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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01-26-2024 and 08-20-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2002-110216 A hereinafter Okita in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0127750 hereinafter Okada.
Regarding Claim 1, Okita teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode [41]; a negative electrode [43]; a separator [42] disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; an electrolyte that includes a lithium salt (i.e., electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity); and a mesh (spacer) [61 or 62] disposed between the negative electrode and the separator, wherein the mesh (spacer) is made of woven wire or resin sheet having a plurality of spot-like projection portions (paragraphs 30-35, see annotated figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Okita does not specifically disclose that lithium metal deposits on the negative electrode during charging, and the lithium metal dissolves from the negative electrode during discharging.
However, Okada teaches a lithium secondary battery that comprises a cathode (positive electrode), an anode (negative electrode), a separator disposed between the cathode and the anode, wherein the lithium secondary battery is characterized in that lithium ions move back and forth between the cathode and anode during charge and discharge by dissolution into the electrolyte and deposition on the anode of metal lithium (paragraph 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such battery structure using metal lithium as the anode material before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Okada discloses that such configuration can form a battery with improved performance and charge/discharge cycle characteristics (paragraph 52).
Regarding Claim 2, Okita teaches that the mesh (spacer) [61 or 62] has plurality of spot-like projection portions disposed at an equal interval in a short direction of the negative electrode having a strip shape and plurality of the projected portion groups that arranged at an equal interval in a longitudinal direction of the negative electrode, wherein in the short direction the projected portion groups next to each other are offset (see figure 10 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Okita teaches that the projected portion groups next to each other are formed to be offset (see figure 10 above).
Regarding Claim 4, Okita teaches that the mesh (spacer) [61 or 62] is formed to be 30 x 50 mm and 100 µm thick (paragraph 40).
Regarding Claims 5-8, Okita teaches that the mesh (spacer) is made of resin sheet having a plurality of spot-like projection portions (see figure 10 above) and with regards to the design of the projection portions and size of the of the spacer, MPEP § 2143, E teaches that the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2011-008929 A hereinafter Kaneda in view of U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2006/0127750 hereinafter Okada.
Regarding Claim 1, Kaneda teaches a secondary battery comprising: a positive electrode [14]; a negative electrode [24]; a separator [31] disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; an electrolyte that includes a lithium salt (i.e., electrolyte having lithium-ion conductivity); and a spacer [10] disposed between the negative electrode and the separator, wherein the spacer is made of a porous resin sheet (i.e., resin sheet having a plurality of spot-like projection portions) (paragraphs 29, 33, see annotated figure 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
499
458
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kaneda does not specifically disclose that lithium metal deposits on the negative electrode during charging, and the lithium metal dissolves from the negative electrode during discharging.
However, Okada teaches a lithium secondary battery that comprises a cathode (positive electrode), an anode (negative electrode), a separator disposed between the cathode and the anode, wherein the lithium secondary battery is characterized in that lithium ions move back and forth between the cathode and anode during charge and discharge by dissolution into the electrolyte and deposition on the anode of metal lithium (paragraph 48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such battery structure using metal lithium as the anode material before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because Okada discloses that such configuration can form a battery with improved performance and charge/discharge cycle characteristics (paragraph 52).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OSEI K AMPONSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3446. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, NICHOLAS A SMITH can be reached at (571)272-8760. 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.
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights