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 .
Drawings
Figures 7-9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (WO Publication 2019-009017) in view of Kano (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0280339).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Ito discloses a metal battery comprising: a negative electrode structure 100, and a positive electrode structure 510 (Fig. 5 and Paragraphs 0035, 0037), wherein the negative electrode structure comprises a current collector 110, an alkali metal 130 coated on both sides of the current collector, a separator 140 on both sides of the alkali metal layers opposite to the current collector, and a spacer 120 disposed on the current collector and having a height greater than the metal layer so that there is a space between the separator and metal layer where an electrolytic solution is filled, and wherein the spacer has a lattice, column or ladder shape (Paragraph 0013, 0022, Fig. 1). As to claims 2-4, Ito shows in Figs. 2 and 3 that the spacer can have a ladder or lattice shape, which has three or more lined projections next to each other that are connected, are configured integrally and are disposed regularly. As to claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the lined projections could have different heights because Ito teaches that the spacer can have different shapes. Regarding claim 6, Ito teaches that a distance between the grids 100 µm to 20 mm (0024) and shows in Figs. 2 and 3 that the distance between grids is meant to be larger than a width of the spacer projected portions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the width of the projected portions would be less than the range of 100 µm to 20 mm. As to claim 7, Ito states that the spacers can be made of a resin material (Paragraph 0019). Regarding claim 8, Ito shows in Figs. 2 and 3 that the spacer can have a ladder or lattice shape, which have polygons with four sides. As to claim 10, it would be known by one of ordinary skill in the art that a polygon having four sides would have an internal angle of 120° or less. Regarding claim 11, based on the distance between grids discussed above, when squaring an amount at the lower end of the range, it would be less than 3.5 mm2. As to claim 12, Ito teaches that the spacer contacts 0.2 to 10% of the surface area of the current collector (Paragraph 0021).
Ito fails to disclose that lithium metal deposits on the negative electrode during charging, and dissolves from the negative electrode during discharging.
Kano discloses a lithium secondary battery comprising a negative electrode current collector 34 with separators 13 on each side, and protrusions 33a and 33b between the metal foil 32 of the current collector and each separator, wherein during charging, lithium metal is deposited in the space between the metal foil and separators, and during discharging, the lithium metal is dissolved (Paragraphs 0022, 0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that lithium metal can be deposited and dissolved in the space between the anode and separators of Ito during charging and discharging because Kano teaches that this is a common occurrence in a lithium ion battery and that the space allows for formation of the lithium.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (WO Publication 2019-009017) in view of Kano (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0280339) as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-13 above, and further in view of Li (WO Publication 2020-061565).
The teachings of Ito and Kano have been discussed in paragraph 4 above.
Ito and Kano fail to disclose that the spacer projections have the shape of a hexagon.
Li discloses an anode comprising a structure between the anode and solid electrolyte that has open pores with a honeycomb structure for transport of an alkali metal (Paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the spacer structure of Ito could have a honeycomb, or hexagonal, structure because Li teaches that this structure shape improves the transport of lithium during charging and discharging and thus improves battery capacity.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 19/107300 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 19/107300 teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; a spacer disposed on the separator; and a non-aqueous electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity, wherein the negative electrode is an electrode onto which lithium metal is deposited during charging and from which the lithium metal dissolves during discharging, wherein the separator has a first main surface facing the negative electrode and a second main surface facing the positive electrode, and the spacer is formed on the first main surface, and wherein the spacer includes linear protrusions in the shape of polygons or a honeycomb (Claims 1, 4, 6-8).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/869651 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/869651 teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity, wherein the negative electrode is an electrode onto which lithium metal is deposited during charging and from which the lithium metal dissolves during discharging, and a first spacer is provided between the negative electrode and the separator, and wherein the spacer is in the shape of polygons or a honeycomb (Claims 1, 6, 7).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/694576 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/694576 teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity, wherein the negative electrode is an electrode onto which lithium metal is deposited during charging and from which the lithium metal dissolves during discharging, wherein the separator includes a spacer provided on the negative electrode side, and wherein the spacer includes line-shaped protrusions arranged in a mesh pattern, which is in the shape of polygons or a honeycomb (Claims 1, 8, 9).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/696465 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/696465 teaches a lithium secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; and a non-aqueous electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity, wherein the negative electrode is an electrode onto which lithium metal is deposited during charging and from which the lithium metal dissolves during discharging, wherein the separator includes a spacer provided on the negative electrode side, and wherein the spacer includes line-shaped protrusions arranged in a mesh pattern, which is in the shape of polygons or a honeycomb (Claims 1, 5, 7, 8).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722