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 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.
Claims 1-4 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 “long” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “long” 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 term “long,” does not provide a means of what is considered “long,” and is therefore indefinite.
The term “larger” in claims 1 and 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “larger” 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 term “larger,” does not provide a measurable degree bounding the change in thickness or disclose a upper limit which makes the scope unbounded and thus is indefinite.
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.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (US2020/0280071A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshii discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery [0068], comprising an electrode assembly (Electrode assembly 14, [0022]) in which a first electrode (Positive electrode (11) [0022], fig. 1) including a long strip-shaped first electrode core (Current collector (32), [0029], fig. 6) and first electrode mixture layers (Positive electrode active material layer 34 [0029]) provided on both surfaces of the first electrode core (fig. 6) and
a second electrode (Negative electrode (12)) including a long strip-shaped second electrode core [0036] and second electrode mixture layers provided on both surfaces of the second electrode core ([0036], fig, 1) are wound via a separator [0022],
wherein the first electrode has a first electrode core exposed portion that both surfaces of the first electrode core are exposed from, on a first surface of the first electrode (Exposed part (32a) [0033], fig. 3), a first electrode lead is joined to the first electrode core exposed portion (The positive electrode lead 20 comprises a first end part 20a connected to the exposed part 32a of the positive electrode current collector 32 [0034], fig. 3) and a first insulating tape (insulating member (39), the insulating layer 36 including inorganic particles, a binder, and the like is formed on the adhesive layer 30b of the insulating tape 30 having the substrate layer 30a and the adhesive layer 30b on the substrate layer 30a to prepare an insulating member 39 [0052], fig. 5) is pasted on the first electrode core exposed portion so as to cover the first electrode lead ([0049], fig. 3),
on a second surface on an opposite side to the first surface of the first electrode, a second insulating tape is pasted on the first electrode core exposed portion (Insulating tape (30) [0049], fig.3), and
Yoshii discloses the first insulating tape comprising insulating tape (30) and insulating layer (36) [0052] and the if the insulating layer is to thin an internal short circuit may occur and if the insulating layer is to thick the other components may have reduced volumes, therefore it would be obvious to optimize the thickness of layer (36), and thereby the insulating tape to prevent internal short circuit or component size reduction. Where adding a thickness to the first insulating tape would necessitate a thickness of the first insulating tape is larger than a thickness of the second insulating tape which does not possess insulating layer (36) as shown in fig. 3.
The inclusion of the insulating layer (36) with adhesive layer (30b) of insulating tape (30) is a design choice stemming from manufacturing capabilities and assembly simplification and the court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) MPEP 2144.04
PNG
media_image1.png
402
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Yoshii, annotated fig. 3)
It is noted whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Yoshii discloses the second electrode has a second electrode core exposed portion that both surfaces of the second electrode core are exposed from so as to overlap [0065],
on a first surface of the second electrode, a second electrode lead is joined to the second electrode core exposed portion [0065] and a third insulating tape is pasted on the second electrode core exposed portion so as to cover the second electrode lead (lead on the exposed part covered with an insulating tape, [0066]), on a second surface on an opposite side to the first surface of the second electrode, a fourth insulating tape is pasted on the second electrode core exposed portion (exposed part without lead covered with an insulating tape, [0066]), and
The limitation of a thickness of the third insulating tape is larger than a thickness of the second insulating tape would seem to be unrelated as the tape placement occurs on different electrodes, and It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Yoshii discloses the first insulating tape comprising insulating tape (30) and insulating layer (36) [0052] fig. 5 and the thickness range of insulating layer (36) may be 2 µm to 30 µm [0055] and the range in thickness of the insulating tape (30) maybe be 10 µm to 40 µm [0060] or the total thickness of the first insulating tape would be 12 µm to 70 µm. As shown in fig. 3 the second insulating tape comprises only tape (30) with a thickness of 10 µm to 40 µm which provides a range of thickness of the first insulting tape equal to 1.2 times greater than the second insulating tape (12/10 =1.2, 70/40 = 1.75)
PNG
media_image1.png
402
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Yoshii, annotated fig. 3)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii et al. (US2020/0280071A1), in view of Kamo et al. (US2019/0372170A1).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Yoshii discloses first insulating tape comprising insulating tape (30) and insulating layer (36) [0052] fig. 5 and the thickness range of insulating layer (36) may be 2 µm to 30 µm [0055] and the range in thickness of the insulating tape (30) maybe be 10 µm to 40 µm [0060] or the total thickness of the first insulating tape would be 12 µm to 70 µm. As shown in fig. 3 the second insulating tape comprises only tape (30) with a thickness of 10 µm to 40 µm which provides a range of thickness of the first insulting tape equal to 1.2 times greater than the second insulating tape (12/10 =1.2, 70/40 = 1.75)
PNG
media_image1.png
402
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Yoshii, annotated fig. 3)
Yoshii discloses a third and fourth insulating tape but does explicitly disclose the thickness of the third insulating tape is greater than or equal to 1.2 times the thickness of the fourth insulating tape. In same field of endeavor Kano discloses the present disclosure relates to a lithium secondary battery including a nonaqueous electrolyte having lithium ion-conductivity. [0001] and teaches negative electrode (134) includes a current collector (132) [0054]… The negative electrode current collector has a first surface facing outward of the winding of the electrode group and a second surface facing inward of the winding of the electrode group. [0006]…The negative electrode current collector 132 is divided into a region located in the inner winding portion IW of the electrode group and a region located in the outer winding portion OW by a fourth center line CL. [0056]… on each of the first surface and the second surface of the negative electrode current collector 132, an adhesive tape having a thickness of 50 μm and a width of 2 mm was attached to the region that was to be the inner winding portion IW of the electrode group, and an adhesive tape having a thickness of 75 μm and a width of 2 mm was attached to the region that was to be the outer winding portion OW [0109] Where the outer surface tape would provide a third insulating tape and the inner surface tape would provide a fourth insulating tape, and the third insulating tape comprising a thickness of 75 μm is 1.5 times thicker than the fourth tape thickness of 50 μm which meets the claimed limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Kogetsu et al. (US2018/0145304A1) Insulating tape applied to current collector.
Lim et al. (US2021/0265708A1) Tape applied to negative electrode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights