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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on June 5th, 2026:
Claims 35, 37, 39, 42-55, 58, 60-65, 67, and 69-79 are pending in the current application. Claims 35, 39, 43, 45, 49, and 64 are amended. Claims 71-79 have been newly added. Claims 52-55, 58, 60-65, 67, 69-70, and 77-79 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 35 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 35 and 71 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite an/the "electrode busbar electrically connect with the electrode tab" in which is grammatically incorrect. It appears that applicant intended to recited “electrically connected.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 35, 37, 39, and 42-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on previously presented and/or new issues as further described below.
Claims 35, 37, 39, 42-51, and 71-76 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.
Regarding Claim 35, applicant has not addressed the rejection of Claim 35 in relation to the limitation “the third region being disposed along a Y-axis.” Although briefly discussed in the interview on May 28th, 2026, applicant must respond to any and all rejections in the filed reply (see MPEP 714.03). Therefore, the rejection is recited again below for clarity:
Claim 35 recites “ the third region being disposed along a Y-axis.” However, the applicant’s disclosure does not sufficiently define an X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis in a manner that lacks ambiguity. In Figure 7, the third region is disposed along a Y-axis. In Figure 6, based on the orientation of the auxiliary electrode 502, the third region is rather located along an X-axis and Z-axis. Additionally, Claim 35 further recites “the stacking axis being along the Y axis.” Based on Figure 6, the stacking axis is along a Y-axis. However, in Figure 7, the stacking axis rather corresponds to an X-axis. The specification should serve as a glossary of the terms used in the claims (see MPEP 2173.03). Applicant should address the axis direction and the figures in which should be relied upon for interpretation of each recitation of the “Y-axis.”
Applicant should clearly point out where support is found for the recited limitations and ensure consistency between the claim language and specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 75, there is lack of antecedent basis for the claim language in the specification. Therefore, the meaning of “the electrode assembly is separated from the auxiliary electrode” is unclear. Based on the “Remarks”, it appears that the amendment is intended to differentiate from the welding mechanism of Abe et al. wherein the third (auxiliary) electrode is welded to the negative/electrode body. However, the scope of the claim is indefinite based on ambiguity of the term “separated” without support in the disclosure; it is unclear if the scope encompasses a material provided there between, contact but without physically bonding, or completely setting apart said components. Based on Fig. 15, it appears the that the electrode assembly is also separated from the auxiliary electrode by the casing 116, [0060] of the spec. teaches removing the auxiliary electrode from the secondary battery after formation, and Claim 76 suggests that separation is instead by a physical separator layer. It is recommended that applicant clarifies the manner of separation (e.g., “separated by . . .”) and further indicates where support can be found in the disclosure.
Claim 76 recites the limitation “the body of the auxiliary electrode” and “the one of the first and second carrier ion supply layers” in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim and the specification. It is unclear what defines “the body of the auxiliary electrode.” Further, there is a lack of antecedent basis for the entirety of the claim language, rendering the meaning of “a separator layer” unclear as the disclosure recites multiple separator layers (i.e., 108, 702). It appears that this instance refers to the separator 702 of the auxiliary electrode ([0117] of the spec. teaches that the auxiliary electrode 502 includes a separator 702). However, the claim language suggests that the separator layer is a separate component rather than a component of the auxiliary electrode. The disclosure rather supports that the carrier ion supply layers 706 of the auxiliary electrode 502 are separated from the electrode assembly by a separator layer, and wherein the separator layer 702-2 contacts a first surface 826 of the first and second carrier ion supply layers 706 (spec: [0138]; Fig. 8, 15).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 37, 39, 42-51, and 71-76 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Remarks” on 06/05/2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant arguments are based on the claims as amended. Regarding Claim 35, applicant argues that adding additional structures to Abe et al.’s battery will be counterproductive to the goal of increasing energy density and providing high capacity (see pg. 3 of the “Remarks”). Applicant further argues that Abe et al. teaches away from using a casing assembly that would possibly restrict their extreme expansion, such as utilizing a metal can wherein the casing encircles their electrodes (see pg. 5 of the “Remarks”). Moreover, applicant argues that a skilled artisan would not consider separating the third (auxiliary) electrode and the negative electrode of Abe et al. as Abe et al. teaches welding there between and maintaining a position relation (see pg. 5 of the “Remarks”).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (see MPEP 2143.01).
“The disclosure of desirable alternatives does not necessarily negate a suggestion for modifying the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. In In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004) )" (see MPEP 2143.01.I).
"The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, and all teachings in the prior art must be considered to the extent that they are in analogous arts. Where the teachings of two or more prior art references conflict, the examiner must weigh the power of each reference to suggest solutions to one of ordinary skill in the art, considering the degree to which one reference might accurately discredit another. In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 18 USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1991)" (see MPEP 2143.01.II).
Regarding Claim 35, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Busacca et al. for the limitations that are challenged. In this case, the applied prior art provides reasonable motivation to modify the device of Abe et al. to comprise the structural components of the claimed invention despite any suggestion of a teaching away in Abe et al. The device of Abe et al. is modified to comprise an electrode busbar electrically connected with the electrode tab as taught by Busacca et al. wherein the electrode tabs are bent/folded toward the electrode busbar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to effectively collect current from the respective electrodes as described above.
Further, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize advantages of tab to busbar connections as disclosed by Busacca et al. compared to directly connecting tabs to each other without utilizing busbars as taught by Abe et al. Welding the tabs directly together has obvious disadvantages such as restricting the number of electrodes that can be connected due to tab strain concerns; the tabs must be able to comfortably bend to connect to one another to avoid damage to the tabs. Therefore, as the number of electrodes increase, the strain or stress on the tabs may also increase. Busbar to tab connections allow for additional electrodes to be connected providing increased battery capacity and energy density, while significantly reducing the concern of tab damage by strain/stress. Individually connected tabs also allow individual electrodes to be more easily replaced when damage or malfunction occurs. Additionally, "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Additionally, the device of Abe et al. is modified wherein the casing is configured to distribute forces relating to swelling of the electrode assembly as taught by Busacca et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to distribute forces relating to the swelling of the electrode assembly as described above. Further, the device of Abe et al. is modified wherein the electrode assembly is separated from auxiliary electrode as taught by Busacca et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent reverse reactions and contamination of the working electrodes; "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)." Busacca et al. also has a more recent publication in which a skilled artisan would consider the updated information worthwhile to adopt or consider based on the discovered benefits and technological advancements in the field of endeavor, despite any misgivings in Abe et al.
Therefore, the suggestive power of Busacca et al. and the applied prior art are deemed to outweigh any suggestion of a teaching away in Abe, and would rather further improve the invention of Abe; applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 35, 37, 42-48, 50-51, and 71-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170155167 A1) in view of Busacca et al. (WO Pat. No. 2019099650 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Abe et al. (Fig. 4))]
PNG
media_image1.png
622
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 35 and 71, Abe et al. teaches a device 30 (third electrode) for transferring carrier ions (doping Li ions) to a battery electrode assembly (body) the device comprising (Fig. 4, para. 17):
an auxiliary electrode 30 (third electrode, para. 105) comprising
(a) a conductive layer 32 (current collector) (para. 105, Fig. 4) having a first major surface (interior surface of the “C” shaped auxiliary electrode) opposing a second major surface (exterior surface of the “C” shaped auxiliary electrode) along a Y axis direction, the first major surface having a first surface area (solid regular shaped structure inherently possessing a surface area), the second major surface having a second surface area, the conductive layer being electrically conductive (copper foil) (para. 111)
(b) a first carrier ion supply layer 33 (Li supply source) disposed proximate to a first region of the first major surface and (c) a second carrier ion supply layer 33 disposed proximate to a second region of the first major surface (located on an interior side of the folded current collector in the area indicated by the dotted line shown in Fig. 4) (para. 105); the Li supply source is cut, pressed, and adhered to a surface corresponding to a first and second region of a first major surface (see annotated Fig. 4, para. 111-112)
each of the first carrier ion supply layer and the second carrier ion supply layer, comprising a supply material (lithium) that supplies carrier ions (lithium ions) for the electrode assembly (para. 109)
the first carrier ion supply layer covers the first region of the first major surface and the second carrier ion supply layer covers the second region of the first major surface (see annotated Fig. 4)
the first region and the second region being separated by a third region of the conductive layer 32 (see annotated Fig. 4)
(It is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to rotate components of the prior art in which the auxiliary electrode and other components are arranged with respect to a Y axis as defined by the applicant’s disclosure).
the third region extending between the first region and the second region and the third region being disposed along a Y-axis when oriented as shown in applicant’s Figure 7 (see annotated Fig. 4) such that
(A) the first region and the second region are substantially parallel (see Fig. 4)
(B) the third region is substantially perpendicular to the first region and to the second region (see Fig. 4)
the electrode assembly (body) comprising an electrode (positive electrode) separated from a counter-electrode (negative electrode) via a separator (para. 17), the electrode being stacked along a stacking axis with the counter-electrode, in which the stacking axis can be considered along a Y-axis [AltContent: textbox (Abe et al. (Fig. 5))]
PNG
media_image2.png
491
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
when oriented in a manner similar to Figure 6 of applicant’s disclosure (para. 102, see annotated Fig. 5).
As required by Claims 35 and 71, Abe et al. teaches the electrode assembly comprising the electrode tab electrically coupled with the electrode ([0101]-[0102], [0070] teaches a positive electrode tab part 13 and a negative electrode tab part 23 in which are electrically connected to the positive and negative electrode, respectively; Fig. 5).
Regarding Claims 35 and 71, Abe et al. does not teach an electrode busbar electrically connected with the electrode tab.
In the same field of endeavor, Busacca et al. teaches analogous art of an electrode assembly for a device configured to transfer carrier ions comprising an electrode tab (electrode current collector ends 604, 606 that extend past the end surface of the respective electrode active material layers); the electrode tabs (current collector ends 604, 606) are bent toward and electrically connected to the respective electrode busbar 600, 602 (Fig. 16A, [0150], [0161]). The busbars are used to collect current from the respective electrodes ([0148]).
[AltContent: textbox (Busacca et al. (Fig. 16A))]
PNG
media_image3.png
578
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Abe et al. to comprise an electrode busbar electrically connected with the electrode tab as taught by Busacca et al. wherein the electrode tabs are bent/folded toward the electrode busbar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to effectively collect current from the respective electrodes as described above. Busbar to tab connections allow for additional electrodes to be connected providing increased battery capacity and energy density, while significantly reducing the concern of tab damage by strain/stress. Individually connected tabs also allow individual electrodes to be more easily replaced when damage or malfunction occurs. Additionally, "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 37, Abe et al. teaches folding the copper foil (conductive layer) into a C shape and adhering Li foil sheets forming carrier ion supply layers to both interior ends (para. 134, Fig. 4). The folded conductive layer comprises a portion equivalent to a third region parallel to the electrode body (plurality of electrode sheets and separators) (see annotated Fig. 4). The first and second carrier ion supply layers are perpendicular to the third region and in electrical connection with the negative electrodes to dope Li ions (para. 17-18, 105-106, see Figs. 4-5). Abe et al. does not explicitly disclose a combined surface area of the first carrier ion supply layer and the second carrier ion supply layer greater than a surface area of the third region. However, Abe et al. provides parameters such as the size of the copper foil current collector, thickness and mass of the lithium foil, “C” folding configuration, number of electrode sheets, and more (para. 134) in which allow one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable surface area.
Accordingly, it is within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the size of the lithium foil sheets and inherently the surface area. Further, the size of the third region depends on factors such as the size of the electrode assembly (positive/negative electrodes and separators). A change in size/proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). “Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, 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)” (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). It is well known in the art that a large surface area of the carrier ion supply layer (lithium foil) can improve lithium deposition and reduce the formation of dendrites. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would reduce the size of the third region to provided increased energy density by saving space and weight.
Regarding Claim 42, Further, Abe et al. teaches the electrode assembly is of a secondary battery (para. 17). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 43, Abe et al. teaches the conductive layer (current collector) comprises an elemental metal (copper or nickel) (para. 111).
Regarding Claim 44, Abe et al. teaches that the first carrier ion supply layer 33 and the second carrier ion supply layer 33 comprise a source of lithium ions (para. 19, 111).
Regarding Claim 45, Abe et al. teaches that the device further comprises a conductive tab 31 comprising a material that is electrically conductive, the conductive tab being part of the conductive layer (current collector) (para. 105, 112).
Regarding Claim 46, Abe et al. teaches that the electrode assembly can include an active material comprising silicon (para. 4).
Regarding Claim 47, Abe et al. teaches that the device comprises an enclosure (housing formed by an aluminum laminate film) closing the auxiliary electrode (third electrode) and the battery electrode assembly (stacked body) (para. 137-138).
[AltContent: textbox (Abe et al. (Fig. 7))]
PNG
media_image4.png
443
572
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 48, Abe et al. teaches that the electrode assembly comprises the electrode (positive electrode) separated from the counter-electrode (negative electrode) by a separator disposed in the enclosure (para. 17, 137-138). The electrode assembly has electrical terminals 103 and 104 extending from a perimeter of the enclosure (Fig. 7).
Regarding Claim 50, Abe et al. teaches that the enclosure 101 (aluminum laminate film exterior body) comprising two sheets forming a first enclosure layer and a second enclosure layer (para. 140. Fig. 8).
[AltContent: textbox (Abe et al. (Fig. 8))]
PNG
media_image5.png
211
677
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 51, Abe et al. teaches that the auxiliary electrode (third electrode) and the electrode assembly (positive electrode, negative electrode, separator) are disposed within a structure analogous to a pouch formed by coupling the first enclosure layer (first aluminum laminate film) and the second enclosure layer (second aluminum laminate film) (Fig. 8, para. 140-141).
Regarding Claim 72, Abe et al. is modified by Busacca et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 35. As applied to Claim 35, the device of Abe et al.is modified to comprise an electrode busbar electrically connected with the electrode tab as taught by Busacca et al. wherein the electrode tabs are bent/folded toward the electrode busbar. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to effectively collect current from the respective electrodes as described above. Busbar to tab connections allow for additional electrodes to be connected providing increased battery capacity and energy density, while significantly reducing the concern of tab damage by strain/stress. Individually connected tabs also allow individual electrodes to be more easily replaced when damage or malfunction occurs. Additionally, "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 73, Abe et al. teaches that the device comprises a casing (housing formed by an aluminum laminate film) disposed around the electrode assembly (electrode/stacked body) ([0137]-[0138]).
Abe et al. does not teach wherein the casing is configured to distribute forces relating to swelling of the electrode assembly.
In the same field of endeavor, Busacca et al. teaches analogous art of a device for transferring carrier ions to an electrode assembly electrode comprising a third auxiliary electrode ([0357]) wherein the electrode assembly has a casing (battery enclosure 104) disposed therearound, the casing being configured to distribute forces relating to the swelling of the electrode assembly (the battery enclosure can comprise secondary growth constraints ([0185]) in which function for restrain of electrode growth/swelling ([0266])).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Abe et al. wherein the casing is configured to distribute forces relating to swelling of the electrode assembly as taught by Busacca et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to distribute forces relating to the swelling of the electrode assembly as described above.
Regarding Claim 74, Abe et al. does not teach wherein the casing includes perforations.
In the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (i.e., facilitating distribution flow of an electrolyte solution, [0064] of spec.), Busacca et al. teaches analogous art of a device for transferring carrier ions to an electrode assembly comprising a third auxiliary electrode wherein the casing includes perforations (Busacca et al. teaches a battery enclosure comprising constraints in which are provided with pores or holes therein to allow free flow of electrolyte to the stacked electrodes, [0210]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Abe et al. wherein the casing includes perforations as taught by Busacca et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to allow free flow of electrolyte to the stacked electrodes as described above.
Regarding Claim 75, Abe et al. does not teach wherein the electrode assembly is separated from the auxiliary electrode.
In the same field of endeavor, Busacca et al. teaches analogous art of a device for transferring carrier ions to an electrode assembly electrode comprising a third auxiliary electrode ([0357]) wherein the electrode assembly is separated from the auxiliary electrode ([0357] teaches wherein the third auxiliary electrode is removed once the formation process is completed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Abe et al. wherein the electrode assembly is separated from the auxiliary electrode as taught by Busacca et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent reverse reactions and contamination of the working electrodes; "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Claims 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170155167 A1) in view of Busacca et al. (WO Pat. No. 2019099650 A1), and further in view of Nagao (U.S. Pat. No. 20180233726 A1).
Regarding Claim 39, Abe et al. teaches that the electrode assembly is configured for being enclosed in an enclosure (housing formed by an aluminum laminate film for closing the battery electrode assembly (stacked body), para. 137-138)). The device is configured for fabrication by pressing and adhering (para. 111).
Abe et al. does not teach enclosure fabrication using controlled temperature and pressure.
In the same field of endeavor, Nagao teaches analogous art of an enclosure for an electrode body wherein the enclosure is fabricated by controlled temperature and pressure (teaches sealing an outer casing for a laminated electrode body by heat pressing ([0254]-[0255]) under specific pressure and temperature conditions ([0261])).
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 device of Abe et al. to include the enclosure being fabricated by using controlled temperature and pressure as taught by Nagao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to effectively seal the casing as describe above. Further, "applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170155167 A1) in view of Busacca et al. (WO Pat. No. 2019099650 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 110797569 A).
Regarding Claim 49, Abe et al. teaches the device further comprising a conductive tab 31 comprising a material that is electrically conductive, the conductive tab being part of the conductive layer (current collector) (para. 105, 112).
Abe et al. does not teach the conductive tab extending from a perimeter of the enclosure.
PNG
media_image6.png
295
264
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Wang et al. (Fig. 1))]Wang et al. teaches a conductive tab 78 for an auxiliary electrode extending from a perimeter of an enclosure 10 (casing such as an aluminum plastic film) (para. 56, Fig. 1) allowing connection between the conductive tab and wiring to measure the electrode potentials (para. 81-82).
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 auxiliary electrode of Abe et al. by Wang et al. to include the conductive tab extending from a perimeter of the enclosure to allow measurement of the electrode potential and performance characteristics (para. 82-85).
Claim 76 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170155167 A1) in view of Busacca et al. (WO Pat. No. 2019099650 A1), and further in view of Momo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20140176076 A1).
Regarding Claim 76, Abe et al. does not teach wherein the electrode assembly is separated from the body of the auxiliary electrode by a separator layer, and the separator layer contacts the one of the first and second carrier ion supply layers.
[AltContent: textbox (Momo et al. (Fig. 2G))]
PNG
media_image7.png
184
182
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Momo et al. teaches analogous art of a power storage device comprising a third (auxiliary) electrode wherein the electrode assembly (stacked negative electrode 101, positive electrode 102, and a separator layer 104 therebetween ([0065]); and the separator layer 104m is provided between the auxiliary electrode and the electrode assembly wherein the auxiliary electrode and separator are perpendicular to the electrode assembly (Fig. 2g, [0065]). The separator is provided to prevent the negative electrode, the positive electrode, and the third (auxiliary) electrode from being short-circuited with one another ([0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the device of Abe et al. wherein the electrode assembly is separated from the auxiliary electrode by a separator layer as taught by Momo et al. When performing the described modification, the separator would be in contact with the first and second carrier ion supply layers of Abe et al. (see Fig. 5 of Abe et al. and Fig. 2G of Momo et al. for proposed separator placement). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent the negative electrode, the positive electrode, and the third (auxiliary) electrode from being short-circuited with one another ([0065]).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights