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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 8, 13, 17; and dependent claims 2-6, 10-12, 14, 16, 21. The pending claims are claims 1-21.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hikmet, EP 1038329 (English translation US 6432576).
Regarding claim 1, Hikmet teaches a flexible lithium-ion battery (abstract; col. 3, lines 8-13) comprising: a positive electrode (col. 3, lines 15-21) comprising a patterned positive current collector (col. 3, lines 15-25) and a positive active material provided on the patterned positive current collector (col. 3, lines 15-25), wherein the positive current collector comprises at least one longitudinal rail (“pile”) (a pile is a long slender column) (reference 12, in Fig. 1A and 1B) and a plurality of spaced apart active segments (col. 9, lines 6-16; electrodes 1 and 4; separator 7; Fig. 1A and 1B) perpendicularly oriented with respect to the at least one first longitudinal rail (pile 12) (Fig. 1A-1B), wherein the longitudinal rail (“pile 12”) comprises trench features (holes 8, 9, 10) (col. 9, lines 17-21); a porous separator (col. 4, lines 59-67); and a negative electrode (col. 3, lines 15-22) comprising a patterned negative current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20) and a negative acting material provided on the patterned negative current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20), wherein the patterned negative current collector comprises at least one longitudinal rail (“pile”) (reference 12) and a plurality of spaced apart active segments (col. 9, lines 6-16; electrodes 1 and 4; separator 7; Fig. 1A and 1B) perpendicularly oriented with respect to the at least one longitudinal rail (“pile”) (reference 12, in Fig. 1A and 1B), wherein the longitudinal rail comprises trench (holes 8, 9, 10) (col. 9, lines 17-21).
Hikmet does not teach having a reduced thickness at locations between the active segments.
However, it is advantageous to provide a reduced thickness in the active material structure because a lithium secondary battery “may be made so as to be flexible and thin, and in which a good contact between the electrodes and the electrolyte is ensured.” (col. 9, lines 54-58).
Additionally, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 2, Hikmet does not teach wherein the reduced thickness of the longitudinal rail at locations between the active segments is less than about 90 percent of the thickness to greater than 10 percent of the overall thickness of the respective patterned positive or negative current collector.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Additionally, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 3, Hikmet does not teach wherein the reduced thickness of the longitudinal rail at locations between the active segments or the second longitudinal rail at locations between second active segments is between about less than about 75 percent to greater than 10 percent of the overall thickness of the respective patterned positive or negative current collectors.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 4, Hikmet does not teach wherein the reduced thickness of the longitudinal rail at locations between the active segments is less than about 50 percent to greater than 20 percent of the overall thickness of the respective patterned positive or negative current collector.
However, it is advantageous to provide a reduced thickness in the active material structure because a lithium secondary battery “may be made so as to be flexible and thin, and in which a good contact between the electrodes and the electrolyte is ensured.” (col. 9, lines 54-58).Additionally, In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 5, Hikmet does not teach wherein the positive and negative electrodes are configured to retain about 70 to about 82 percent of storage capacity relative to the positive and negative current collectors.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 6, Hikmet teaches wherein the patterned positive current collectors (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20) comprise two spaced apart longitudinal rails (pile 12) (Fig. 1A-1B), first active segments span the two spaced apart first longitudinal rails (piles 12) (Fig. 1A-1B), the patterned negative current collector comprises two spaced apart second longitudinal rails, and the second active segments second active segments span the two spaced apart second longitudinal rails (piles 12) (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 7, Hikmet does not teach the patterned positive current collector is about 10 percent larger in length and width dimensions than the patterned negative current collector.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 8, Hikmet teaches flexible lithium-ion battery (abstract; col. 3, lines 8-13) comprising: a positive electrode (col. 3, lines 15-21) comprising a rectangular-shaped positive current collector (Fig. 1A-1B) and a patterned positive active material (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20) provided on the positive current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20); a negative electrode comprising a negative rectangular shaped-current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20) and a patterned negative active material (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20) provided on the negative current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20); and a porous separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode (col. 4, lines 59-67), wherein the patterns of the patterned positive and negative active materials have patterns (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20).
Hikmet does not teach patterns configured to partition bending stresses when the lithium-ion battery is flexed by localizing high bending stresses to areas without the positive and the negative active material while maintaining relatively unstressed areas for the positive and the negative active material.
However, 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).
Regarding claim 9, Hikmet teaches wherein each of the patterned positive and negative active materials comprise a plurality of lines and spaces (Fig. 1A-1B) (positive electrode 4; negative electrode 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hikmet does not teach wherein the positive and negative electrodes are configured to retain about 70 to about 82 percent of storage capacity relative to respective area-equivalent positive and negative electrodes having respective non-patterned positive and negative current collectors.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 11, Hikmet does not teach wherein the patterned positive current collector is about 10 percent larger in length and width dimensions than the patterned negative current collector.
However, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 12, Hikmet teaches that it further comprising additional pairs of the positive and the negative electrodes, as seen in Fig. 1A-1B (positive electrode 4; negative electrode 1).
Regarding claim 13, Hikmet teaches electrode assembly for a lithium-ion battery (col. 3, lines 8-13), the electrode assembly comprising: a patterned current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20) comprising at least one longitudinal rail (“pile”) (reference 12, in Fig. 1A and 1B), and a plurality of spaced apart active segments (col. 9, lines 6-16; electrodes 1 and 4; separator 7; Fig. 1A and 1B) perpendicular to and extending from the rail (pile 12) (Fig. 1A-1B); and wherein a thickness of the at least one longitudinal rail (pile 12) is variable, the thickness of the at least one longitudinal rail is smaller at locations between the spaced apart active segments relative to locations of the spaced apart active segments, and the at least one longitudinal rail includes a terminal end for connecting to an external electronic device (col. 3, lines 15-46)
Hikmet does not teach wherein the at least one longitudinal rail relative to a thickness of the spaced apart active segments is at locations between the spaced apart active segments.
However, it is advantageous to provide a reduced thickness in the active material structure because a lithium secondary battery “may be made so as to be flexible and thin, and in which a good contact between the electrodes and the electrolyte is ensured.” (col. 9, lines 54-58).
Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 14, Hikmet does not teach wherein the electrode assembly including the patterned current collector is configured to retain about 70 to about 82 percent of storage capacity relative to an area-equivalent electrode assembly having a non-patterned current collector.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 15, Hikmet teaches wherein the patterned current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20) comprises two spaced apart longitudinal rails (col. 9, lines 6-16; electrodes 1 and 4; separator 7; Fig. 1A and 1B), wherein the spaced apart active segments (electrodes 1 and 4; separator 7; Fig. 1A and 1B) span the two spaced apart longitudinal rails (piles 12) (Fig. 1A-1B).
Regarding claim 16, Hikmet teaches further comprising an active material (electrodes 1 and 4; separator 7; Fig. 1A and 1B) provided on the patterned current collector (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 17, Hikmet teaches electrode assembly for a lithium-ion battery (abstract; col. 3, lines 8-13), the electrode assembly comprising: a current collector having a rectangular shape (col. 3, lines 15-25) including a terminal end extending from the rectangular shape for connection to an external electronic device (col. 3, lines 15-46); and a patterned active material provided on the current collector comprising a pattern (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20).
Hikmet does not teach a pattern of the patterned active material, the current collector has areas free of active material.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Regarding claim 18, Hikmet teaches wherein the current collector comprises a foil (col. 3, lines 15-46), mesh (col. 3, lines 15-46), or a foam (col. 5, lines 48-62).
Regarding claim 19, Hikmet teaches wherein the current collector is flexible (col. 3, lines 7-14).
Regarding claim 20, Hikmet teaches wherein the pattern comprises lines and spaces (Fig. 1A-1B) (positive electrode 4; negative electrode 1).
Regarding claim 21, Hikmet teaches wherein the electrode assembly including the patterned active material (col. 3, lines 15-46; col. 5, lines 64-67 and col. 6, lines 1-20).
Hikmet does not teach the patterned active material is configured to retain about 70 to about 82 percent of storage capacity relative to an area-equivalent electrode assembly having a non-patterned active material.
However, Hikmet teaches that the pattern of holes can be configured in the electrode current collector to achieve the desired storage capacity. Hikmet teaches, “The dimensions of the holes and the pattern are chosen in such a way that the active surface of the electrodes amounts preferably to at least 90%, because the holes filled with polymeric material reduces the capacity of the electrodes: in these filled holes the active electrode material is absent.” (col. 3, lines 27-33).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that “One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the formed trenches affect the topography of the longitudinal rail 32…In contrast, Hikmet’s holes 8, 9, and 10---the alleged trenches---are formed in the electrode materials 2 and 5 and the current collectors 3 and 6. Hikmet does not disclose or suggest forming trenches on pile 12-the alleged longitudinal rail…Hikmet’s pile 12 has no variation in thickness, which indicates an absence of trenches on pile 12 itself.”
Although “topography” is not in the claim language of the application, the topography is a result of the trenches/varying thicknesses.
However, it is advantageous to provide a reduced thickness in the active material structure because a lithium secondary battery “may be made so as to be flexible and thin, and in which a good contact between the electrodes and the electrolyte is ensured.” (col. 9, lines 54-58).
Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding the trenches, the definition of trench is “a long, narrow, and usually steep-sided depression or channel” (Merriam Webster); or “a deep and narrow hole” (Dictionary.com). Thus, the holes of Hikmet meet the current limitations for the trenches.
Additionally, a “pile” is defined as “a long slender column” (Merriam Webster) and the claims do not recite “forming trenches on a pile.”
The prior art, Hikmet et al., teaches holes 8, 9, 10, which are channels or holes.
Applicant argues that “nowhere does Hikmet disclose or suggest the thickness profile of the longitudinal rail.”
However, Hikmet teaches “the length of the piles being at least equal to the thickness of the stack;”.
The Applicant argues that “Hikmet fails to disclose or suggest the claimed "based on a pattern of the patterned positive active material, the rectangular-shaped positive current collector has areas without the positive active material" and "based on a pattern of the patterned negative active material, the rectangular-shaped negative current collector has areas without the negative active material," as recited in claim 8.”
However, Hikmet teaches “the negative electrode material and the positive electrode material are provided with a pattern of holes, the holes being filled with a polymeric material which sticks and presses the negative electrode, the positive electrode and the separator contiguously together...”
Additionally, Hikmet teaches “e) a polymer film is made having a pattern of piles on at least one of its surfaces, the pattern corresponding to the patterns of a), b), and c);”
Applicant argues that “the patterns of the patterned positive and negative active materials are structured to partition bending stresses when the lithium-ion battery is flexed by localizing bending stresses to the areas without the patterned positive and negative active materials while reducing bending stresses at areas that have the patterned positive and the negative active materials," as recited in claim 8.
However, structured to partition bending stresses when the lithium-ion battery is flexed by localizing bending stresses to the areas without the patterned positive and negative active materials while reducing bending stresses is a product-by-process.
"[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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights