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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received May 21, 2026 have been entered into the file. Currently, claims 1 and 14 are amended; claims 2-4, 11, 17, and 21-22 are cancelled; and claims 23-26 are new; resulting in claims 1, 5-10, 12-16, 18-20, and 23-26 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 26 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.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation requiring that the radius of the arc is half of the width of the first groove is considered new matter not supported by the original disclosure. Paragraph [0040] of the instant specification discloses that the third side wall may be a combination of an arc and a straight line, indicating that this embodiment is shown in Figure 7. Paragraph [0040] further indicates that in the combination of the arc and straight line, the straight line may be inclined and the arc may be a quarter arc or semicircular arc. The specification does not appear to disclose an embodiment in which the third side wall is a combination of an arc and a straight line, wherein the straight line is inclined and the arc has a radius that is half the width of the first groove. In referencing an arc having a radius that is half the width of the first groove, the instant specification points to Figure 3 (see instant specification paragraph [0038]), which includes a third wall that is only an arc, not a combination of a straight line and an arc. Thus, an embodiment in which the third side wall includes an inclined straight line and an arc having a radius which is half the width of the first groove is considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US 2018/0358645 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 16, Hasegawa teaches a secondary cell (battery) including an electrode stack (battery core) formed by stacking a negative electrode and positive electrode (electrode sheets) with a separator in between (¶ [0028], Ln. 4-8). Hasegawa teaches that the electrode structure is applicable to a wound type electrode structure (winding battery core) (¶ [0076], Ln. 1-5). The positive electrode (4) includes a positive electrode current collector (8) and positive electrode active material layers (9a and 9b) on both surfaces of the positive electrode current collector (8). The negative electrode (3; electrode sheet) includes a negative electrode current collector (10) and negative electrode active material layers (11a and 11b; first and second active material layers) on both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector (10) (current collector comprises a first side and a second side opposing each other) (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-8; Fig. 3). Hasegawa teaches that trenches (2a and 2b; first and second grooves) are provided in the negative electrode active material layers (11a and 11b; first and second active material layers) (¶ [0029], Ln. 8-10). Hasegawa teaches that the trench may be provided in one portion of the negative electrode (¶ [0061], Ln. 7-10). As shown in Figure 5, the trench may be a groove with four sides, including the top of the groove (first side wall), the bottom of the groove (second side wall), and each side of the groove (third side walls), such that the top and bottom of the groove are parallel to each other and the sides connect the top and bottom of the groove. The width of the groove is the distance between the top of the groove and bottom of the groove. Hasegawa teaches that the trenches may be formed by pressing the negative electrode active material layer with a trench-shaped die (¶ [0063], Ln. 1-4) and teaches multiple trench shapes (¶ [0073], Ln. 1-20). Hasegawa does not expressly teach that the profile of the third side wall is a straight line with a length greater than the width of the groove, such that the straight line is inclined at an angle relative to the first side wall and second side wall, wherein the profile of the third side wall is an orthographic projection of the third side wall on a surface of the current collector.
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 trench of Hasegawa to include a slanted or diagonal third side wall, such that the profile of the third side wall is a straight line with a length greater than the width of the groove and the straight line is not perpendicular to the first side wall and second side wall, but is angled. As the trenches are formed using a trench-shaped die, the sides of the die could easily be slanted. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the profile of the sides of the trench by using a trench-shaped die with various profiles of the side portions, including slanted edges. The configuration of the side shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of claims 1, 10, and 16 above and further teaches that the current collector comprises a first side and a second side opposing each other, shown as the left and right of the electrode plate in Figure 5. Also shown in Figure 5, the trench extends in a direction from the first side towards the second side as well as from the second side towards the first side.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of claims 5, 12, and 18 above and further teaches negative electrode active material layers (11a and 11b; first and second active material layers) on both surfaces of the negative electrode current collector (10) (current collector comprises a first side and a second side opposing each other) (¶ [0029], Ln. 1-8; Fig. 3). Hasegawa teaches that trenches (2b; second grooves) are provided in the negative electrode active material layer (11b; second active material layer) (¶ [0029], Ln. 8-10).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of claims 6, 13, and 19 above and further teaches that the trenches (2a and 2b; first and second grooves) are in alignment with each other as shown in Figure 3, or that they may be slightly out of alignment (¶ [0069], Ln. 7-8).
Regarding claims 8-9 and 15, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of claims 6 and 13 above and further teaches that the trenches (2a and 2b; first and second grooves) have the same shape as shown in Figure 3 (¶ [0069], Ln. 1-3). Provided that the trenches have the same shape, both trenches would extend in a direction from the first side towards the second side as well as from the second side towards the first side, as shown in Figure 5.
Regarding claim 23, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, including a trench including a slanted or diagonal third side wall, such that the profile of the third side wall is a straight line with a length greater than the width of the groove and the straight line is not perpendicular to the first side wall and second side wall, but is angled. As the modified reference teaches slanted third side wall, the angle formed between the profile of the third side wall and first side wall would be between 0° and 90°, varying with how slanted the third side wall is.
Regarding claim 24, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above and further teaches that the current collector comprises a first side and a second side opposing each other, shown as the left and right of the electrode plate in Figure 5. Also shown in Figure 5, the trench extends in a direction from the first side towards the second side, with the third side wall of the trench located at the end of the trench and facing the second side. Therefore, when the electrode is rolled to form a wound type electrode structure, an area of the current collector at the trench is increased and wrinkling of the current collector at the trench would be reduced.
Regarding claims 25-26, Hasegawa teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Hasegawa does not expressly teach that the profile of the third side wall further comprises an arc in combination with the straight line, such that the radius of the arc is half of the width of the first trench.
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 trench of Hasegawa to include an arc in addition to the straight line having a radius that is half the width of the trench. As the trenches are formed using a trench-shaped die, the sides of the die could easily be modified. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the profile of the sides of the trench by using a trench-shaped die with various profiles of the side portions, including an arc. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the radius of an arc connecting two side walls would be half the distance between the two side walls, as a full arc would need to extend the full distance between the two side walls. Thus, in including a curve in addition to the slanted straight line, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the curve would be an arc with a radius of half the width of the trench. The configuration of the side shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
In light of the Applicant’s amendments to claim 1, the previous rejections of claims 1, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hasegawa (US 2018/0358645 A1) have been modified above. Any arguments with respect to the reference that are still deemed valid will be addressed herein.
The Applicant argues that Hasegawa does not teach that the end portion of the trench, in this case the third side wall, has a diagonal or inclined side; that there is no motivation to modify the third side wall to have a slanted side; that the cross-sectional slant is conflated with the orthogonal projection of the third side wall; that the claimed configuration is not a mere matter of design choice; and that Hasegawa does not address the rolling-induced stresses that arise when an electrode sheet is wound.
With respect to the argument, see page 6 of the remarks, that Hasegawa does not teach that the end portion of the trench, in this case the third side wall, has a diagonal or inclined side, it is acknowledged in the previous office action and the rejection above that Hasegawa does not expressly teach that the profile of the third side wall is a straight line with a length greater than the width of the groove, wherein the profile of the third side wall is an orthographic projection of the third side wall on a surface of the current collector. Thus, it is acknowledged that the shape of the third side wall of the trench of Hasegawa is not expressly taught, and therefore is not expressly taught that the shape is an incline. However, as noted in the previous office action and the rejection above, 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 trench of Hasegawa to include a slanted or diagonal third side wall, such that the profile of the third side wall is a straight line with a length greater than the width of the groove. As the trenches are formed using a trench-shaped die, the sides of the die could easily be slanted. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify the profile of the sides of the trench by using a trench-shaped die with various profiles of the side portions, including slanted edges.
With respect to the argument, see page 7 of the remarks, that there is no motivation to modify the third side wall to have a slanted side, this argument is not persuasive. The configuration of the side shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the slanted orientation of the third side wall obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed groove is significant MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
With respect to the argument, see page 7 of the remarks, that the cross-sectional slant is conflated with the orthogonal projection of the third side wall, this argument is not persuasive. While it is acknowledged that Hasegawa teaches various embodiments of the shape of the cross-section of the trench, it is noted that in the previous office action and in the office action above, the profile of the third side wall is interpreted as the orthographic projection of the third side wall on a surface of the current collector, such that the end wall of the trench is shaped to have an inclined side.
With respect to the argument, see pages 7-8 of the remarks, that that the claimed configuration is not a mere matter of design choice, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the claimed profile-length relationship provides a specific mechanical function and technical effect of an increased area of the current collector at the first groove, however, no evidence regarding this enhanced technical effect has been provided. Arguments presented by the Applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence (MPEP 2145). Absent evidence that the claimed profile-length relationship performs differently from the configuration taught by Hasegawa, the slanted third side wall is considered an obvious change in shape. It is further noted that the Applicant argues that the claimed profile length is significant because it extends the perimeter of the first groove, however, it seems that any method of extending the groove would achieve the same effect. Thus, the end shape of the groove is not significant, as the groove itself could be lengthened to increase the area of the current collector at the groove even further.
With respect to the argument, see pages 8-9 of the remarks, that Hasegawa does not address the rolling-induced stresses that arise when an electrode sheet is wound, this argument is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that Hasegawa does not teach a winding battery core, however, Hasegawa teaches that the electrode structure is applicable to a wound type electrode structure, which includes a winding core (¶ [0076], Ln. 1-5). Further, Hasegawa teaches that the trenches help to lessen the concentration of stress at the electrode (¶ [0034], Ln. 1-3). In response to the Applicant's argument that Hasegawa does not address the rolling-induced stresses that arise when an electrode sheet is wound, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
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 SARAH J JACOBSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1647. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291.
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.
/SARAH J JACOBSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/MARK RUTHKOSKY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights