserted into the can and the swelling tape is attached to the outer circumferential surface of the electrode assembly (Kim, [0086]), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize necessarily follows the claimed structure of an electrolyte impregnated in the wound-type electrode assembly and the sealing tape,
But while Kim modified by Kawabe (hereinafter referred to as modified Kim) suggests the sealing tape of claim 1 as discussed above, Kim modified by Kawabe is silent as to the sealing tape being between an outermost layer of the wound-type electrode assembly and a lower layer thereof,
However, Sung teaches that the swelling tape can be located on the inside of the electrode assembly and that the swelling tape can be interposed between the first electrode plate (which corresponds to the claimed outermost layer) and the separator (which corresponds to the claimed lower layer) (Sung, [0032]), furthermore, figure 2 shows the first electrode plate as the outermost layer, the separator 123 below, and the swelling tape 130 between them,
Thus, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add the structure of the electrode assembly including the swelling tape between a first electrode plate and the separator of Sung to the electrode assembly of modified Kim to press the outer side of the electrode assembly to the inner side of the can as taught by Sung (Sung, [0063]).
Regarding claim 8, Sung teaches that the first electrode plate 121 can be a negative plate 121 and the first electrode plate 122 can be a positive plate 122 (Sung, [0034-0035], [0040]) and figure 2 (of Sung) shows the separator 123 between the first electrode plate 121 and the second electrode plate 122, which corresponds to the claimed wound type electrode assembly being 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.
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches that the swelling tape can be attached to cover at least 30% of the total area of the outer circumferential surface of the electrode assembly (Kim, [0090]) which corresponds to the claimed length of the sealing tape being about 0.7 to about 1.5 times a circumference of the wound-type electrode assembly,
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches that the swelling tape can cover the outer circumferential area of the electrode assembly which corresponds to the claimed portion of the sealing tape exposed to an outside of the outermost layer of the wound-type electrode assembly, where because the swelling tape covers the outer circumferential area of the electrode area, any portion of the swelling tape of Kim can correspond to the claimed portion.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches figure 3 which shows the swelling tape 51a and 51b between the can 52 and the electrode assembly 53, which corresponds to the claimed portion of the sealing tape interposed between the wound-type electrode assembly and an innermost portion of the cylindrical battery case.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches figure 3 and that the electrode assembly can include an insulation plate to prevent contact with the cylindrical can (Kim, [0089]), which, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the electrode assembly without the insulation plate could directly contact the cylindrical can, which corresponds to the claimed portion of the swelling tape is in direct contact with the innermost portion of the cylindrical battery case,
Furthermore, Sung teaches that the first electrode plate can contact the side portion of the cylindrical can (Sung, [0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Sung teaches figure 2 which shows that the separator 123 is below the first electrode plate 121, which corresponds to the claimed structure where the lower layer is below the outermost layer of the wound-type electrode assembly, wherein “below” is interpreted as closer to the center of the electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 14, Sung teaches figure 2, which shows the outermost layer being the first electrode plate 121 and the lower layer being the separator 123 and the first electrode plate can be a negative plate as discussed above, which corresponds to the claimed structure of the outermost layer being the negative electrode and the lower layer is the separator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims rejected under USC 112(b) as being dependent on claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims with amendments addressing the 112(b) rejection made above.The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Kim modified by Kawabe suggests the sealing tape as claimed in claim 1, and Kawabe teaches that the adhesive layer can have a peel strength of 40.79 gf/cm as discussed above, but neither teaches nor renders obvious that the adhesive layer can have a peel strength greater than or equal to about 110 gf/cm.
Regarding claim 5, Kim modified by Kawabe suggests the sealing tape as claimed in claim 1, but neither teaches nor renders obvious the adhesive layer comprising a first acrylic resin and that the first acrylic resin is a copolymer of 2-ethylhexyl acrylate and 4-hydroxybutylacrylate crosslinked with an isocyanate-based crosslinking agent.
Therefore, there is no prior art of record that teaches or suggests the claimed features together.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M CLEVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3156. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Thurs | 9:00am-4:00pm.
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 Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1177. 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.M.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 1734
/NICHOLAS A WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights