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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 12/27/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2021-212885 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/15/2024 and 6/3/2025 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
4. The drawings were received on 5/15/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20150303413 A1) in view of Ueda (US 20130252065 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a secondary battery (100) comprising an electrode assembly (110) including at least one electrode layer that is layered, the at least one electrode layer each including a positive electrode (112), a negative electrode (116), and a separator (114); and an exterior body (120) covering the electrode assembly, the exterior body including two exterior sheets including a first exterior sheet (124) and a second exterior sheet (122), the electrode assembly (110) disposed between the first exterior sheet (124) and the second exterior sheet (122). Yun further teaches that the secondary battery (100) having a curved shape in which the first exterior sheet (124) is disposed inside and the second exterior sheet (122) is disposed outside [Fig. 1-2; paragraph 0007-0020, 0040-0053]. Yun remains silent that the first exterior sheet having a thickness larger than a thickness of the second exterior sheet.
However, Ueda teaches a thin battery comprising an electrode assembly and a film-made housing for hermetically accommodating the electrode assembly, the electrode assembly having a bending elastic modulus of 300 MPa or less; the film-made housing being formed from a laminate film including a first resin film, and a gas barrier layer and a second resin film laminated in this order on one surface of the first resin film.
Ueda also teaches that the laminate films, in terms of enabling excellent balance of flexibility, gas barrier properties, and mechanical properties, particularly preferred is a laminate film comprising the first resin film of a polyamide-based film or polyolefin film having an average thickness of 10 to 100 µm, and the second resin film of a polyolefin film having an average thickness of 20 to 100 µm; and having an average total thickness of 30 to 200 µm.
Ueda further teaches that the film-made housing (4) comprises a first laminate film (21) including a thin gas barrier layer of an average thickness of 30 µm or less; and a second laminate film (22) including a thick gas barrier layer of an average thickness of 35 µm or more and having a higher tensile elastic modulus compared to the first laminate film [Abstract; Fig. 1-4; paragraph 0058-0061, 0068, 0070, 0072].
Therefore, since the thickness of the first film and the second film can be different, the thickness of the first laminate and the second laminate can be different.
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, Ueda teaches that a ratio of the thickness of the first exterior sheet (first laminate film) to the thickness of the second exterior sheet (second laminate film) can be 1.1 or more and 25 or less [paragraph 0058-0061, 0068, 0070, 0072].
Regarding claim 3, Ueda teaches that a difference between the thickness of the first exterior sheet and the thickness of the second exterior sheet can be 10 μm or more and 240 μm or less [paragraph 0058-0061, 0068, 0070, 0072].
Regarding claim 5, Ueda teaches that the first exterior sheet (first laminate film) and the second exterior sheet (second laminate film) each independently include a metal plate, a clad material, or a laminate film [paragraph 0058-0061].
Regarding claim 6, Ueda teaches a first resin film (14a) which is a part of the laminated film [Fig. 3-4; paragraph 0058-00061] can be considered as a resin member disposed along a peripheral edge of the electrode assembly, the resin member positioned between the first exterior sheet and the second exterior sheet, the first exterior sheet and the second exterior sheet bonded to each other with the resin member interposed between the first exterior sheet and the second exterior sheet.
Regarding claim 7, Ueda teaches the resin member includes two resin sheets including a first resin sheet and a second resin sheet, the first resin sheet and the second resin sheet are bonded to each other at least along the peripheral edge of the electrode assembly, the first resin sheet is bonded to the first exterior sheet, and the second resin sheet is bonded to the second exterior sheet [Fig. 3-4; paragraph 0058-00061].
Regarding claim 8 , Ueda teaches that the battery further comprises at least one of a positive electrode lead (2) or a negative electrode lead (3) electrically connected to the positive electrode or the negative electrode included in the electrode assembly, respectively, the at least one of the positive electrode lead or the negative electrode lead positioned between the first resin sheet and the second resin sheet [Fig. 1-4].
Regarding claim 10, Ueda teaches that the battery is plate shape [Fig. 1].
Regarding claim 11, Ueda teaches that the battery is band shape [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 12, Ueda teaches that the secondary battery having a curved shape has a curved shape constituting at least a part of a virtual circle in a sectional view in a layering direction [Fig. 7].
Regarding claim 13, Ueda teaches that the battery is for a wearable device [Fig. 5].
9. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20150303413 A1) in view of Ueda (US 20130252065 A1) as applied in claim 1 and further in view of You et al (US 20180301760 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yun/Ueda remains silent that the battery has a radius of curvature of 5 mm or more when the secondary battery is bent. However, it is known in the art that flexible batteries have a radius of curvature of 5 mm or more when the secondary battery is bent as taught by You [Fig. 1-2; paragraph 0021-0022]. 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.
10. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20150303413 A1) in view of Ueda (US 20130252065 A1) as applied in claim 8 and further in view of Kwon et al (US 20140227573 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Yun/Ueda remains silent that the electrode lead is covered with a sealant; however, it is known in the art that the electrode lead is covered with a sealant (50) and the sealant is positioned between the first resin sheet and the second resin sheet as taught by Kwon [Fig. 1; paragraph 0011]. 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.
11. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US 20150303413 A1) in view of Ueda (US 20130252065 A1) as applied in claim 13 and further in view of Jeon et al (US 20230125681 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Yun/Ueda remains silent that the wearable device is a smart ring. However, it is known in the art that batteries are used in the wearable devices in the form of a smart ring as taught by Jeon [Abstract; Fig. 2-20; paragraph 0004-0005]. 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.
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