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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111446480.
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘480 discloses a cell of an energy storage device comprising an anode sheet (2), a cathode sheet (1), and two diaphragms (31), one of the anode sheet and the cathode sheet being located between the two diaphragms, and the other one being located on an outer side of either of the two diaphragms, together the anode sheet, the cathode sheet, and the diaphragms forming a spiral winding structure, at least one diaphragm has an extension exceeding beyond an end of the anode sheet and an end of the cathode sheet (Fig. 2-3 and 5), and the two diaphragms are of dimensions greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure (Fig. 4), an exceeding portion of the at least one diaphragm beyond the dimension of the cathode sheet forming a first protrusion from at the at least one end of the winding structure, and the first protrusion being tilted to cover the anode sheet and the cathode sheet at the end where the first protrusion is located (Fig. 2-3 and 5).
Regarding claims 3, CN ‘480 discloses a second protrusion as claimed (All Figs, the combination of references (31) and (32)).
Regarding claim 4, CN ‘480 discloses that the size of anode sheet is greater than the cathode sheet by 0.1-0.5 mm in the axial direction of the winding structure and the two diaphragms is at least 0.5 mm larger than the size of the anode sheet in the axial direction of the winding structure. In light of the sizing relationship of the anode sheet, cathode sheet, and the two diaphragms, the two diaphragms are greater than that of the cathode sheet by at least 0.5 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure.
Regarding claims 5-6, CN ‘480 discloses dimensions as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, please see figures 2-3 and 5.
Regarding claim 8, please see claims 8-10. With regards to the grooves at a sidewall of the cylindrical core column, the examiner is taking the position that any range of surface roughness, including microscopically, of the cylindrical core column to corresponds to the claimed grooves.
In addition, Further, it is also noted that the limitation “winding structure is formed …”, even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). CN ‘480 discloses a winding structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, CN ‘480 discloses an insulation gummed paper (6) as claimed (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘480 discloses an energy storage device as claimed (Disclosure of Invention).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘039 discloses a cell of an energy storage device comprising an anode sheet (60), a cathode sheet (50), and two diaphragms (30, 40), one of the anode sheet and the cathode sheet being located between the two diaphragms, and the other one being located on an outer side of either of the two diaphragms, together the anode sheet, the cathode sheet, and the diaphragms forming a spiral winding structure, at least one diaphragm has an extension exceeding beyond an end of the anode sheet and an end of the cathode sheet (all Figs), an exceeding portion of the at least one diaphragm beyond the dimension of the cathode sheet forming a first protrusion from at the at least one end of the winding structure, and the first protrusion being tilted to cover the anode sheet and the cathode sheet at the end where the first protrusion is located (all Figs).
CN ‘039 fails to explicitly disclose the two diaphragms are of dimensions greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure as presently claimed.
Kondo discloses a spiral winding structure in a cell of an energy storage device comprising an anode sheet, a cathode sheet, and two diaphragms (Fig. 4), wherein the two diaphragms (70) are of dimensions greater than that of the cathode sheet (34) along an axial direction of the winding structure (Fig. 3-4).
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 dimension of CN ‘039’s diaphragms to be greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure, as suggested by Kondo, in order to inhibit the occurrence of minor short-circuiting [0011] and to ensure insulation from the outside [0048].
Regarding claim 3, CN ‘039 in view of Kondo discloses and third protrusions as claimed (Kondo: All Figs).
Regarding claim 4, although CN ‘039 in view of Kondo discloses that the two diaphragms are greater than that of the cathode sheet in the axial direction, CN ‘039 in view of Kondo fails disclose the actual dimensions of the two diaphragms as claimed. However, Kondo discloses that the dimensions of the diaphragms contribute enhance insulation properties [0048], thereby is a result effective variable.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the dimensions of the two diaphragms are greater than that of the cathode sheet by at least 0.5 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed amount is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the dimension of the diaphragms in order to obtain an enhance insulation properties.
Regarding claim 7, CN ‘039 discloses the claimed structure (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, it noted that the limitation “winding structure is formed …”, even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). CN ‘039 discloses a winding structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, CN ‘039 discloses an insulation gummed paper is optional. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an insulation gummed paper as claimed in order to further enhance the insulation properties.
Regarding claim 10, CN ‘039 discloses an energy storage device as claimed.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376), and further in view of Huh et al. (US 2014/0255778).
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘039 discloses a cathode sheet and an anode sheet as set forth above, however, is silent on the cathode sheet being greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure.
Huh discloses a battery comprising anode sheet (70) and a cathode sheet (10) (Fig. 7), wherein the cathode sheet has an additional extension with a length 1-10 mm [0034] to improve the safety and reliability of the battery (see insulation layer, [0013]), therefore the overall cathode sheet is at least 0.1 mm greater than that of the anode sheet.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘039 cathode sheet to be greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm, by including an extension, in order to improve the safety and reliability of the battery.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376), and further in view of CN 110649328.
Regarding claim 5, CN ‘039 discloses a cathode sheet and an anode sheet as set forth above, however, is silent on the cathode sheet being greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure.
CN ‘328 discloses a cell of an energy storage device wherein the axial length of cathode sheet is greater than that of an anode sheet. CN’ 328 discloses that this is general known configuration in order to prevent damage to the plates, thereby the length of the placement is a result effective variable. Thus, optimization of the length of the cathode sheet suggested by the above-recited combination would have been obvious in order to prevent damage to the plates. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘039 cathode sheet being greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 0.1 mm along the axial direction of the winding structure, as suggested by CN ‘328, in order to prevent damage to the plates.
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘039 discloses a cell of an energy storage device as set forth above and comprising a plug as a means to wind up and create a spiral winding structure, however, fails to explicitly disclose that the winding structure has a through hole as presently claimed.
CN ‘328 discloses a winding type battery cell comprising a winding structure is formed with a through hole in the middle thereof, the through hole (2) is provided with a cylindrical core (1) column therein, and the cylindrical core column has an inner hole and is provided with a grooves distributed along its axial direction at a sidewall of the cylindrical core column (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘039’s plug to be of a through hole, since CN ‘329 discloses that this is preferable technical scheme to wind up thereby producing a winding type battery cell.
Further, it is also noted that the limitation “winding structure is formed …”, even 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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). CN ‘039 discloses a winding structure as claimed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over obvious over CN 202817039 in view of Kondo et al. (US 2015/0263376), and further in view of in view of Kenta et al. (JP 2018/097928).
Regarding claim 6, CN ‘039 fails to disclose that the dimension of the cathode sheet is greater than that of the anode sheet along a circumferential direction of the winding structure as presently claimed.
Kenta discloses an arrangement wherein cathode sheet is greater than that of the anode sheet along a circumferential direction, and vice versa (Fig. 5-9). Although Kenta fails to explicitly disclose the length difference, Kenta discloses that the dimensional structures of the cathode sheet and anode sheet would result in achieving a more reliable amount of gas generating. This thereby would result in the suppression of an increase cost or a decrease in safety [0061]. In light of Kenta’s disclosure, the specific placement of the cathode sheet and anode sheet is a result effective variable. The examiner deems that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a results effective variable such as difference in length between cathode and anode sheet in a circumferential direction, through routine experimentation, especially given the knowledge in the art that surface roughness of a substrate can impact the overall magnetic properties of the medium. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Geisler, 116 F. 3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re After, 220 F.2d, 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cathode sheet in CN ‘039 so that the cathode sheet is greater than that of the anode sheet by at least 3 mm along a circumferential direction of the winding structure, since dimensions between the cathode and anode is a known results effective variable in the battery art, and in order to achieve a more reliable amount of gas generation, wherein thereby suppressing an increase in cost and suppressing decrease in safety [0061].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Chen ‘480 does not disclose or suggest an extension that is itself provide with a distinct second protrusion. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim requires that the extension is provided with a second protrusion exceeding beyond two ends of the winding structure, and the second protrusion is tilted to cover the two ends. Below is the annotated figure of Chen ‘480 depicting “second protrusion”.
PNG
media_image1.png
540
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the overlap of the diaphragm would correspond to the claimed “second protrusion”.
Applicant argues that Chen ‘039 addresses a different problem with a different solution. Applicant argues that Chen ‘039 is not concerned with forming end-covering protrusions through dimensional differences of the diaphragms. Applicant goes on to say that Chen ‘039 technology is directed to mechanical fixation, not insulation via protrusions.
In response to applicant's argument that Chen ‘039 discloses a different purpose than that of the instant invention, the fact that applicant 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). Additionally, while Chen ‘039 may serve different purpose from that disclosed by Applicant, the claims do not structurally or compositionally distinguish over the structure that by Chen ‘039. Thus, arguments taken in view of Chen ‘039 in view of Kondo regarding functionality of Chen ‘039 is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no reasonable justification to combine the “dimensional teaching” of Kondo (serving chemical protection purpose) with the “folded segment/outer film structure” of Chen ‘039 (serving a physical fixation purpose). This is because applicant contends that they address entirely unrelated technical problems. Applicant’s arguments have been found unpersuasive. While Chen ‘039 may serve different purpose of “serving a physical fixation purpose” and Kondo discloses a purpose of “chemical protection” as applicant has argued, both Chen and Kondo are directed to a diaphragm in an energy storage device. Given that both Chen and Kondo are directed to the same structure of a cell of an energy storage device, thereby in the same field of endeavor, and absent convincing evidence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine features of both Chen and Kondo’s diaphragm as a functionally equivalent design option with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining a diaphragm for a battery and to obtain purposes of “physical fixation” and “chemical protection”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, given that both Chen ‘039 and Konno are directed to the same field of endeavor as set forth 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 dimension of CN ‘039’s diaphragms to be greater than that of the cathode sheet along an axial direction of the winding structure, as suggested by Kondo, in order to inhibit the occurrence of minor short-circuiting [0011] and to ensure insulation from the outside [0048].
Applicant goes on to say “[t]his additional protrusion is a key component of the present technical solution, providing more reliable and stable end insulation, which would not have been deduced from the combination of the prior art”. This has been found unpersuasive.
Applicants are reminded that a detailed description of the reasons and evidence supporting a position of unexpected results must be provided by applicant(s). A mere pointing to data requiring the examiner to ferret out evidence of unexpected results is not sufficient to prove that the results would be truly unexpected to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re D'Ancicco, 439 F.2d 1244, 1248, 169 USPQ 303, 306 (1971) and In re Merck & Co, 800 F.2d 1091, 1099, 231 USPQ 375, 381 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In addition, it is noted that "the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record", In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). It is the Examiner's position that the arguments provided by applicant(s) regarding the alleged unexpected results should be supported by a declaration or affidavit. As set forth in MPEP 716.02(g), "the reason for requiring evidence in a declaration or affidavit form is to obtain the assurances that any statements or representations made are correct, as provided by 35 U.S.C. 24 and 18 U.S.C. 1001".
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As to applicant’s arguments directed to dependent claims as being patentable due to their dependency to claim 1, the rejection of claim 1 is being maintained. Applicants have not separately argued the patentability of the dependent claims. Thus, dependent claims are also being rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/ Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785