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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/5/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is not a serious search burden between Groups I and II. This is not found persuasive because Group II requires a method including processing and assembling steps which are unique to Group II, not required in Group I. These method steps are also classified in a different area than Group I. Thus, a search for Group II requires a different classification search and a different term / structure / method search than that of Group I, arising to the level of a serious search burden. As such, restriction is still deemed proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2008/0226975).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 6, Kang et al. discloses in Figs 1-7, a secondary battery (Abstract) comprising a dissolution-deposition electrode ([0010], [0006], ref 1) whose electrode active material is repeatedly dissolved and deposited through charge-discharge ([0010], [0006]), wherein the secondary battery (Abstract) comprises a power generation unit ([0020]-[0021]), wherein the power generation unit ([0020]-[0021]) comprises: a positive electrode layer (ref 2) including a positive electrode active material ([0029]) and a positive electrode current collector (Fig 4) supporting the positive electrode active material ([0029]); a negative electrode layer (ref 1) including a negative electrode active material ([0024]) and a negative electrode current collector (Fig 4) supporting the negative electrode active material ([0024]); a porous separator (ref 4) interposed between the positive electrode layer (ref 2) and the negative electrode layer (ref 1); and an electrolytic solution (ref 3, [0030]) with which the positive electrode layer (ref 2), the negative electrode layer (ref 1), and the porous separator (ref 4) are impregnated ([0026]-[0030]), wherein the negative electrode layer (ref 1) is the dissolution-deposition electrode ([0010], [0006]), wherein when the power generation unit ([0020]-[0021]) is viewed in plan view, a functional region (Figs 3-4), which is identified as a region (Figs 3-4, cube view) where the positive electrode layer (ref 2), the negative electrode layer (ref 1), the electrolytic solution (ref 3, [0030]), and the porous separator (ref 4) overlap (Figs 3-4, cube view), is divided into a plurality of power generation regions (Figs 3-4, cube view) and a linear non-power generation region (at walls refs 10, Figs 3-4) demarcating each of the plurality of power generation regions ([0020]-[0021]).
Kang et al. does not explicitly disclose the power generation regions have a value α of 30 or 24 or less, the value α being defined by the following equation: α = ΦP/wt wherein Φ represents an area equivalent diameter (mm) per region of the power generation regions, P represents a thickness (mm) of the negative electrode layer, w represents a line width (mm) of the non-power generation region, and t represents a thickness (mm) of the porous separator, nor the line width w of the non-power generation region is 0.01 mm to 1.0 mm.
As the battery energy density and size/flexibility are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said dimensions of aforementioned battery components (see Kang et al., [0001], [0010], [0026], [0034]-[0036]), with said battery energy density and size/flexibility both varying as the dimensions of aforementioned battery components are varied, the precise dimensions of aforementioned battery components would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed dimensions of aforementioned battery components cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the dimensions of aforementioned battery components in the battery of Kang et al. to obtain the desired balance between the battery energy density and size/flexibility (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the power generation regions and the non-power generation region form a regular pattern (Figs 3, 4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the area equivalent diameter per region of the power generation regions is 3.0 mm or less ([0024]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the separator (ref 4) is a porous film ([0034]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 2008/0226975) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu (US 2006/0172197).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kang et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the negative electrode active material contains a zinc material.
Zhu discloses a secondary battery (Abstract) including a negative electrode comprising a zinc active material ([0020]). This configuration enhances electronic performance of the battery ([0020]).
Zhu and Kang et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the zinc material disclosed by Zhu into the negative active material of Kang et al. to enhance electronic performance of the battery.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claim 3 discloses the porous separator is divided into porous portions and a dense portion having a density 1.1 times or more the density of the porous portions, wherein the porous portions define the power generation regions, and the dense portion define the non-power generation region. Kang et al. discloses different regions within the battery of its invention, including different sizes and contents of materials within the various electrode and separator and electrolyte structures. However, it does not explicitly disclose the structural configuration of dependent claim 3 within the battery set forth in claim 1. No additional references have been found that disclose or render obvious the aforementioned structural configuration of the battery of the instant claims. Therefore, these limitations have been found to be allowable over the cited prior art of record. Further, claims 9-12 are objected to since they depend from claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725