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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment to the claims, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1-2 and 4-6 has been withdrawn.
In view of the cancellation of claim 3, the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn.
New analysis follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicants’ argument Sumihara does not disclose the newly presented ratio of claim 1, a range of depths of the first groove are disclosed as 0.1T to 0.3T (¶[0025) in addition to the specific example provided in the previous office action leading to an overlapping range with the newly claimed range. Please see the new rejection of claim 1 below.
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 and 4-6 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).
Regarding claim 1, 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 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.
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 4, Sumihara discloses an electrode according to claim 1, wherein:
the first groove portion has a first width(Fig. 3b);
the second groove portion has a second width(Fig. 2); and
a ratio of the second width to the first width is within a range of 10 to 100 as seen in Fig. 2 there the distance between the first grooves 21 is at least 10 times the width of the grooves 21 (i.e. width of second groove) but no more than 100 times the width.
Furthermore Sumihara also teaches the addition of the grooves to the active material layer improves impregnation of electrolyte (¶[0011]) and suppresses breakage of the electrode plate during winding.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized optimizing the number and width of the grooves within the electrode plate would optimize the electrolyte impregnation and minimize breakage, therefore it would have been obvious to have optimized the number and width of first grooves inherently leading to optimization of the ratio of the width of the first and second grooves within the range of 10-100.
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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
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 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 13 January 2025
Prosecution Insights