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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2024, and 10/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites "the first region" in line 13. However, claim 1 previously recites “first regions” and does not identify a particular one of the first regions as “the first region”. Accordingly, it is unclear which of the previously recited first regions is intended by the subsequent recitation of “the first region”, rendering the scope of the claim unclear.
Claims 2-12 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 1.
Claims 2, 7, and 8 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 1 and for similar reason. Claims 2, 7, and 8 depends from claim 1 and repeats the limitation “the first region” (line 2). This creates the same ambiguity regarding the referenced structure.
Claims 4, 6, 8, and 12 are similarly rejected for depending upon claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kayahara (JP 2021163665 A, as cited within the IDS dated 10/27/2025, with citations from enclosed machine translation)
Regarding claim 1, Kayahara teaches a secondary battery comprising ([0020, 0021]: non-aqueous secondary battery 1)
an electrode assembly including a positive electrode plate, a separator, and a negative electrode plate and having a flat shape, the separator being situated between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0025]; Fig. 2;laminated body 20 includes positive electrode sheet 21, a negative electrode sheet 23, a separator 22 sandwiched between the positive electrode sheet 21 and the negative electrode sheet 23, thereby forming a laminated electrode assembly having a flat shape, as illustrated in Fig. 2);
and a case accommodating the electrode assembly and an electrolyte solution ([0021, 0024-0025, 0031]; Fig. 1; laminated body 20 housed in case 10, and a non-aqueous electrolyte solution is injected to the case 10 to impregnate laminated body 20),
wherein in a view in a thickness direction of the electrode assembly, the separator includes first regions and a second region, the first regions including a first end portion and a second end portion opposite to each other in a first direction orthogonal to the thickness direction, the second region being sandwiched between the first regions in the first direction and including a central portion of the separator ([0033-0035], see annotated Fig. 3 of Kayahara below; adhesive layer 24 formed on the separator 22 includes opposed peripheral/end portions and a central portion including central space 24c, with the central portion situated between the opposed end portions in a direction orthogonal to the stacking direction. Because the adhesive layer 24 is formed on the surface of separator 22. Kayahara’s separator 22 together with adhesive layer 24 formed thereon is reasonably considered to constitute the claimed “separator”, so these regions of adhesive layer 24 define corresponding regions of separator 22),
a depressed portion is provided in a surface of the separator, the depressed portion being situated at least in the first region and allowing the electrolyte solution to flow into the depressed portion ( [029, 0033, 0075]; Fig. 3; adhesive layer 24 is formed on separator 22 and includes radial flow paths 24b separated by walls 24a; each radial flow path 24b is lower than wall 24a and thereby forms a depressed flow passage at the surface of separator 22; radial flow paths 24b extend from the end portions toward central space 24c and permit electrolyte solution to flow therethrough)
and in a view in the first direction, a cross sectional area of the depressed portion in the first region of the separator is larger than a cross sectional area of the depressed portion in the second region of the separator (Figs. 3, 4, [0035]; radial flow path 24b extends from an end portion toward central space, and the cross-sectional area of radial flow path 24b decreases toward central space 24c, such that the cross sectional area of the radial flow path in the peripheral/first region is larger than the cross sectional
PNG
media_image1.png
941
1429
media_image1.png
Greyscale
area of the flow path toward the central/second region.)
Regarding claim 3, Kayahara teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Kayahara further teaches a limitation wherein in the view in the thickness direction, the electrode assembly has a rectangular shape including a long side direction and a short side direction, and the first direction is the long side direction of the electrode assembly ([0041], Figs. 1, 2; see also annotated Fig. 3 of Kayahara above)
Regarding claim 11, Kayahara teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Kayahara further teaches a limitation wherein the electrode assembly is a wound type electrode assembly in which the positive electrode plate, the separator, and the negative electrode plate are wound about an axis along the first direction ([0090], Fig. 9).
Specifically, Kayahara teaches that the electrode assembly may be a wound body in which a separator, a positive electrode sheet, a separator, a negative electrode sheet, and a separator are laminated and wound together ([0090]
Kayahara further teaches that the wound body may be stored in the case with the end portion in the winding-axis direction oriented in either the vertical direction, or lateral direction ([0090]). As discussed with respect to claim 1, the claimed first direction corresponds to the long-side direction of the electrode assembly. In the embodiment in which the end portion in the winding-axis direction is oriented in the lateral direction, the winding axis extends along the long side direction of the electrode assembly, along the claimed first direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 2, 4-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (EP 2696395 A1, as cited within the IDS dated 10/27/2025, with citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Kayahara teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Kayahara does not teach a limitation wherein in the view in the thickness direction, an occupancy area of the depressed portion in the first region of the separator is larger than an occupancy area of the depressed portion in the second region of the separator.
Kayahara teaches different shapes and configurations for the flow paths 24b. In particular, Kayahara teaches a flow path having a constant cross-sectional area along its length and having a constant radiation angle ([0040, 0042]). Kayahara further teaches that the shape of the flow path may be varied by changing the radiation angle and/or width of the flow path ([0042]). Specifically, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Kayahara teaches a configuration in which the flow path is wider on one side and narrower on the central area (Figs. 3, 4, [0035]). Thus, Kayahara demonstrated that the shape and dimensions of the flow path may be selected and varied based on the radiation angle and desired flow path configuration, including configurations having a constant cross-sectional area as well as configurations having different width at different locations. However, Kayahara is silent regarding the claimed relationship between the occupancy area of the depressed portions in the first and second regions.
However, Lee teaches a separator 100 including a porous substrate 10 and a porous coating layer 20 formed on at least one surface of the porous substrate 10. Lee further teaches continuous or discontinuous grooves 30 through which an electrolyte solution permeates to improve the impregnation of separator with the electrolyte solution ([0020-0021], Fig. 1). Lee further teaches that the cross-sectional shape of the grooves is not particularly limited and may vary depending on the method used to form the grooves ([0007,0021]).
Further, Kayahara, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are in the same field of battery electrode assemblies and structures associated with separators for facilitating or controlling electrolyte movement within the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kayahara to include grooves, as taught by Lee, in order to improve impregnation of the separator with the electrolyte solution ([0020-0021]). In modifying Kayahara to include the grooves of Lee, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have applied Kayahara ‘s own teaching regarding the configuration of its flow paths, wherein the cross sectional area of the flow path decreases toward the center and is larger toward the end portions (Kayahara [0035]), to the incorporated grooves. Accordingly, the grooves are larger in the first region toward the end portion and smaller in the second region toward the center. When viewed in the thickness direction, this configuration would provide a depressed region having a larger occupancy area in the first region than in the second region, thereby resulting in the claimed configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Kayahara, as modified by Lee, teaches all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Kayahara further teaches a limitation wherein in the view in the thickness direction, the electrode assembly has a rectangular shape including a long side direction and a short side direction, and the first direction is the long side direction of the electrode assembly ([0041], Figs. 1, 2; see also annotated Fig. 3 of Kayahara above)
Regarding claim 5, Kayahara teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Kayahara does not teach a limitation wherein the depressed portion includes a groove portion extending along the first direction from the first end portion to the second end portion of the separator.
However, Lee teaches a separator 100 including a porous substrate 10 and a porous coating layer 20 formed on at least one surface of the porous substrate 10. Lee further teaches continuous or discontinuous grooves 30 through which an electrolyte solution permeates to improve the impregnation of separator with the electrolyte solution ([0020-0021], Fig. 1).
Further, Kayahara, and Lee are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are in the same field of battery electrode assemblies and structures associated with separators for facilitating or controlling electrolyte movement within the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kayahara to include the grooves taught by Lee, extending along the separator from a first end portion toward the second end portion, because Lee teaches that such grooves provide pathways for electrolyte permeation and thereby improve impregnation of the separator with the electrolyte solution ([0020-0021]).
Regarding claim 6, Kayahara, as modified by Lee, teaches all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Kayahara further teaches a limitation wherein the depressed portion includes a groove portion extending along the first direction from the first end portion to the second end portion of the separator.
Specifically, Lee teaches a separator 100 including a porous substrate 10 and a porous coating layer 20 formed on at least one surface of the porous substrate 10. Lee further teaches continuous or discontinuous grooves 30 through which an electrolyte solution permeates to improve the impregnation of separator with the electrolyte solution ([0020-0021], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator of Kayahara to include the grooves taught by Lee, extending along the separator from a first end portion toward the second end portion, because Lee teaches that such grooves provide pathways for electrolyte permeation and thereby improve impregnation of the separator with the electrolyte solution ([0020-0021]).
Regarding claim 7, and claim 8, Kayahara, as modified by Lee, teaches all limitations of claims 5, and 6 as stated above. Modified Kayahara further teaches a limitation wherein an average depth of the depressed portion in the first region of the separator is larger than an average depth of the depressed portion in the second region of the separator.
Specifically, Lee teaches that the depth of the grooves is from 1 to 20% of the thickness of the porous coating layer in order to provide acceptable mechanical properties ([0022]; Fig. 2). Thus, Lee teaches that the grooves may be formed with depths selected within a range rather than requiring a single fixed groove depth.
Further, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Kayahara teaches that the cross-sectional area of the flow path varies along the flow path and decreases toward center, such that the cross-sectional area is larger at an end portion than at the center. Applying Kayahara's teaching of a varying cross-sectional area to the grooves of Lee would have suggested selecting different groove depths within Lee's disclosed range at different regions of the separator. In particular, where the groove width is maintained constant, a larger cross-sectional area at the end portion corresponds to a greater groove depth, while the smaller cross-sectional area toward the center corresponds to a smaller groove depth. Accordingly, the groove depth in the first region at the end portion would be greater than the groove depth in the second region toward the center, thereby resulting in an average depth of the depressed portion in the first region being greater than an average depth of the depressed portion in the second region, as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the depressed portion of modified Kayahara, having groove depths disclosed by Lee, in accordance with Kayahara's teaching that the cross-sectional area is larger at the end portion and decreases toward the center, such that the grooves have a greater depth in the first region than in the second region in order to improve the impregnation of the separator with the electrolyte solution ([0020-0021] of Lee; and [0035] of Kayahara).
Regarding claim 12, Kayahara, as modified by Lee, teaches all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Kayahara further teaches a limitation wherein the electrode assembly is a wound type electrode assembly in which the positive electrode plate, the separator, and the negative electrode plate are wound about an axis along the first direction ([0090], Fig. 9).
Specifically, Kayahara teaches that the electrode assembly may be a wound body in which a separator, a positive electrode sheet, a separator, a negative electrode sheet, and a separator are laminated and wound together ([0090]
Kayahara further teaches that the wound body may be stored in the case with the end portion in the winding-axis direction oriented in either the vertical direction, or lateral direction ([0090]). As discussed with respect to claim 1, the claimed first direction corresponds to the long-side direction of the electrode assembly. In the embodiment in which the end portion in the winding-axis direction is oriented in the lateral direction, the winding axis extends along the long side direction of the electrode assembly, along the claimed first direction.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamano (WO 2019225389 A1, as cited within the IDS dated 10/27/2025, with citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Kayahara teaches all limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Kayahara does not teach a limitation wherein the depressed portion includes a plurality of holes situated side by side in the first direction.
However, Hamano teaches a separator structure disposed between positive electrode 20 and negative electrode 30, including separator 40 and perforated sheet 50 (page 2, lines 10-230; Fig. 2). Because perforated sheet 50 is disposed together with separator 40 between the positive and negative electrodes and is formed of a porous base material impregnated with electrolyte solution, sheet 50 is considered part of the separator structure.
Hamano further teaches that the perforated sheet 50 includes a plurality of through-holes A penetrating the perforated sheet in its thickness direction (page 2, lines 28-35), and that the holes may have the same or different sizes (page 2, lines 46-59; Fig. 2). Thus, Hamano teaches a plurality of holes distributed over and situated side by side along the perforated sheet (Fig. 2).
Hamano additionally teaches that the aperture ratio, the area ratio occupied by the holes, may differ between different regions of the perforated sheet. Specifically, the aperture ratio may be different between the upper and lower portions, with either the upper portion having a greater aperture ratio than the lower portion or the lower portion having a greater aperture ratio than the upper portion (page 3, lines 1-12; page 4, lines 5-18). Hamano explains that this variation in aperture ratio controls ion/current movement and makes the current distribution during charging and/or discharging more uniform, thereby improving durability against repeated charging and discharging (page 3, lines 33-53; page 8, lines 10-40).
Further, Kayahara and Hamano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are in the same field of battery electrode assemblies and structures associated with separators for facilitating or controlling electrolyte movement within the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator structure of Kayahara to include a plurality of holes arranged side by side in the first direction, as taught by Hamano, in order to facilitate movement of the electrolyte through the separator structure and to provide a more uniform current distribution during charging and discharging, thereby improving durability against repeated charging and discharging, as taught by Hamano (page 1, lines 31-35; page 3, lines 33-54).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kayahara, as modified by Lee, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hamano (WO 2019225389 A1, as cited within the IDS dated 10/27/2025, with citations from enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, Kayahara, as modified by Lee, teaches all limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Kayahara does not teach a limitation wherein the depressed portion includes a plurality of holes situated side by side in the first direction.
However, Hamano teaches a separator structure disposed between positive electrode 20 and negative electrode 30, including separator 40 and perforated sheet 50 (page 2, lines 10-230; Fig. 2).Because perforated sheet 50 is disposed together with separator 40 between the positive and negative electrodes and is formed of a porous base material impregnated with electrolyte solution, sheet 50 is considered part of the separator structure.
Hamano further teaches that the perforated sheet 50 includes a plurality of through-holes A penetrating the perforated sheet in its thickness direction (page 2, lines 28-35), and that the holes may have the same or different sizes (page 2, lines 46-59; Fig. 2). Thus, Hamano teaches a plurality of holes distributed over and situated side by side along the perforated sheet.
Hamano additionally teaches that the aperture ratio, the area ratio occupied by the holes, may differ between different regions of the perforated sheet. Specifically, the aperture ratio may be different between the upper and lower portions, with either the upper portion having a greater aperture ratio than the lower portion or the lower portion having a greater aperture ratio than the upper portion (page 3, lines 1-12; page 4, lines 5-18). Hamano explains that this variation in aperture ratio controls ion/current movement and makes the current distribution during charging and/or discharging more uniform, thereby improving durability against repeated charging and discharging (page 3, lines 33-53; page 8, lines 10-40).
Further, modified Kayahara and Hamano are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both references are in the same field of battery electrode assemblies and structures associated with separators for facilitating or controlling electrolyte movement within the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the separator structure of modified Kayahara to include a plurality of holes arranged side by side in the first direction, as taught by Hamano, in order to facilitate movement of the electrolyte through the separator structure and to provide a more uniform current distribution during charging and discharging, thereby improving durability against repeated charging and discharging, as taught by Hamano (page 1, lines 31-35; page 3, lines 33-54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights