DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the limitation “another electrode tab” in line 2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different another electrode tab as recited in claim 2 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the another electrode tab”.
4. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation “another electrode tab” in line 2. It is not clear whether it is the same or different another electrode tab as recited in claim 2 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the another electrode tab”.
5. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the electrode sheets" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as "the multiple electrode sheets" as there is antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asano et al. (US 2018/0062146).
Regarding claim 1, Asano discloses a battery cell structure (Fig. 11) comprising: a body(thin cell 100 with housing 108 and electrode assembly 103, [0043], Figs. 3 and 4); and
an electrode tab(first lead 113, Fig. 11, [0044], [0074]), disposed on a side of the body, and outward extended from the body(Fig. 3); wherein a slit is respectively disposed on two sides of the electrode tab(117, Fig. 11, [0068]), the slit comprises two inner edges adjacent to each other([0056]), and two slits are staggered with each other along a longitudinal direction of the electrode tab (Fig. 11) and overlapped with each other along a transverse direction of the electrode tab(Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano further discloses further comprising another electrode tab(second lead 123, Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano further discloses the electrode tab is a positive electrode tab, and the another electrode tab is a negative electrode tab([0028], [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano further discloses the electrode tab is made of an aluminum material, and the another electrode tab is made of a copper material ([0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano further discloses the electrode tab is made of an aluminum material([0082]).
Regarding claim 6, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano further discloses the body comprises an outer bag (housing 108, Fig. 3, [0043]) and multiple electrode sheets(electrode assembly 103 with first electrodes 110 and second electrodes 120, Fig. 4, [0043]), the multiple electrode sheets are stacked and received in the outer bag([0043]), and the electrode tab is connected to a portion of the multiple electrode sheets and projects from the outer bag(Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano further discloses the two inner edges of each slit are in contact with each other([0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano further discloses an overlapping distance of the two slits along the transverse direction of the electrode tab is greater than one third of a width of the electrode tab(Fig. 11).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asano et al. (US 2018/0062146) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2006/0175006).
Regarding claim 9, Asano discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Asano discloses the thickness of the thin cell is not particularly limited, and is preferably 3 mm or less ([0033]) but does not explicitly disclose the electrode tab is greater than 0.3 mm in thickness.
Takahashi teaches from the viewpoint of constructing a thin electrochemical device capable of charging and discharging with a relatively large current, it will be more preferable in the method of manufacturing an electrochemical device if leads having a thickness of 0.1 to 2.00 mm are used as the first and second leads([0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery cell structure of Asano with the electrode tab is greater than 0.3 mm in thickness as taught by Takahashi in order to provide a thin electrochemical device capable of charging and discharging with a relatively large current.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724