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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Claim 5 has been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 5 December 2025
All the 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new ground(s) of Rejection has been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0104913 A1 in view of Minamitani et al., U.S. Publication No. 2018/0323410 A1 (Already on the record).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Moreau teaches a power storage device (Fig. 8) comprising:
A positive electrode (13 & 14) including a positive electrode active material layer (14) formed on a first surface of a positive current collector (13);
A negative electrode (16 & 10) including a negative electrode active material layer (16) formed on a first surface of a negative current collector (10), the negative electrode active material layer (10) being disposed so as to face the positive electrode active material layer (14) of the positive electrode,
A separator (15) interposed between the positive electrode active material layer (14) and the negative electrode active material layer (16), and
A sealing portion (23; Fig.8 and 7J) disposed between the positive electrode (13 and 14) and the negative electrode (16 and 10) in such a manner that the sealing position (23) encloses the positive electrode active material layer (14) and the negative electrode active material layer (16), the sealing portion 23 directly adhering to the first surface of the positive current collector (13) and the first surface of the negative current collector (10) to form a sealed space between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the sealed space accommodating a liquid electrolyte [0043];
Moreau further teaches that the positive current collector (13) and the negative current collector (10) are made of aluminum foil [0100].
Moreau teaches that the sealing portion 23 consists of polyethylene (PE) [0101], which is a thermoplastic polyolefin-based resin according to [0043] of the instant specification. Moreover, Moreau teaches that the sealing portion 23 has a creep temperature of 140 +/- 10°C, corresponding to the claimed “peak top temperature”, overlapping with the claimed range of 135°C or less at which an adhesive strength becomes maximum, wherein said temperature is a temperature at which an adhesive strength of stacked body, formed by causing aluminum foils to adhere to each other with thermoplastic polyolefin based resin (23) interposed therebetween by heating, becomes maximum relative to a temperature during heating. 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).
The examiner wishes to point out that the limitations directed to “heat welding” and “welding temperature” are considered to be product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Alternatively, the sealing portion of Moreau is made of the same polyolefin thermoplastic resin polyethylene (PE) as the instant invention and it should inherently have the same or similar peak top temperature. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
"Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Moreau does not specifically teach the thickness of the aluminum foils for the positive and negative current collectors.
However, Minamitani teaches a power storage device including a positive electrode part including a first metallic foil layer, corresponding to the claimed “positive current collector” and a positive electrode active material layer partially formed on one surface of the first metallic foil layer and a negative electrode part including a second metallic foil layer, corresponding to the claimed “negative current collector”, and a negative electrode active material layer partially formed on one surface of the second metallic foil layer (abstract). Minamitani teaches that the first metallic foil is preferably made of aluminum with a thickness of 7 to 50 µm [0082] and second metallic foil can be made of copper foil with a thickness of 7 to 50 µm [0090].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select metallic foils of Minamitani for the current collectors of Moreau, because simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, in the instant case positive and negative current collectors in a power storage device, supports a prima obviousness determination (MPEP 2143, I, Part B).
Regarding claim 4, Moreau teaches a plurality of power storage cells (C1, C2 and C3; Fig.8), each power storage cell having the positive electrode, the negative electrode and the separator stacked one another, and wherein a second surface opposite to the first surface in the positive current corrector of a first power storage cell and a second surface opposite to the first surface in the negative current corrector of a second power storage cell are in contact with each other. Note that all the positive and negative electrodes of the cell stack of Fig.8 are either in direct or indirect physical contact with each other.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau et al., U.S. Publication No. 2016/0104913 A1 in view of Minamitani et al., U.S. Publication No. 2018/0323410 A1 (Already on the record) as applied to claim 1 and as evidence provided by JP WO2004001771 (see attached translation).
Regarding claim 3, Moreau teaches the sealing portion 23 is made of thermoplastic resin such polyethyelene with a thickness of 50 and 500 μm [0059], but does not explicitly teach a coefficient of linear expansion for the sealing portion.
However, JP WO2004001771 teaches polyethylene with a thickness of 10-250 μm would have a coefficient of linear expansion of 0.5 to 10 x -5/°C, which is within the claimed range (see Page 6 of the English Translation).
Moreover, "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI BAKHTIARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6 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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 571-272-7769. 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.
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
