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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
The cancellation of claim 4 is acknowledged.
The addition of claim 10 is acknowledged.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumihara et. al. (JP2005285607 as cited in the IDS dated 7/19/23, reference made to English translation) in view of Arima et al.(EP 0 967 672B1).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Sumihara discloses an electrode comprising:
an active material layer(i.e. coating material mixture, ¶[0009]), wherein:
the active material layer is provided with a first groove portion and a second groove portion on a surface;
the first groove portion (21, Fig. 3b) has a first depth (D);
the second groove portion (space between built-up material on side of groove 21 extending to adjacent first groove, Fig. 2 and annotated Fig. 3b) has a second depth (P, Fig. 3b);
the second depth is shallower than the first depth(Fig. 3, ¶[0039]);
each of the first groove portion and the second groove portion extends linearly along the surface of the active material layer(Fig. 2);
the second groove portion is adjacent to the first groove portion(see annotated Fig. 3b); and
wherein the thickness(T) of the active material layer may be for example 72 µm(¶[0039])., the first depth may be 0.1T to 0.3T (¶[0025]) and the second depth may be 3-5µm (¶[0039]) resulting in ratios within the range of 5-200.
the first groove portion has a first width(Fig. 3b);
the second groove portion has a second width(Fig. 2); but
does not explicitly disclose a ratio of the second width to the first width is within a range of 10 to 100 and wherein the first width is 40-400 µm.
Arima, related to battery electrodes, teaches an electrode material active layer 11b with grooves 11c (Fig. 1) where the grooves for have, in one example, a depth of 50 µm(i.e. first depth), a width of 0.3 mm(300 µm, i.e. first width), and the center-to-center distance between the grooves of 5 mm(¶[0036]) and this improves electrolyte impregnation(¶[0020]). These values lead to a second width of 4.7 mm as measured from the edges of the grooves rather than the center, leading to a ratio of w2/w1 of 16.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the groove dimensions of Arima within the electrode of Sumihara would have led to improved electrolyte impregnation.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the groove dimensions of Arima within the electrode of Sumihara to improve electrolyte impregnation.
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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2144.05.
PNG
media_image1.png
421
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Sumihara
Regarding claim 2, Sumihara discloses an electrode according to claim 1, wherein:
the active material layer is provided with a plurality of first groove portions and a plurality of second groove portions on the surface; and
in planar view, the first groove portions and the second groove portions are alternately provided, in this case see Fig. 2 where the first groove 21 is repeated with the second groove in between each set of first grooves.
Regarding claim 5, Sumihara discloses an electrode according to claim 1, further comprising a base material (i.e. core material, 13), wherein the active material layer is arranged on a surface of the base material (Fig. 3b, ¶[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Sumihara discloses a secondary battery comprising:
the electrode according to claim 1; and
an electrolytic solution (Fig. 1, ¶[0013]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/K.J.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 5 August 2026
Prosecution Insights