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 .
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the other end” will be interpreted as “an opposite end” (or similar). Note: Claims 4 and 10 also disclose “the one end” and will be interpreted as “the opposite end” (or similar). Further, claims 2-12 are rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other end side" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this office action, “the other end side” will be interpreted as “the opposite end” (or similar). Note: Claims 2 and 3 also each recite “the other end side” and will be interpreted as “the opposite end” (or similar). Further, claims 2-12 are rejected since they depend from claim 1.
Claim 3 discloses “a thickness of the negative electrode after initial discharge” in line 3. It is noted that Claim 1, from which Claim 3 depends, is a product claim drawn to a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery which is a static structure. The limitations “a thickness of the negative electrode after initial discharge” suggests an operation of the battery is being undertaken and some sort of intermediate structure / thickness results (after initial discharge). As such, it is unclear what this intermediate structure is, and it is also not further receiving full patentable weight in the product of Claim 1. For the purposes of this office action, the limitations of Claim 3 will be interpreted as the negative electrode having any thickness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 discloses the operation of the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery of claim 1 “during charge” and “during discharge”. It is noted Claim 1 is drawn to a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, which is product and is a static structure. Therefore limitations directed toward something that happens “during charge” and “during discharge” do not further limit the static structure of the non-aqueous electrolyte battery of Claim 1, from which claim 12 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ji et al. (US 2017/0025682).
Regarding claim 1, Ji et al. discloses in Figs 1-13, a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery (ref 300, [0088]), comprising: an electrode group (ref 200); and a non-aqueous electrolyte ([0093]), wherein the electrode group (ref 200) includes a positive electrode (ref 100a), a negative electrode (ref 100b), and a separator (ref 120) interposed between the positive electrode (ref 100a) and the negative electrode (ref 100b), the negative electrode (ref 100b) includes a negative electrode current collector (ref 102b) having a belt-like shape (Fig 3A) and having a first end (ref 107) and a second end (ref 104) in a short-side direction (Fig 3A) of the negative electrode current collector (ref 102b), and the negative electrode ([0065], [0073]) current collector (ref 102b) includes at least one slit group (of refs 103) constituted of a plurality of slits (refs 103) extending in a form of a dashed line (“Line”, indicates two slits 103 viewed along said “Line”, dashed with space in between, Fig 3A below) along the short-side direction (Fig 3A) from one end of the first end (ref 107) and the second end toward an opposite end (in direction / toward ref 104, Fig 3A below), and a hole (“Hole”, Fig 3A below) formed on the opposite end (at end of slit extending in direction of / toward 104, Fig 3A below) of the plurality of slits (refs 103) and having a width larger than an average width (“Hole” depicted larger than slits, Fig 3A below, and Fig 4, at ref 103d vs ref 103p) of the plurality of slits (refs 103).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
194
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the hole (“Hole”, Fig 3A above) is continuous (Fig 3A above) with a slit (ref 103) on the opposite side of the plurality of slits (refs 103).
Regarding claim 3, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode has a thickness (depicted in Fig 3A above, and other Figs in general).
Further regarding limitations recited in claim 3, which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed battery (i.e. discharging a fully charged battery…), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Regarding claim 4, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the one end (at ref 107) is cut by a slit (ref 103) on the one end side (Fig 3A above) of the plurality of slits (refs 103).
Regarding claim 5, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the negative electrode current collector (ref 102b) has a plurality of the slit groups (refs 103, Figs 3A, 3B), the plurality of slit groups (refs 103) includes a first slit group constituted of a plurality of first slits (refs 103, facing toward the right side, Figs 3A, 3B) extending along the short-side direction from the first end (at ref 107) toward the second end (at ref 104), and a first hole (on slits facing towards right side, Figs 3A, 3B) formed on the second end side of the plurality of first slits, and a second slit group (refs 103, facing toward the left side, Figs 3A, 3B) constituted of a plurality of second slits (refs 103) extending along the short-side direction (Figs 3A, 3B) from the second end toward the first end (refs 103, facing toward the left side, Figs 3A, 3B), and a second hole (on slits facing toward left side, Figs 3A, 3B) formed on the first end side of the plurality of second slits (refs 103).
Regarding claim 6, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the first slit group and the second slit group (each of refs 103) are alternately arranged (Fig 3B).
Regarding claim 9, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the hole (“Hole”, Fig 3A above) is circular or oval in shape (Fig 3A, above).
Regarding claim 12, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery is a lithium secondary battery ([0065]) in which a lithium metal ([0065]) deposits on a surface of the negative electrode current collector (ref 102b) during charge and the lithium metal dissolves during discharge ([0088], [0098], i.e. using a lithium secondary battery in an end application to power a device).
Further, regarding limitations recited in claim 12, which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed battery (charging, discharging), it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
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.
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji et al. (US 2017/0025682) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 7, 8 and 10, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The reference does not explicitly disclose the slit / hole spacing / dimensions as set forth in the claims, in particular, wherein an average interval between adjacent slits in a direction extending in the form of a dashed line is 0.02 mm or more and 3 mm or less; wherein the width of the hole is 0.05 mm or more and 2 mm or less; and wherein when a length in the short-side direction of the negative electrode current collector is denoted by W, a distance between the hole and the other end is 0.1W or more and 0.5W or less.
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific spacing / width / distribution of the slits and holes as set forth in the claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the spacing / width / distribution of the slits and holes, 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 spacing / dimensions of the slits / holes results in enhanced battery structural durability and performance ([0044], [0117]) and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions / spacing of slits / holes on an electrode plate.
Regarding claim 11, Ji et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the electrode group (ref 200) is a wound electrode group in which the positive electrode (ref 100a), the negative electrode (ref 100b), and the separator (ref 120) are wound together ([0097], structure of electrode group not limited, includes wound, etc.), the negative electrode current collector (ref 102b) has a plurality of slit groups (refs 103) formed at intervals along a long-side direction (Figs 3I, 3J) of the negative electrode current collector (ref 102b).
The reference does not explicitly disclose when a length in the long-side direction of the negative electrode current collector is denoted by L, an average interval between adjacent slit groups in a portion of L/4 from an end on an outer layer side of the negative electrode current collector is smaller than an average interval between adjacent slit groups in the remaining portion.
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific spacing / distribution of the slits as set forth in the claim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to change the spacing / distribution of the slits, 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 spacing / dimensions of the slits results in enhanced battery structural durability and performance ([0044], [0117]) and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the dimensions / spacing of slits on an electrode plate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhong et al. (US 2008/0089006) discloses in Figs 1-10, a secondary battery including an electrode current collector (ref 50b) including a plurality of slits (refs 64, [[0056], Fig 8).
Kezuka et al. (US 6,664,005) discloses in Figs 1-12, a battery (Abstract) including an electrode current collector comprising a plurality of slits (refs C in the Figs).
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