DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
3. Claims 3, 4, 9, and 10 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.
4. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the chamfered end includes" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the chamfered ends include".
5. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the chamfering" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " chamfering".
6. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cathode lead and the anode lead" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "a cathode lead and an anode lead".
7. Claim 10 is rejected as depending from claim 9
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woehrle et al. (US2003/0228515) as cited in IDS dated 5/10/24 in view of Tajima et al. (US 2015/03333360) as cited in IDS dated 6/10/25.
Regarding claim 1, Woehrle discloses a battery cell for a secondary battery(battery B, Figs. 1 & 2, [0007], [0014]) in which an electrode assembly including a cathode(positive electrode 2, Fig. 2, [0015]), an anode(negative electrode 3, Fig. 2, [0015]), and a separator (4, Fig. 2, [0015]) interposed between the cathode and the anode is incorporated in a battery case(composite sheet 1, Figs. 1 & 2, [0014]), wherein the cathode has a cathode tab extending from a cathode current collector formed on one side(lugs 8, Fig. 2, [0015]), and the anode has an anode tab extending from an anode current collector formed on one side(lugs 8, Fig. 2, [0015]), wherein at a top area of the electrode assembly where the cathode tab and the anode tab protrude, the cathode tab and the anode tab each have a first bent portion and a second bent portion that are bent in a v shape(Fig. 2), wherein a protective tape is attached to the first bent portion, the second bent portion, and the top areas of the electrode assembly adjacent to the first and second bent portions so as to cover them(plastic film 6, Fig. 2, [0017]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein upper parts at both ends of the protective tape are chamfered.
Tajima teaches two sheet-like plastic films are used as the protective material 110 to protect projections of the positive electrode and the negative electrode and when the protective material 110 is provided in a region shown by chain lines in FIG. 1A, the region is not easily bent([0047]). Tajima teaches if the shape of the protective material 110 has an acute angle, when the power storage unit is bent, the angle might damage the film serving as the exterior body and thus, angles of the protective material 110 are chamfered, so that the power storage unit can have high reliability ([0047], Figs. 1A & 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective tape of Woehrle with upper parts at both ends of the protective tape are chamfered as taught by Tajima in order to provide the power storage unit with high reliability.
Regarding claim 3, modified Woehrle discloses the chamfered ends include a curved shape(Tajima, Figs. 1A & 2A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Woehrle discloses chamfering is performed within two end portions of the protective tape and the protective tape entirely covers the cathode tab and the anode tab(Tajima, Figs. 1A & 2A).
Regarding claim 5, modified Woehrle discloses a thickness of the protective tape is in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm (Woehrle, [0011]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Woehrle discloses the protective tape has a length arranged to cover the top area of the electrode assembly adjacent to the cathode tab and the anode tab (Woehrle, Fig. 2, Tajima, Figs. 1A & 2A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Woehrle discloses the cathode tab and the anode tab (Woehrle, lugs 8, Fig. 2) are jointed to a cathode lead and an anode lead(Woehrle, collector 5, Figs. 1 & 2), respectively, and the cathode lead and the anode lead are jointed to a first bent portion of the cathode tab and a second bent portion of the anode tab(Woehrle, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, modified Woehrle discloses a cathode lead and an anode lead protrude toward the outside of the battery case(Woehrle, Figs. 1 & 2), and an insulating tape is formed at a portion where the cathode lead and the anode lead come into contact with the battery case (Woehrle, sealing film 7, Fig. 2, [0016]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Woehrle discloses the insulating tape is made of polypropylene (PP) (Woehrle [0016])
Regarding claim 11, modified Woehrle discloses the battery cell is a lithium secondary battery(Woehrle [0003]).
12. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woehrle et al. (US2003/0228515) as cited in IDS dated 5/10/24 in view of Tajima et al. (US 2015/03333360) as cited in IDS dated 6/10/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodama (US 2006/0046137) as cited in IDS dated 8/15/25.
Regarding claim 2, modified Woehrle discloses the protective tape is made of polypropylene (Woehrle [0011]) but does not explicitly disclose casted polypropylene (CPP).
Kodama teaches the laminated battery 1, tab resins 103, 104, securing tape 105, protection tape 150, and protection tape 160 are made of cast polyolefin having heat resistance(Figs. 1-3, abstract). Kodama teaches heat-resistant cast polyolefin is used as a material of the tab resins 103 and 104, the securing tape 105, the protection tape 150, and the protection tape 160([0053]). Kodama teaches the laminated battery 1 is characterized by adopting, as a material for each of the tab resins 103 and 104, the securing tape 105, and the protection tape 150 and the protection tape 160, cast tape such as cast polyolefin (e.g. cast polypropylene (CPP)), which exhibits higher resistance against heat than an orientated polypropylene (OPP) which is conventionally used([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective tape of modified Woehrle with the protective tape is made of casted polypropylene as taught by Kodama in order to provide heat resistance.
13. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woehrle et al. (US2003/0228515) as cited in IDS dated 5/10/24 in view of Tajima et al. (US 2015/03333360) as cited in IDS dated 6/10/25 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huh et al. (US 2014/0255778) as cited in IDS dated 5/10/24.
Regarding claim 7, modified Woehrle does not explicitly disclose the cathode and the anode each have a flat portion where the active material layer has a constant thickness, and an inclined portion where the thickness of the active material layer in the flat portion gradually decreases, the inclined portion is formed at an end in a direction in which the cathode tab of the cathode and the anode tab of the anode protrude, and the top area of the electrode assembly where the protective tape is formed is a portion corresponding to the inclined portion.
Huh teaches a cathode including a cathode current collector, a cathode tab protruding from the cathode current collector, and an insulation layer coated with an insulating material on the cathode tab, and a secondary battery including the cathode([0001]). Huh teaches the cathode may include the cathode active material coating portion 10 on one side or both sides of a cathode current collector 30, and the cathode tab 20 protruding from the current collector 30 may include a portion of the cathode active material coating portion 10([0036], Fig. 5). Huh teaches the cathode active material coating portion 10 may include an inclined portion in which the thickness thereof is decreased along a protruding direction of the cathode tab 20([0036], Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery cell of modified Woehrle with the cathode and the anode each have a flat portion where the active material layer has a constant thickness, and an inclined portion where the thickness of the active material layer in the flat portion gradually decreases, the inclined portion is formed at an end in a direction in which the cathode tab of the cathode and the anode tab of the anode protrude as taught by Huh and the top area of the electrode assembly where the protective tape is formed is a portion corresponding to the inclined portion as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
14. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (KR101261243) as cited in IDS dated 5/10/24 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant in view of Choi et al. (KR102257083) as cited in IDS dated 5/10/24 with citations from machine translation provided by Applicant.
Regarding claim 12, Jang discloses protective tape (190, Fig. 5A) which has a planar triangular shape (p. 3, line 47) but does not explicitly disclose a method of manufacturing a protective tape for a secondary battery, comprising: cutting a long bar-shaped protective tape reel with a Y-shaped punch at intervals corresponding to a width of an electrode assembly.
Choi teaches a device and a method for manufacturing a secondary battery (abstract). Choi teaches after unwinding the wound electrode sheet, cutting the electrode sheet by using a cutting punch 142 (Fig. 2, p. 3, lines 7-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manufacture a protective tape of Jang with cutting a long bar shaped electrode reel with a cutting punch at intervals as taught by Choi as applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Double Patenting
15. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
16. Claims 1, 2, and 5-11 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 6-12 of copending Application No. 18/286,299 (the ‘299 Application) in view of Tajima et al. (US 2015/0333360) as cited in IDS dated 6/10/25.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ‘299 application teaches a battery cell having all of the limitations of instant claim 1 except for upper parts at both ends of the protective tape are chamfered. Claim 1 of the ‘299 application teaches the protective tape has an atypical irregular polygon shape.
Tajima teaches two sheet-like plastic films are used as the protective material 110 to protect projections of the positive electrode and the negative electrode and when the protective material 110 is provided in a region shown by chain lines in FIG. 1A, the region is not easily bent([0047]). Tajima teaches if the shape of the protective material 110 has an acute angle, when the power storage unit is bent, the angle might damage the film serving as the exterior body and thus, angles of the protective material 110 are chamfered, so that the power storage unit can have high reliability ([0047], Figs. 1A & 2A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the protective tape of claim 1 of the ‘299 application with upper parts at both ends of the protective tape are chamfered as taught by Tajima in order to provide the power storage unit with high reliability.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 2 of the ‘299 application teaches the protective tape is made of the same material.
Regarding instant claims 5 and 6, claims 6 and 7 of the ‘299 application teach the same protective tape thickness and length.
Regarding instant claims 7 and 8, claims 8 and 9 of the ‘299 application teach the same active material layer and an inclined portion and tabs jointed to leads.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, claims 10 and 11 of the ‘299 application teach a similar insulating tape and the material of the insulating tape.
Regarding instant claim 11, claim 12 of the ‘299 application teaches the same lithium secondary battery.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights