18DETAILED 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 .
Applicant’s amendments were submitted on 2/20/26. Claims 1, 4, 11, 17 have been amended.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claims 4 and 17 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, on claim 10 is withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, “wherein each of the first negative framework layer and the second negative electrode framework layer is formed as a solid layer without inclusion of a binder” is not within the scope of Applicant’s invention (even if it is was omitted from the specification, as argued). The Applicants invention discloses that the framework can include a polymer which is broad enough to include polymer binders. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the scope of the Applicant’s invention does not exclude 0% or greater than 0%. Appropriate correction is required.
The rejections dependent on the independent claim rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 rejections are rejected for the same reasons.
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 4 and 17 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. Specifically, the “total thickness/µm” is unclear. It appears the thickness may be a constant since it states thickness over a measurement of micron. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawai et al., on claims 1-3, 6, 7 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claims.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawai et al. (JP 2003077542).
Regarding claims 14, 18, the Kawai et al. reference discloses an electronic apparatus (portable device) with electrochemical apparatus (secondary battery), comprising a negative electrode plate, the negative electrode plate comprises, a current collector, a negative electrode plate comprising a current collector and a negative electrode framework located on the current collector. The negative electrode framework comprises at least a first negative electrode framework layer and a second negative electrode framework layer, and the first negative electrode framework layer is located between the current collector and the second negative electrode framework layer (A2) and a porosity of the first negative electrode framework layer (A1) is higher than a porosity of the second negative electrode framework layer.
Regarding claims 15, the Kawai et al. reference discloses the porosity of the first negative electrode framework layer ranges from 55% to 90% (specifically, 90%, 70% 60%).
Regarding claims 16, the Kawai et al. reference discloses wherein the porosity of the second negative electrode framework layer ranges from 10% to 50% (specifically, 14%).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (JP 2003077542) in view of Ogawa et al. on claim 5 is withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claim.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (JP 2003077542) in view of Yamauchi et al. on claims 8 and 9 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claim.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai et al. (JP 2003077542) in view of Choi et al. on claims 10-13 are withdrawn because the Applicant amended the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues,
PNG
media_image1.png
132
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the Applicant’s invention does not exclude 0%. The limitation, “approximately 0%” does have variations about 0% but it would also include 0%. The scope of the invention would not exclude 0% from its range, thus “greater than 0%” is considered new matter. Appropriate corrections are required.
Applicant argues, “
PNG
media_image2.png
412
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, just because the limitation is omitted does not pertain that the boundaries of the patent protection sought are reasonably conveyed. Yes, a negative disclosure is generally fine as long as it is within the scope of the Applicants invention, that is that the negative disclosure is taught in the Applicants disclosure not that it was omitted from the disclosure. Thus, the Applicant misunderstood MPEP 2713.05.
Paragraph 73 of the Applicant’s disclosure teaches that binders are present in the positive electrode material, the disclosure of “may” as argued was never present. However, the argument is moot since the amendments discloses negative electrode.
In addition, the negative electrode was taught in Paragraph 137 to comprise a polymer which is broad enough to include a binder.
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 HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights