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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9-10 in the reply filed on 07/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-5, 8 and 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/08/2026.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation "the first protrusions". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, from which claim 3 depends on, recites “a first protrusion”.
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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueshima et al. (U.S. Patent 6,335,114) and further in view of Ogata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0171393).
Regarding claim 1, Ueshima teaches an electrode for a secondary battery (i.e., positive plate 21 and negative plate 22) (C21:L20-28), the electrode comprising: a core member (i.e., collector) (221) (C21:L30-40) (see figure 2); a mixture layer (i.e., active material) (212, 222) (C21:L40-55); and a protective layer (i.e., insulating layer) (216) containing a resin and being insulating (C21:L50-57), wherein
the core member has an exposed part (211, 221) at one end of the core member in a lateral direction (see figure 2) (C21:L30-50), the exposed part in which the mixture layer are not disposed (see figure 2),
the protective layer is disposed on the exposed part (211, 221) at the one end (see figure 2).
Ueshima does not teach the specifics of an adhesive layer disposed on the core member and being conductive and the arrangement of the adhesive layer as recited in the claim.
Ogata, directed to an adhesive layer for a secondary battery (abstract), teaches and adhesive layer can be disposed between a core member (i.e., separator) and an electrode for bonding (paragraph [0044]) and to improve workability in assembly of the secondary battery (paragraph [0040]). Further, Ogata teaches the adhesive includes additives such zeolite and the like (paragraph [0073]-[0074]) which is known as conductive.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode of Ueshima to include an adhesive layer between disposed on the core member and the mixture layer in order to improve adhesion between the core member and the mixture layer, as suggested by Ogata and further, improve workability in assembly of the battery. Disposing the adhesive layer between the core member and the mixture layer of Ueshima would result in the particular arrangement as recited in the instant claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
702
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ueshima, as modified by Ogata, teaches the exposed part and the adhesive layer disposed between the core member and the mixture layer, as described above in claim 1. As such, disposing the adhesive layer between the core member and the mixture layer of Ueshima would result in the exposed part at the one end forming a first protrusion protruding from the one end of the adhesive layer in the lateral direction and from one end of the mixture layer in a lateral direction. Further, Ueshima teaches the first protrusion to be welded to a collector plate (213, 214) that collects a current of the electrode for a secondary battery (C22:L13-27) (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Ueshima teaches a plurality of the first protrusions are formed at an interval in a longitudinal direction of the core member.
Regarding claim 4, Ueshima teaches the protective layer is not disposed in a welding area of the first protrusion, the welding area to which the collector plate is to be welded (i.e., collectors are welded in the tips of the protrusions) (C22:L13-27) (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Ueshima, as modified by Ogata teaches the protective layer disposed on the exposed part at the one end is thicker (i.e., thickness of protective layer is 20-100µm) (C11:L40-50 of Ueshima) than the adhesive layer (i.e., thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.0005-100µm) (paragraph [0086] of Ogata) (Example: thickness of protective layer is 100µm, thickness of the adhesive layer is 1µm: 100µm>1µm) and is in contact with an end surface at the one end of the mixture layer in the lateral direction (see figure 2).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Ueshima, as modified by Ogata, teaches the protective layer disposed on the exposed part at the one end is thicker (i.e., thickness of protective layer is 20-100µm) (C11:L40-50 of Ueshima) than a total thickness of the adhesive layer (i.e., thickness of the adhesive layer is 0.0005-100µm) (paragraph [0086] of Ogata) and the mixture layer (i.e., thickness of the mixture layer is approximately 25µm) (C25:L10-20 of Ueshima) (Example: thickness of protective layer is 100µm, thickness of the adhesive layer is 1µm and thickness of the mixture layer is 25µm: 100µm>26µm) and covers a part of an outer surface of the mixture layer (see figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Ueshima teaches the electrode can include an intermediate layer (i.e., preventing layer) (416) (C36:L15-36) between the end surface at the one end of the adhesive layer and the protective layer (see figure 26). As to the limitation “the intermediate layer having lower conductivity than the adhesive layer and having higher conductivity than the protective layer.”, since the materials of Ueshima and Ogata are substantially the same (given that the materials are not particularly defined in the claims), such would be expected to have the same properties and characteristics including the conductivities.
Regarding claim 15, Ueshima teaches the adhesive layer contains an insulating filler (i.e., alumina, silica which are known to have insulating properties) (paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 17, Ueshima, as modified by Ogata, teaches the adhesive layer contains a conductive agent and a binder (paragraph [0053]-[0058]), and the adhesive layer has a content of the conductive agent of greater than or equal to 50 mass% and less than or equal to 95 mass% (0-50 parts by mass) (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 18, Ueshima, as modified by Ogata, teaches the electrode including the adhesive layer and the mixture layer. Ueshima does not explicitly articulates the specifics of the volume resistivity. However, since the materials of Ueshima and Ogata are substantially the same (given that the materials are not particularly defined in the claims), such would be expected to have the same properties and characteristics including the volume resistivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 11-12 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In other words, claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to incorporate either:
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 6, or
all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 16.
Applicant is encouraged to consider amending claim 1 accordingly to place the application in condition of allowance.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bruder (U.S. Patent 4,621,035).
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 and 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 18/283,636. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the co-pending application reads on all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 6 of the instant application.
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 CHRISTIAN ROLDAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 7:00 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, TONG GUO can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/CHRISTIAN ROLDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights