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 1-16 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.
In claim 1, the recitation of “the flat portion” on line 6 is confusing because applicant has set forth two different flat portions (both the cathode and anode have flat portions) and is it unclear whether this is referring to either electrode’s flat portion or both. If this were interpreted to refer to both flat portions, then the limitation “the flat portion has an active material layer” (emphasis added) would be further confusing as each of the anode and cathode have separate active material layers.
The recitation of “the inclined portion” in line 8 is confusing for the same reasons as discussed above.
In claim 1, the recitation of “an active material layer” in line 8 is confusing because it is not clear if this is the further modification of the previously set forth active material layer or new layer. The examiner presumes applicant is referring to just the active material layer at the inclined portion (i.e. technically a different active material), but then applicant would need to specify that with different terminology.
In claim 2, applicant does not have antecedent support for “the outermost electrodes”. Applicant specified anodes and cathodes previously and not generic electrodes, let alone outermost electrodes. Claim 2 is further confusing because the specified mono-cell states there is at least one electrode and separators. Claim 1 presumably already set forth the same electrodes and separators and it is unclear if applicant is further defining these previous features or claiming new elements.
Claim 3 is confusing because it states the inclined portion has “a first section or a second section” (emphasis added). The claim then further defines the second section in terms of the first section. In other words, having a second section would necessitate the first section also be present and the claim cannot support the inclined portion having only the second section.
In claim 3, the claim further defines how the first or second sections relate to a tab, but applicant never actually claims the assembly further includes a tab. If the tab is not being claimed, it is unclear how to interpret the relationship to some unclaimed element.
With respect to claim 4, it is unclear how this limitation is to be interpreted. In the specification the cathode or anode is construed as being the current collector and active material layer combined. That is, there is nothing “flat” or “inclined” about the current collector themselves but the flatness or inclination comes from the varying thickness of the active material layer. Moreover, claim 1 stated the separator is adhered to the anode and cathode which only makes sense if the active material layers are construed as part of the anode and cathode.
However, claim 4 now states there is a difference in distance between the anode and cathode between the flat and inclined portions, but that only appears to be true for the current collectors themselves, not the total electrode. That is, the anode and cathode are technically separated by the constant thickness of the separator and would not vary even if the active material layer thickness varied. It is unclear how to interpret a claim that specifies features inconsistent with earlier limitations of the claims.
In claim 6, the recitation of “a cathode, an anode, and a separator” (emphasis added) is indefinite because claim 1 already set forth the cathode, anode, and separator and it is presumed claim 6 is describing how these already set forth elements are being constructed.
The remaining dependent claims are all indefinite because of their dependence on an earlier indefinite claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda et al (US 2012/001523) in view of Kim et al (US 2022/0223837).
With respect to claim 1, Matsuda discloses an electrode assembly comprising a cathode (14, 15), an anode (11, 12), and a separator (electrolyte 13) interposed between the cathode and anode. Each of the cathode and anode have a flat portion (between solid lines in annotated figure below) and an inclined portion (between dashed lines). In the region of the flat portion, the cathode has an active material layer 14 that is of constant thickness whereas the active material layer decreases in thickness in a longitudinal direction over the inclined portion. The annotated figure further shows that the separator 13 is continuously connected to both the anode and cathode over both the flat portions and inclined portions. See annotated figure below and par. 0029 and 0030.
Although Matsuda did not explicitly recite that the separator is “adhered” with both the anode and cathode, Kim sets forth that it is desired to have the electrolyte adhere to electrode surfaces (see par. 0045). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to have the anodes and cathodes of Matsuda adhere to its electrolyte, as suggested by Kim, in order to create an electrode assembly that will not delaminate.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Matsuda clearly sets forth at least a mono-cell with an electrode and a separator.
With respect to claim 3, Matsuda teaches there are inclined portions throughout the device (fig. 10A). All of these could be construed as being “near a tab” depending on what the unspecified tab is even referring to (see the 112 rejection of claim 3 above).
With respect to claim 4, this claim is currently being interpreted as attempting to define how much the inclined active material layer thickness differs from that at a flat portion (see the 112 rejections above). Matsuda seems to be teaching that the height of the features is generally less than 0.4 mm (par. 0050-0052).
With respect to claim 5, Kim already suggested that the electrolyte (separator) should be suitably adhered to the electrodes. Finding the suitable level of adhesive strength that keeps the layers laminated to each other without between too rigid would have required only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Kim as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dasgupta et al (USP 5,498,489).
With respect to claim 12, Matsuda and Kim set forth the electrode assembly (see above) and Matsuda further suggested this be utilized for a battery 73 having an inherent case. See fig. 8 and par. 0061. Matsuda taught an unspecified polymer solid electrolyte but did not explicitly recite the presence of an electrolyte solution.
Dasgupta teaches an alternative solid electrolyte based cell and teaches it is conventional to utilize polymer electrolytes in conjunction with an electrolyte of a lithium salt. See col. 4, ll, 13-48. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize an electrolyte solution as suggested by Dasgupta for the polymer electrolyte of Matsuda as utilizing known electrolyte configurations requires only routine skill in the art.
With respect to claim 13, Dasgupta teaches the use of multiple electrode assemblies with multiple effective separators (electrolytes) is conventional in the art (col. 8, ll. 27-35).
With respect to claim 14, Dasgupta already suggested stacked cells requiring a plurality of electrode assemblies. As to the claim language concerning how the devices are laminated together, claim 14 is drawn to a device and the manner in which the device is operated is only the intended use of the device and doesn’t further define the device itself (see MPEP 2113).
With respect to claim 15, the use of stack cells as suggested by Dasgupta inherently requires additional separators (either separate electrolytes or the same electrolyte folded over and utilized again for an additional electrode assembly). As to the limitations “configured to be wound”, this is only specifying how the battery is intended to be further manipulated (i.e. used in a wound configuration). What one intends to do with the battery of claim 12 and the additional separator of claim 15 does not further define the actual device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claim 1 and 6 with particular attention to the set forth lamination steps using the pairs of first and second rollers. It does not appear the device of Matsuda could be made in the manner suggested by claim 6. Tanaka et al (US 2006/0006063) appears to teach analogous roller configurations to create electrode assemblies have flat and inclined portions for the active material layer. However, Tanaka never sets forth a configuration with both the anode and cathode with a separator adhered and interposed between the anode and cathode at the inclined portion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zama et al (US 2015/0380716) and Takeda et al (US 2017/0373299) teach alternate electrode assemblies with flat and inclined portions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714