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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1; canceled claim 11. The pending claims are claims 1-10, 12-20.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al., WO 2022/213713.
Regarding claim 1, Yang et al., teaches a battery cell (0006-0007), comprising an electrode assembly (0007-0008), and the electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate (0061; 0080), a negative electrode plate (0080), and a separator (0007; 0016; 0030); wherein the positive electrode plate (0061; 0080), the separator (0007; 0016; 0030), and the negative electrode plate are stacked (0007; 0080) and wound (0007; 0033), and each layer of the wound electrode assembly (0080) comprises curved regions (0080); an insulation layer (finishing section; 0028; 0116) and an adhesive layer (0009-0024) are disposed in at least one of the curved regions (first termination section 1321) (second termination section 1341), the adhesive layer (135a; 135b) comprises a plurality of adhesive regions (0009-0024) (adhesive portions 0069), are separated by non-adhesive regions (1321 closing section; 1341 closing section) of the adhesive layer (0163), and the insulation layer (finishing section; 0028; 0116) is adhered to the positive electrode plate (0103) or the negative electrode plate (0103) through the adhesive regions of the adhesive layer (0103; 0163); and the adhesive regions are spaced apart from each other (0109; 0163) and evenly distributed on the adhesive laye “In some embodiments, a plurality of first adhesive portions 135a1 are applied at intervals along the width direction C of the first tail section 1321. As shown in FIG28, two first adhesive portions 135a1 are applied at intervals along the width direction C of the first tail section 1321.” (0163).
Yang et al., does not teach a total area of the adhesive regions is smaller than an area of the insulation layer disposed on the adhesive layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could measure the area of the adhesive region and the insulation area and a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 2, Yang et al., teaches wherein at least part of the adhesive regions are distributed in a marginal region of the insulation layer (first (#1321) and second (#1341) finishing section) (0103; 0109).
Regarding claim 3, Yang et al., teaches wherein the adhesive regions (adhesive layer #135) (adhesive tape #136) are strip-shaped, and the plurality of adhesive regions are disposed apart in a width direction of the insulation layer (finishing layer #1313), or the plurality of adhesive regions are disposed apart in a length direction of the insulation (finishing) layer (0071; 0103; 0109; 0116).
Regarding claim 4, Yang et al., teaches wherein the adhesive regions are block-shaped (adhesive layer #135) (adhesive tape #136), and at least part of the adhesive regions are distributed at corners of the insulation layer (finishing layer #1321 and #1341) (0116; 0120).
Regarding claim 5, Yang et al., teaches wherein the adhesive layer (adhesive layer #135) (adhesive tape #136) is an electrolyte-resistant hot melt adhesive layer (0103).
Regarding claim 6, Yang et al., does not teach wherein in the thickness direction of the insulation layer, a ratio of the projected area of the adhesive layer to the projected area of the insulation layer is 20% to 50%.
However, by measuring the insulation layer area and the adhesive layer area, one of ordinary skill could determine that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Yang et al., does not teach wherein thickness of the adhesive layer is 2 um to 8 um.
However, by measuring the thickness of the adhesive layer, one of ordinary skill in the art could determine that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Yang et al., teaches wherein in the curved region (bent region 0011;0014), the insulation layer (finishing layer #1313) is adhered to an inner side of the positive electrode plate (0015; 0080) at an innermost circle through the adhesive layer (0009; 0023).
Regarding claim 9, Yang et al., teaches wherein in the curved region (bent regions; 0011;0014), the insulation layer (finishing section; 0028; 0116) is adhered to an outer side of the positive electrode plate (0009) at an innermost circle through the adhesive layer (0143-0145).
Regarding claim 10, Yang et al., teaches wherein the curved region (bent regions; 0011;0014), is provided with two insulation layers (finishing layers; 0028; first finishing section 1321; second finishing section 1341) (0103), one of the insulation layers (finishing layers) is adhered to an inner side of the positive electrode plate at an innermost circle (0096; “inner sides of electrodes are relative to the winding center axis”) through the adhesive layer (0009; 0023), and the other of the insulation layers (finishing layers) is adhered to an outer side of the positive electrode plate (0023; 0095-0096) at the innermost circle (0096; “inner sides of electrodes are relative to the winding center axis”) through the adhesive layer (0035-0036; 0071; 0108-0112).
Regarding claim 12, Yang et al., teaches wherein the insulation layer (finishing layer) is provided with a plurality of pores (“larger porosity”; 0108; 0112; 0147).
Regarding claim 13, Yang et al., does not teach wherein an absolute value of a difference between porosity of the insulation layer and porosity of the separator is less than or equal to 25%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could measure the porosity of the insulation layer and the porosity of the separator, and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Yang et al., teaches wherein the insulation layer is a polyolefin separator (0080; polypropylene; polyethylene).
Regarding claim 15, Yang et al., does not teach wherein the porosity of the insulation layer is 40% to 50%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could measure the porosity of the insulation layer and, "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Yang et al., does not teach wherein pore sizes of the pores of the insulation layer are A, and thickness of the insulation layer is B, wherein 24 </=B/A </= 400.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could measure the pore sizes of the insulation layer and the thickness of the insulation layer, and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Yang et al., does not teach wherein the pore sizes A of the pores of the insulation layer are 0.05 m to 0.5 um, and the thickness B of the insulation layer is 12 um to 20 um.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could measure the pore sizes in the insulation layer and the thickness of the insulation layer, and "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Yang et al., does not teach wherein tensile strength of the insulation layer in the width direction thereof is greater than or equal to 1000 kgf/cm2.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 19, Yang et al., does not teach wherein elongation of the insulation layer in the width direction thereof is greater than or equal to 10%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could measure the elongation of the insulation layer, wherein a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 20, Yang et al., does not teach wherein shrinkage of the insulation layer at 105°C is 0 to 3%.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art could measure shrinkage of the insulation layer, and a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “Claim 1 now recites that the claimed adhesive layer comprises a plurality of adhesive regions that are spaced apart from each other and evenly distributed on the adhesive layer, the adhesive regions are separated by non-adhesive region(s) of the adhesive layer, and the insulation layer is adhered to the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate through the adhesive regions of the adhesive layer.”
However, Yang teaches an adhesive layer comprising adhesive regions spaced apart from each other (intervals) (0161-0164) and evenly distributed on the adhesive layer (0161-0164); the insulation layer insulation layer (finishing section; 0028; 0116) is adhered to the electrode through the adhesive regions (0166).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights