DETAILED ACTION
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, Species I-A and Sub-Species I-A-1 (i.e., claims 22-24 and 31-32) in the reply filed on 04/07/26 and 06/30/215 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: (i) with respect to the lack of unity between the identified inventive groups: “[T]he restriction requirement does not identify which reference or combination of references purportedly teaches each element of the shared technical feature” and applicant also provided brief discussions of the references identified/cited by the examiner in the 02/09/26 restriction requirement/lack of unity; and (ii) with respect to the lack of unity between the identified species in the election of species: “[T]he restriction requirement does not identify any cited reference as disclosing the solubility-parameter limitation”. This is not found persuasive because under PCT Rules 13.1-13.2, a lack of unity of invention may only be established a posteriori by showing that the common subject matter does not define a contribution over the prior art. In this case, the inventions identified in the restriction requirement dated 02/09/26 and the species identified in the 05/04/26 restriction requirement both lack an unity of invention because their special technical feature does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of, or as evidenced by, the disclosure, citation and application of the publications JP 2015-118875, CN 109950454 (heretofore CN’454) and CN 105703015 (heretofore CN’015) which have all been used to set forth and/or establish a prima-facie case of anticipation and/or obviousness and/or the rejection(s) of record hereinbelow. Ipso facto, at least lack of unity a posteriori has been demonstrated. Accordingly, serious burden would be raised if the search of such different groups was made as required for the separate, distinct inventive groups. Furthermore, as to the election of species identified in the 05/04/26 restriction requirement, the requirement of a technical interrelationship and the same or corresponding special technical features as defined in Rule 13.2, is considered met when the alternatives are of a similar nature. However, in this case, the species identified in the restriction requirement dated 05/04/26 (refer to such election species for specific delineation of the species) do not necessarily share the same special technical feature in view of such election of species setting forth a priori lack of unity (refer to such election species for specific delineation of the species). Accordingly, serious burden would be raised if the search of such different groups and species was made as required for the separate, distinct and mutually exclusive species or embodiments.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/24, 12/26/24 and 01/30/25 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/21/23.
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.
Claim(s) 22-23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication JP 2015-118875 (heretofore JP’875).
As to claims 22-23, 31:
JP’875 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery comprising first/second electrode plates, an electrolyte, and first/second separators (i.e., separator layers) including a first separator coating layer adhered to the respective edge/border regions of the first/second separators so that the first edge/border region faces the second edge/border region thereof and the first/second separators are placed on opposed sides of the first electrode plate (Abstract; 0015-0034; Figures 1-5). In JP’875, the solubility of the first separator coating layer is inherently less than the solubility of the electrolyte so that the solubility difference is no greater than 5 J/cm3 so as to be able to perform the required functionality of transporting ions therethrough in an efficient and effective manner. In this case, it is deemed that the teachings of JP’875 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and materially undefined first/second base separator(s) and totally unknown solubility parameter.
Figures 1-5 depict the structural arrangement of the JP’875’s battery:
PNG
media_image1.png
318
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
242
522
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
194
270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
(at least) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication CN 109950454 (heretofore CN’454).
As to claim 22:
CN’454 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery comprising first/second electrode plates, an electrolyte, and first/second separators (i.e., separator layers) including a first separator coating layer adhered to the respective edge/border regions of the first/second separators so that the first edge/border region faces the second edge/border region thereof and the first/second separators are placed on opposed sides of the first electrode plate (Abstract; 0003-0010; 0012-0025; 0028-0035; 0037-0044; Figures 1-4). In CN’454, the solubility of the first separator coating layer is inherently less than the solubility of the electrolyte so as to be able to perform the required functionality of transporting ions therethrough in an efficient and effective manner. In this case, it is deemed that the teachings of CN’454 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and materially undefined first/second base separator(s) and totally unknown solubility parameter.
Figures 1-4 illustrate the structural arrangement of the CN’454’s battery:
PNG
media_image4.png
730
560
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
302
462
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Thus, the present claim is anticipated.
(at least) Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication CN 105703015 (heretofore CN’015).
As to claim 22:
CN’015 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery comprising first/second electrode plates, an electrolyte, and first/second separators (i.e., separator layers) including a first separator coating layer adhered to the respective edge/border regions of the first/second separators so that the first edge/border region faces the second edge/border region thereof and the first/second separators are placed on opposed sides of the first electrode plate (Abstract; 0019-0027; Figures 1-10). In CN’015, the solubility of the first separator coating layer is inherently less than the solubility of the electrolyte so as to be able to perform the required functionality of transporting ions therethrough in an efficient and effective manner. In this case, it is deemed that the teachings of CN’015 are sufficient to satisfy applicant’s broadly claimed and materially undefined first/second base separator(s) and totally unknown solubility parameter.
For example, Figures 7-10 illustrate the structural arrangement of the CN’015’s battery:
PNG
media_image6.png
482
562
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
286
624
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
430
540
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
416
436
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Thus, the present claim is anticipated.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication JP 2015-118875 (heretofore JP’875).
JP’785 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra.
As to claim 32:
JP’875 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery comprising first/second separators (i.e., separator layers) having specific width(s) (0015-0034; Figures 1-15).
However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific first separator coating layer width relative to the first electrode plate width.
In light of the above, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the width of the first separator coating layer smaller than the width of the first electrode plate as instantly claimed because where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions (changes in size/proportion) of the claimed feature/element and a feature/element having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art feature/element, the claimed element/feature is not patentably distinct from the prior art element/feature. That is, limitations relating to the size of the element/feature or components are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as it is noted that changes in size is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular size of the claimed first separator coating layer and first electrode plate is critical. In re Rose 105 USPQ 237; In re Rinehart 189 USPQ 143; In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 & 225 USPQ 232 (See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the battery comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claim 24.
Claim 24 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 pm).
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights