DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-7 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires “a frame portion having meshes, the frame portion includes strands and bonds connecting the strands to one other, each group of plural strands out of the strands surrounding an aperture of a corresponding one of the meshes.” The identification of “each group of plural strands” is indefinite because there is no clear identification criteria for what “each group” consists of. Can strands be members of multiple groups or are all the strands sorted individually into only one among the groups? Are the “each groups” to be distinguished from groups of strands that might also surround or not surround the aperture?—that is, is the claim referring to a subset of strands or referring to a regular repeating structure of the mesh? What makes a group as opposed to just strands surrounding an aperture? The claim refers to a ”frame portion” that comprises “meshes.” The strands of “each group of plural strands” corresponds to “one of the meshes” and also “surround[s] an aperture of “one of the meshes.” What, exactly, is the distinction between the claimed “mesh” and the “aperture”? If the mesh is both the strands and the aperture, then what distinguishes the claimed “frame portion” from the “meshes”? The claim has been interpreted broadly in line with the figures and description to refer to a regular mesh with a diamond-like aperture framed by four strands. Claims 2-6 are rejected for depending on claim 1.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (JP H07-240199 to Ogawa et al., the Office cites provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa teaches:
a lithium battery with cathode, anode, and separator (p. 1), an organic, non-aqueous electrolyte (p. 2) and an expanded metal cathode collector (p. 1, Fig. 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
146
140
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the expanded metal including a frame portion with meshes having apertures, and four strands joined together at bonds around the aperture, the plural strands surrounding the aperture having a bent or curved shape (Fig. 4)
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2011-039924 to Kato et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Barnett (US Patent No. 4,124,925 to Frank Barnett).
Regarding Claim 1, Kato teaches:
a non-aqueous battery with a cathode, anode, and separator, with a lithium-ion non-aqueous electrolyte (p. 4)
the cathode comprising an active material on a collector of expanded metal including a frame portion having meshes, including four strands, and bonds connecting the strands to one another, to form an aperture that is repeated across the mesh (Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image2.png
410
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kato does not explicitly teach:
the plural strands surrounding the aperture have a bent or curved line shape
Barnett, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a mesh that can be used as an electrode material, teaches curved strands surrounding the mesh apertures that improves the surface area of the metal without excessively increasing the size of the apertures (column 1 lines 35-55).
PNG
media_image3.png
289
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to provide some curve in the strands of Kato with the motivation of increasing the surface area of the metal used in the electrode while restricting the aperture size, as taught in Barnett.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Kato teaches:
an LW of 2.5 mm and an SW of 1.2 mm (p. 5)
Regarding Claim 3, Kato teaches:
a thickness of 0.13 mm and a width W of 0.25 mm (p. 5)
Claims 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato (WO 2011-039924 to Kato et al., the Office cites to provided machine English translation) in view of Barnett (US Patent No. 4,124,925 to Frank Barnett), in further view of Okada (EP 2479824 to Okada et al.).
Regarding Claims 4, 6, and 7, Kato does not teach:
the thickness of the cathode (claim 4)
a cathode material of manganese dioxide (claim 6)
a density of the cathode active material mixture of 2.4-3.2 g/cc (claim 7)
Okada, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a battery cell with electrodes formed on mesh collectors, teaches a manganese dioxide cathode material (¶ 0056) formed on a cathode to form an electrode of thicknesses ranging from 2.03-2.93 mm (Table 1), wherein the density of the cathode material is 2.8 g/cc (Table 1). It would have been obvious to use conventionally known cathode thicknesses, densities, and materials, such as those shown in Okada, to form a zinc-manganese cell. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 6,425,181 teaches an electrode mesh with stretched meshes that result in curved strands (Fig. 7)
PNG
media_image4.png
466
596
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights