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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4/3/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Murashi et al. (US 2017/0179535).
Regarding claim 1, Murashi et al. discloses in Figs 1-11, an energy storage device (ref 10) comprising: a wound electrode assembly (ref 1) containing lithium manganese oxide ([0068]) as a main component in a positive active material ([0068]); and a case (ref 5) that houses the wound electrode assembly (ref 1), wherein the wound electrode assembly (ref 1) includes a mixture layer (ref 22) forming portion in which a mixture layer (ref 22) is formed, and a mixture layer non-forming portion (ref 23) located at least at one end in a first direction parallel to a winding axis (“end”, Fig 7 below), and in the wound electrode assembly (ref 1), a ratio of a dimension in the first direction (Fig 1, “w”) to a dimension in a second direction (Fig 1, “h”) orthogonal to the first direction in plan view is 1.45 or more (Fig 1, [0170], = 108 / 73.63 = 1.46).
PNG
media_image1.png
326
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murashi et al. (US 2017/0179535) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Murashi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the ratio of the dimension in the first direction to the dimension in the second direction is 1.82 or more. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the battery dimensions, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the battery dimensions may be changed depending on the size / dimensions of an end device powered by the battery and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions of the battery (see Murashi, [0023] also, dimension, shape ratios may be adjusted as needed).
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murashi et al. (US 2017/0179535) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakata et al. (US 2005/0221185).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Murashi et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose an open circuit voltage (OCV) is 3.6 V or more over 95% or more of a charge-discharge range in which the energy storage device is used.
Sakata et al. discloses in Figs 1-2, a secondary battery ([0021]) including a wound electrode assembly ([0029]-[0032]) located within a case (ref 4). A positive electrode (ref 1) active material includes lithium manganese oxide ([0066]). The battery has an open circuit voltage of 4V or more which enhances capacity and prevents cycle deterioration ([0066]).
Sakata et al. and Murashi 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 battery of Murashi et al. as having the open circuit voltage characteristics disclosed by Sakata et al. to enhance battery capacity and prevent cycle deterioration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Johnson (US 2020/0083728) discloses a secondary battery (Abstract) having a wound electrode assembly ([0092]) and including operating at high capacity and voltages ([0196]).
Takebayashi (US 2016/0079596) discloses a lithium secondary battery ([0011]) including an open circuit voltage of 4.3 V ([0012]).
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
Prosecution Insights