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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/7/26 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed 6/18/26. Claims 1, 4, and 9 are amended. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected finally for the reasons provided below.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (JP 2003-151558).
Regarding claim 1, Ishida teaches an electrode for a secondary battery (abstract) comprising:
an electrode current collector, or electrode core material (11); and
a mixture layer, or positive electrode mixture layer (13), and a gas adsorption layer, or linear coating of gas adsorption element (12) (Figure 1),
wherein the mixture layer has a pattern structure, i.e. striped as seen in Figure 1, and
wherein the gas adsorption layer (11) is disposed in a region where the mixture layer is not disposed (Figure 1).
Further regarding claim 1 and with regard to claim 4, Ishida teaches that the coating layer, i.e. both the mixture layer and the gas adsorption layer, has a thickness of 0.03mm to 0.1mm (p. 4 of machine translation). Since the upper limit of the thickness of Ishida is close to the claimed lower limit, the examiner takes the position that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that the layer’s performance in the prior art range would have been the same as, or similar to, the performance in the claimed range. Consequently, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to employ a thickness within the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05 I
Ishida is silent on the area of the gas adsorption layer relative to the mixture layer; however, Ishida teaches that both the thickness and the width of the gas adsorption layer are result effective (middle of p. 4 of machine translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to determine the optimum area of the gas adsorption layer. MPEP 2144.05 II B
As for claim 2, it is seen in Figure 1 that the mixture layer (13) and gas adsorption layer (12) form one layer without irregularities on the surface).
Regarding claim 3, Ishida teaches that the thickness of the positive electrode layer including the gas adsorption layer is, for example 140 µm wherein the current collector has a thickness of 20 µm (p. 7). For thickness of 60 µm or smaller, which falls within the range of 30-100 µm for the gas adsorption layer, the limitations of claim 3 are met. Absent any additional and more specific information, a prima face case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05
As for claims 6-7, Ishida teaches that the gas adsorbent may be activated carbon ([0008]).
With regard to claims 9-10, Ishida teaches the electrode discussed above in a secondary battery including both electrode having a gas adsorption layer (p. 9 claim 6 of the machine translation), a separator, and an electrolyte (abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 2001-0095831).
The teachings of Ishida as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Ishida teaches that the gas adsorbent material may be a metal oxide (p. 4 of machine translation) but is silent on the metals of claim 8.
Lee teaches a gas adsorbent metal oxide, specifically zirconium oxide (abstract).
It would have been obvious to the person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use zirconium oxide such as suggested by Lee as the gas adsorbent material of Ishida and the results of the substitution, i.e. gas adsorption, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 4 that the thickness range of Ishida does not overlap the claimed range, the examiner finds that the range of Ishida does obviate the claimed range for the reasons provided above. Additionally, Applicant is reminded that a general teaching that a thickness should not be above a certain amount does not constitute a teaching away, and the examiner further notes that Ishida does not specifically limit the upper amount. MPEP 2144.05 III B
As to the alleged “claimed relationship” between the thickness and area of the gas adsorption layer, the examiner finds that the data provided in Tables 1 and 2 do not provide sufficient evidence of unexpected results as would be required to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the Tables do not specify the area of the gas adsorption layer of the Comparative Example, and the examiner is unable to find a value in the specification. Additionally, the area for both Examples 1 and 2 is 10%. Applicant is directed to MPEP 716.02 for more information on unexpected results arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights