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 1-20 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.
The term “long metal fiber” 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 parameter, “long”, has been rendered indefinite; appropriate correction is required.
The term “short metal fiber” 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 parameter, “short”, has been rendered indefinite; appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4, 8-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi, US 20190190017, in view of Hasuo et al., US 20190304709.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi et al., teaches a manufacturing method for an electrode of an electricity storage device (0007), wherein comprising: a fiber manufacturing working procedure (0018), acquiring a long metal fiber (abstract), wherein the coil is formed by winding a metal foil (0102); a cutting working procedure, cutting the long metal fiber so that the average length is less than 5 mm (average fiber length is 1 um to 100 um) (0059; 0076) in a state of pressing a bundle of the long metal fibers on a predetermined surface by using a pressing component (0089), or in a state of configuring the bundle of the long metal fibers in a plastic tube; a slurry preparation working procedure, preparing liquid-like or gel-like slurry, wherein the slurry contains a binder, a metal short fiber manufactured by the cutting working procedure, and adsorbent powder that adsorbs electrolyte ions during charging or active substance powder that performs a chemical reaction during charging-discharging; a forming working procedure, forming the slurry into a predetermined shape; and a drying working procedure (0081), drying the slurry formed into the predetermined shape (0081; 0142), to form an electrode containing the short fibers (0018).
Hayashi does not teach cutting an end surface of a coil (0062) with a cutting tool (0025-0026).
Hasuo et al., teaches an electrode manufacturing method comprising cutting an end surface of a coil with a cutting tool.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi et al., teaches wherein: in the cutting working procedure (pulverization) (0073), cutting the bundle of the long metal fibers together with the pressing component (0089).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi et al., teaches wherein: in the cutting working procedure, cutting the bundle of the long metal fibers together with the pressing component (0089).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi et al., teaches wherein: in the slurry preparation working procedure (0067; 0142), mixing the short fibers into the slurry (0009; 0015; 0142), so that the weight ratio of the short fibers relative to the entire electrode after drying in the drying working procedure is less than 8% by weight (lower than 15 mass%) (0077).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi et al., teaches electrode of an electricity storage device (0007), comprising: a metal short fiber , and adsorbent powder (granulation of powder with the use of solvent) (0013) that adsorbs electrolyte ions during charging (0047).
Although Hayashi does not teach wherein the short fiber has a small diameter portion and a large diameter portion of which a diameter is more than 1.5 times greater than that of the small diameter portion, and a length of the large diameter portion is 5 times less than an average diameter of the small diameter portion, "mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi teaches wherein: the average diameter of the small diameter portion of the short fiber is 30 um or less (not smaller than 1 um and not greater than 10 um) (0076).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi teaches wherein: the short fibers are composed of aluminum (0075).
Although Hayashi does not teach aluminum with a purity of 99.9% or more, “Pure materials are novel vis-à-vis less pure or impure materials because there is a difference between pure and impure materials. Therefore, the issue is whether claims to a pure material are nonobvious over the prior art. In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 166 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1970). Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.”
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi teaches wherein: a plurality of the large diameter portions (composite particles 5) (0.1 mm to 2mm) (0090) and a plurality of the small diameter portions (metal short fibers 2) (10 nm to 1 um) (0076) alternately exist on one piece of the short fiber A (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi teaches wherein: the pressing component is a plastic film with a thickness of 1 mm or less (0086).
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi teaches wherein: in the slurry preparation working procedure (0067; 0142), mixing the short fibers into the slurry (0007-0010), so that the weight ratio of the short fibers relative to the entire electrode after drying in the drying working procedure is less than 8% by weight (5 mass%) (0077; 0134).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi teaches wherein: in the slurry preparation working procedure (0067; 0142), mixing the short fibers into the slurry (0007-0010), so that the weight ratio of the short fibers relative to the entire electrode after drying in the drying working procedure is less than 8% by weight (5 mass%) (0077; 0134).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi teaches wherein: in the slurry preparation working procedure (0067; 0142), mixing the short fibers into the slurry (0007-0010), so that the weight ratio of the short fibers relative to the entire electrode after drying in the drying working procedure is less than 8% by weight (5 mass%) (0077; 0134).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi teaches wherein: the short fibers are composed of aluminum (0075).
Although Hayashi does not teach aluminum with a purity of 99.9% or more, “Pure materials are novel vis-à-vis less pure or impure materials because there is a difference between pure and impure materials. Therefore, the issue is whether claims to a pure material are nonobvious over the prior art. In re Bergstrom, 427 F.2d 1394, 166 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1970). Purer forms of known products may be patentable, but the mere purity of a product, by itself, does not render the product nonobvious.”
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi teaches wherein: a plurality of the large diameter portions (composite particles 5) (0.1 mm to 2mm) (0090) and a plurality of the small diameter portions (metal short fibers 2) (10 nm to 1 um) (0076) alternately exist on one piece of the short fiber A (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 19, Hayashi teaches wherein: a plurality of the large diameter portions (composite particles 5) (0.1 mm to 2mm) (0090) and a plurality of the small diameter portions (metal short fibers 2) (10 nm to 1 um) (0076) alternately exist on one piece of the short fiber A (Fig. 2-3).
Regarding claim 20, Hayashi teaches wherein: a plurality of the large diameter portions (composite particles 5) (0.1 mm to 2mm) (0090) and a plurality of the small diameter portions (metal short fibers 2) (10 nm to 1 um) (0076) alternately exist on one piece of the short fiber A (Fig. 2-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 5-7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayashi, US 20190190017.
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi et al., teaches an electrode of an electricity storage device (0007), comprising: a metal short fiber (abstract) of which an average length is less than 5 mm (100 nm to 500 nm) (0076), and adsorbent powder that adsorbs electrolyte ions ((wet granulation of powder with the use of solvent) (0013; 0047) during charging, wherein a weight ratio of the short fibers is less than 8% by weight (5 mass%) (0077; 0134).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi et al., teaches wherein: the electrode of the electricity storage device further comprises a carbon fiber (0058; Table 1) of which an average thickness is 0.5 um or less (0.1 to 10 parts by mass) (0057; 0059).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi et al., teaches wherein: an average thickness of the electrode after removing a current collector foil is 120 um or more (192 um) (0122).
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi teaches wherein: the average thickness of the electrode after removing a current collector foil is 120 um or more (192 um) (0122).
Thus, the claims are anticipated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hasuo et a., US 20180316019; Harada et al., US 6440607.
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 on 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