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 Application
Claims 1-18 are pending and presented for examination on the merit.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because the word “tub” in line 4 should be changed to “tab”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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. The term “close” in line 6 of claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the term is considered to mean that the second negative electrode active layer is closer than the first negative electrode active layer to a first side edge of the negative electrode current collector.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016-012541 to Sugimoto et al. (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Sugimoto et al. teaches a negative electrode sheet 17, comprising a negative electrode current collector or metal foil 13, and a negative electrode active layer 16 that is disposed on at least one functional surface of the negative electrode current collector; the negative electrode active layer comprises a first negative electrode active layer or non-tab-side edge active material layer 16a and a second negative electrode active layer or tab-side edge active material 16b in a first direction of the negative electrode current collector (Figs. 3 and 4; [0022]; [0023]); the second negative electrode active layer is close to a first side edge of the negative electrode current collector (Figs. 3 and 4); a ratio of a thickness of the second negative electrode active layer to a thickness of the first negative electrode active layer is 1:1 as the thickness of the negative electrode active layer 16 is made uniform (Fig. 7; [0033]; [0046]).
Below is Fig. 4 of Sugimoto et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
625
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 6, in the first direction, the second negative electrode active layer or tab-side edge active material 16b has a size of W2 and the first negative electrode active layer or non-tab-side edge active material layer 16a has a size of W1, W1> W2 as seen in Figs. 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 8, Sugimoto et al. teaches that the negative electrode sheet further comprises a tab 17a; the tab is formed by the negative electrode current collector protruding from the first side edge ([0018]).
Regarding claim 18, Sugimoto et al. teaches a lithium-ion battery 10 comprising the negative electrode sheet according to claim 1 (Figs. 1 and 2; [0016]).
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CN 108400386 to Li et al. (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claim 9, Sugimoto et al. does not expressly teach that the negative electrode sheet further comprises a serrated extension part, and the serrated extension part is located at and/or protrudes from the first side edge; one end of the serrated extension part is connected to the second negative electrode active layer and the other end of the serrated extension part extends in a direction away from the second negative electrode active layer.
Li et al. also relates to an electrode comprising an electrode sheet 1 or active material layer on a current collector 2 and teaches that the electrode sheet comprises a serrated extension part or tooth-shaped structure 11, and the serrated extension part or tooth-shaped structure 11 is located at and/or protrudes from a first side edge; one end of the serrated extension part or tooth-shaped structure 11 is connected to the negative electrode active layer and the other end of the serrated extension part extends in a direction away from the negative electrode active layer (Figs. 1 and 3; [0034-36]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a serrated extension part in the electrode sheet of Sugimoto et al., motivated by the fact that Li et al. demonstrates that the serrated extension part or toothed structure 11 allows for a larger area to withstand bending transition process, effectively improving the situation where the material layer-metal current collector boundary line is prone to breakage during bending, thereby improving the bending resistance of the flexible battery ([0040]). Once incorporated, the serrated extension part would have been connected to the second negative electrode active layer of Sugimoto et al.
Regarding claim 10, Sugimoto et al. teaches that the negative electrode sheet further comprises a tab 17a ([0018]) and Li et al. also teaches a tab (Figs. 1 and 3; [0036]), the tab is formed by the negative electrode current collector protruding from the first side edge, the extension direction of the serrated extension part would have been the same as the extension direction of the tab as demonstrated by Li et al. (Figs. 1 and 3), and the serrated extension part would have been located on the tab to serve as reinforcement as suggested by Li et al. ([0040]).
Regarding claim 11, Li et al. teaches that the serrated extension part or toothed structure 11 comprises N serrated sub-extension parts arranged sequentially in a second direction of the negative electrode current collector, and the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction, N > 1 (Figs. 1 and 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 12-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Sugimoto et al. and Lee et al. do not teach that the second negative electrode active layer is a thermal effect layer formed by thermal effect treatment of the first negative electrode active layer per claims 3 and 4; claims 16 and 17 depending on claim 3 also contain the allowable subject matter. The prior arts also do not teach that second negative electrode active layer has a size of W2 in the range of 2 µm to 30 µm per claim 7. There was no disclosure about the size of the serrated sub-extension parts in the ranges of claims 12 and 13 or a maximum distance between adjacent serrated sub-extension parts per claims 14 and 15. No other reference was found to remedy the deficiencies so it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior arts as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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.
/Heng M. Chan/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/Sean P Cullen, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725