DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the February 25th, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”).
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 2nd, 2026 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
In response to the amendments received in the Remarks on February 25th, 2026:
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 6-8 have been amended. Claims 10-20 are newly added.
The previous objection to the claims has been overcome in light of the amendment.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 is overcome in light of the amendment.
The cores of the previous prior art-based rejections have been overcome in light of the amendment. All changes made to the rejection are as necessitated by the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with the Remarks on February 25th, 2026 with respect to Claims 1-20 are based on the claims as amended. While Applicant’s arguments are acknowledged, they are found to be moot in view of the new grounds of rejection, presented below, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the Claims.
Prior Art
Park US PG Publication 2016/0186201 (“Park”)
Previously cited Busacca US PG Publication 2022/0320639 (“Busacca”)
Previously cited Kawai US PG Publication 2020/0251786 (“Kawai”)
Jeon US PG Publication 2022/0094019 (“Jeon”)
Previously cited Ogawa US PG Publication 2016/0064737 (“Ogawa”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 7 and 11-15 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 7, line 2 recites the limitation “an outer surface of the electrode assembly.” It is wholly unclear whether this surface is the same as the outermost surface of the electrode assembly as defined in lines 10-11 of Claim 1, from which Claim 7 depends, or is an entirely different surface.
Claim 11, line 15 recites the limitation “a separator.” It is wholly unclear whether this separator is the same as that as defined in line 12 or is another entirely different separator.
Claim 11, line 15 recites the limitation “an outermost surface of the electrode assembly.” It is wholly unclear whether this surface is the same as the outermost surface of the electrode assembly as defined in lines 12-13 or is an entirely different surface.
Further clarification is required.
Claims 12-15 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US PG Publication 2016/0186021 in view of Busacca US PG Publication 2022/0320639, Kawai US PG Publication 2020/0251786, and Jeon US PG Publication 2022/0094019.
Regarding Claim 1, Park discloses a secondary battery 20 (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
an electrode assembly 22 (Abstract);
an electrolyte ([0005]); and
a battery can 21 (case) accommodating the electrode assembly 22 and the electrolyte ([0005], [0063]),
wherein the battery case is a polyhedric can (which meets the claim limitation of a pouch or a polyhedric can) ([0005]).
Park fails to disclose wherein a ratio of a full length to a full width of the electrode assembly is in a range of 5 to 10.
However, Busacca discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 301, an electrolyte, and a casing 116 that accommodates both the electrode assembly 301 and the electrolyte (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0043], [0072], [0087]).
Busacca teaches a ratio between a length of an electrode assembly to a width of an electrode assembly of at least 5:1, such that each length is between 5 and 500 mm, such that the electrode assembly can be applied in energy storage devices for multiple purposes ([0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park such that a ratio of a full length to a full width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (which encompasses the claimed range of in a range of 5 to 10)1 and the full length is between 5 and 500 mm in order for the electrode assembly to be used in energy storage devices with various purposes, as taught by Busacca.
Park in view of Busacca fails to explicitly disclose wherein a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.0 to 2.8 g/Ah.
However, Kawai discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Abstract, [0027]); an electrolyte ([0015]); and a housing (battery case) accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte ([0015]).
Kawai teaches a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery of 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah ([0018], [0059]) results in an increase in capacitance retention rate (Table 4, [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park in view of Busacca such that a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity is 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1.0 to 2.8 g/Ah) in order to have an increase in capacitance retention rate, as taught by Kawai.
While Park discloses a separation film (separator) disposed on a circumferential surface of the electrode assembly and disposed adjacent to an inner surface of the battery case ([0065]-[0069], Park in view of Busacca and Kawai fails to explicitly disclose wherein a frictional force between the separator disposed on the outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case is 15 kgf or more.
However, Jeon discloses a secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: an electrode assembly (comprising the combination of a cathode and an anode) ([0177]) and an electrolyte ([0180]).
Jeon teaches a low surface friction of less than 350 N on the outermost surface of a separator to facilitate winding-type cell assembly, as commonly found in can shaped batteries ([0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park in view of Busacca and Kawai such that a frictional force between the separator disposed on the outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case be 350 N or less in order to facilitate winding-type cell assembly for the polyhedric can battery, as taught by Jeon.
The skilled artisan would recognize that since 1 N is roughly 0.102 kgf, then Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein a frictional force between a separator disposed on an outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case is 35.7 kgf or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 15 kgf or more)1.
1 In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 2, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the length of the electrode assembly is 5 to 500 mm and the ratio between the length and the width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (Busacca [0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein a surface area of the electrode assembly is at most 0.05 m2 (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 m2 to 0.2 m2)1.
Regarding Claim 3, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously stated in the rejection of Claim 1) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the weight of electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah (which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.4 g/Ah)1 (Kawai Table 4, [0008], [0059], [0103]).
Regarding Claim 4, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the length of the electrode assembly is 5 to 500 mm (which overlaps the claimed range of 200 mm to 800 mm)1 and the ratio between the length and the width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (Busacca [0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the full width of the electrode assembly is at most 100 mm (which overlaps the claimed range of 40 mm to 200 mm)1.
Regarding Claim 5, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1.
The skilled artisan would recognize that since the battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon covers the entirety of the claimed secondary battery, the battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon would have substantially similar crash shock test results to that of the claimed secondary battery.2
2 Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding Claim 7, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1, and Park discloses wherein the secondary battery further comprises a seal tape 10 ([0036]-[0038]) (at least one fixing member) fixed to an outer surface of the electrode assembly 22 by wrapping the electrode assembly in a full width direction ([0036], [0046]-[0047]).
Regarding Claim 8, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 7, and Park discloses wherein a contact area between the fixing member 10 and the electrode assembly is 50 % or less of the total surface area of the electrode assembly 22 (which encompasses the claimed range of 30% or less)1 ([0049] - Park discloses wherein 50% or more of a contact area between the seal tape 10 and the electrode assembly is detached after contact with an electrolyte solution).
Regarding Claim 9, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1.
While Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon does not explicitly disclose wherein the weight of the electrode assembly is in a range of 500 g to 1500 g, Jeon does disclose that there is a demand for lighter batteries ([0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the weight of the electrode assembly within the secondary battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon to meet the demand for modern light-weight batteries, as taught by Jeon.3
3 “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding Claim 10, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 7, and Park discloses wherein the fixing member 10 is a finishing tape with an adhesive layer formed on one side of a polymer base layer 12 having a porous structure, and a polymer material of the polymer base layer is polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film (which meets the claim limitation of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), or polyethylene (PE)) ([0038]-[0040]).
Regarding Claim 16, Park discloses a secondary battery 20 (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
an electrode assembly 22 (Abstract);
an electrolyte ([0005]);
a battery can 21 (case) accommodating the electrode assembly 22 and the electrolyte ([0005], [0063]); and
a seal tape 10 ([0036]-[0038]) (at least one fixing member) comprised of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film ([0038]-[0040]) fixed to an outer surface of the electrode assembly 22 by wrapping the electrode assembly in a full width direction ([0036], [0046]-[0047]),
wherein the battery case is a polyhedric can (which meets the claim limitation of a pouch or a polyhedric can) ([0005]),
and Park discloses wherein a contact area between the fixing member 10 and the electrode assembly is 50 % or less of the total surface area of the electrode assembly 22 (which encompasses the claimed range of 20% or less)1 ([0049] - Park discloses wherein 50% or more of a contact area between the seal tape 10 and the electrode assembly is detached after contact with an electrolyte solution).
Park fails to disclose wherein a ratio of a full length to a full width of the electrode assembly is in a range of 5 to 10.
However, Busacca discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 301, an electrolyte, and a casing 116 that accommodates both the electrode assembly 301 and the electrolyte (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0043], [0072], [0087]).
Busacca teaches a ratio between a length of an electrode assembly to a width of an electrode assembly of at least 5:1, such that each length is between 5 and 500 mm, such that the electrode assembly can be applied in energy storage devices for multiple purposes ([0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park such that a ratio of a full length to a full width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (which encompasses the claimed range of in a range of 5 to 10)1 and the full length is between 5 and 500 mm in order for the electrode assembly to be used in energy storage devices with various purposes, as taught by Busacca.
Park in view of Busacca fails to explicitly disclose wherein a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.0 to 2.8 g/Ah.
However, Kawai discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Abstract, [0027]); an electrolyte ([0015]); and a housing (battery case) accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte ([0015]).
Kawai teaches a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery of 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah ([0018], [0059]) results in an increase in capacitance retention rate (Table 4, [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park in view of Busacca such that a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity is 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1.0 to 2.8 g/Ah) in order to have an increase in capacitance retention rate, as taught by Kawai.
While Park discloses a separation film (separator) comprised of an olefin material ([0097]) disposed on a circumferential surface of the electrode assembly and disposed adjacent to an inner surface of the battery case ([0065]-[0069]), Park in view of Busacca and Kawai fails to explicitly disclose wherein a frictional force between the separator disposed on the outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case is 15 kgf or more.
However, Jeon discloses a secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: an electrode assembly (comprising the combination of a cathode and an anode) ([0177]) and an electrolyte ([0180]).
Jeon teaches a low surface friction of less than 350 N on the outermost surface of a separator to facilitate winding-type cell assembly, as commonly found in can shaped batteries ([0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park in view of Busacca and Kawai such that a frictional force between the separator disposed on the outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case be 350 N or less in order to facilitate winding-type cell assembly for the polyhedric can battery, as taught by Jeon.
The skilled artisan would recognize that since 1 N is roughly 0.102 kgf, then Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein a frictional force between a separator disposed on an outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case is 35.7 kgf or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 15 kgf or more)1.
Regarding Claim 17, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 16, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the length of the electrode assembly is 5 to 500 mm and the ratio between the length and the width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (Busacca [0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein a surface area of the electrode assembly is at most 0.05 m2 (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 m2 to 0.2 m2)1.
Regarding Claim 18, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 16, and (as previously stated in the rejection of Claim 1) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the weight of electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah (which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.4 g/Ah)1 (Kawai Table 4, [0008], [0059], [0103]).
Regarding Claim 19, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 16, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the length of the electrode assembly is 5 to 500 mm (which overlaps the claimed range of 200 mm to 800 mm)1 and the ratio between the length and the width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (Busacca [0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the full width of the electrode assembly is at most 100 mm (which overlaps the claimed range of 40 mm to 200 mm)1.
Regarding Claim 20, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 16.
The skilled artisan would recognize that since the battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon covers the entirety of the claimed secondary battery, the battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon would have substantially similar crash shock test results to that of the claimed secondary battery.2
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US PG Publication 2016/0186021 in view of Busacca US PG Publication 2022/0320639, Kawai US PG Publication 2020/0251786, and Jeon US PG Publication 2022/0094019 – as evidenced by EAGLE Performance Plastics “Polyethylene Terephalate (PET-P)” and Zolper et. al., “Lubrication Properties of Polyalphaolefin and Polysiloxane Lubricants.”
Regarding Claim 11, Park discloses a secondary battery 20 (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising:
an electrode assembly 22 (Abstract);
an electrolyte ([0005]);
a battery can 21 (case) accommodating the electrode assembly 22 and the electrolyte ([0005], [0063]); and
a seal tape 10 ([0036]-[0038]) (at least one fixing member) comprised of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film ([0038]-[0040]) fixed to an outer surface of the electrode assembly 22 by wrapping the electrode assembly in a full width direction ([0036], [0046]-[0047]),
wherein the battery case is a polyhedric can (which meets the claim limitation of a pouch or a polyhedric can) ([0005]).
Park fails to disclose wherein a ratio of a full length to a full width of the electrode assembly is in a range of 5 to 10.
However, Busacca discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 301, an electrolyte, and a casing 116 that accommodates both the electrode assembly 301 and the electrolyte (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0043], [0072], [0087]).
Busacca teaches a ratio between a length of an electrode assembly to a width of an electrode assembly of at least 5:1, such that each length is between 5 and 500 mm, such that the electrode assembly can be applied in energy storage devices for multiple purposes ([0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park such that a ratio of a full length to a full width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (which encompasses the claimed range of in a range of 5 to 10)1 and the full length is between 5 and 500 mm in order for the electrode assembly to be used in energy storage devices with various purposes, as taught by Busacca.
Park in view of Busacca fails to explicitly disclose wherein a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.0 to 2.8 g/Ah.
However, Kawai discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Abstract, [0027]); an electrolyte ([0015]); and a housing (battery case) accommodating the electrode assembly and the electrolyte ([0015]).
Kawai teaches a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery of 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah ([0018], [0059]) results in an increase in capacitance retention rate (Table 4, [0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park in view of Busacca such that a weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity is 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah (which falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of 1.0 to 2.8 g/Ah) in order to have an increase in capacitance retention rate, as taught by Kawai.
While Park discloses a separation film (separator) comprised of an olefin material ([0097]) disposed on a circumferential surface of the electrode assembly and disposed adjacent to an inner surface of the battery case ([0065]-[0069]), Park in view of Busacca and Kawai fails to explicitly disclose wherein a frictional force between the separator disposed on the outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case is 15 kgf or more.
However, Jeon discloses a secondary battery (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) comprising: an electrode assembly (comprising the combination of a cathode and an anode) ([0177]) and an electrolyte ([0180]).
Jeon teaches a low surface friction of less than 350 N on the outermost surface of a separator to facilitate winding-type cell assembly, as commonly found in can shaped batteries ([0224]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park in view of Busacca and Kawai such that a frictional force between the separator disposed on the outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case be 350 N or less in order to facilitate winding-type cell assembly for the polyhedric can battery, as taught by Jeon.
The skilled artisan would recognize that since 1 N is roughly 0.102 kgf, then Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein a frictional force between a separator disposed on an outermost surface of the electrode assembly and an inner surface of the battery case is 35.7 kgf or less (which overlaps the claimed range of 15 kgf or more)1.
Further, the skilled artisan would recognize that Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the fixing member 10 is made of a material (polyethylene terephthalate (PET)) with a lower coefficient than the separator (which is made of an olefin material) disposed on an outermost surface of the electrode assembly 22 (see EAGLE page 1 wherein PET has a friction coefficient between 0.19 and 0.25 and Zolper et. al. page 360 wherein the frictional coefficient for olefin materials is roughly 0.5).
Regarding Claim 12, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 11, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the length of the electrode assembly is 5 to 500 mm and the ratio between the length and the width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (Busacca [0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein a surface area of the electrode assembly is at most 0.05 m2 (which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01 m2 to 0.2 m2)1.
Regarding Claim 13, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 11, and (as previously stated in the rejection of Claim 1) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the weight of electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.4 to 1.6 g/Ah (which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 2.4 g/Ah)1 (Kawai Table 4, [0008], [0059], [0103]).
Regarding Claim 14, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 11, and (as previously described in the rejection of Claim 1 above) Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the length of the electrode assembly is 5 to 500 mm (which overlaps the claimed range of 200 mm to 800 mm)1 and the ratio between the length and the width of the electrode assembly is at least 5:1 (Busacca [0075]-[0083]).
Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon discloses wherein the full width of the electrode assembly is at most 100 mm (which overlaps the claimed range of 40 mm to 200 mm)1.
Regarding Claim 15, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 11.
The skilled artisan would recognize that since the battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon covers the entirety of the claimed secondary battery, the battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon would have substantially similar crash shock test results to that of the claimed secondary battery.2
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park US PG Publication 2016/0186021 in view of Busacca US PG Publication 2022/0320639, Kawai US PG Publication 2020/0251786, and Jeon US PG Publication 2022/0094019, as applied to Claim 1, further in view of Ogawa US PG Publication 2016/0064737.
Regarding Claim 6, Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon teaches the instantly claimed battery according to Claim 1.
Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon fails to disclose wherein a rated capacity of the secondary battery is in a range of 50 Ah to 200 Ah.
However, Ogawa discloses a secondary battery comprising a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Abstract, entire disclosure dependent upon) and an electrode assembly with a full length and a full width of at most 200 mm (Table 1, [0061]).
Ogawa teaches a rated capacity of 3 Ah or more can accommodate for the residual stress generated by the expansion and shrinkage of the negative electrode active material layer that naturally occurs during charging and discharging ([0102]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Park in view of Busacca, Kawai, and Jeon to have a rate capacity of 3 Ah or more (which encompasses the claimed range of 50 Ah to 200 Ah)1 in order to accommodate for the residual stress generated by the expansion and shrinkage of the negative electrode active material layer that naturally occurs during charging and discharging, as taught by Ogawa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MASON RUGGIERO whose telephone number is (703)756-4652. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7am-6pm 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/O.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights