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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0101367, filed on August 2, 2021.
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 1-8 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.
Claim 1 states “an electrode having a current collector that has a three- dimensional structure” and “the electrode comprising: a pair of current collectors … a three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure is formed on surfaces of the pair of current collectors.” Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the current collector recited in the pre-amble is the same or different from the pair of current collectors later recited in the body of the claim. It is unclear how many current collectors, two or three, are being claimed in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the three-dimensional structure recited in the pre-amble is the same or different from the three-dimensional structure recited in the body of the claim. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be reasonably determined.
Claim 5 states “A battery using an electrode having a current collector that has a three- dimensional structure” and “the battery comprising: a pair of current collectors … a three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure is formed on surfaces of the pair of current collectors.” Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the current collector recited in the pre-amble is the same or different from the pair of current collectors later recited in the body of the claim. It is unclear how many current collectors, two or three, are being claimed in claim 5. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the three-dimensional structure recited in the pre-amble is the same or different from the three-dimensional structure recited in the body of the claim. In addition, the body of claim 5 does not specify a relationship between the battery and the electrode in the preamble. Hence, it is also unclear whether the battery comprises the electrode as recited in the preamble or whether the battery comprises the current collector without the recited electrode.
The limitation “the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure having a dispersed shape” in claim 4 and claim 8 is unclear and renders the claims vague and indefinite. It is unclear what constitutes a “dispersed” shape. Para. [53] of the instant Specification states that “the sharp protrusion structure 150 having the three- dimensional dispersed shape may have a '*' shape” and “may have a plurality of sharp portions.” However, the Specification does not clearly define what structural characteristics are required for the sharp structure to have a “dispersed shape.” In particular, the disclosed '*' shapes and the plurality of sharp portions are described as optional features of the three-dimensional dispersed shape. Thus, it is unclear what structure or arrangement constitutes the claimed “dispersed” shape. For example, it is unclear whether a “dispersed shape” encompasses a pinwheel shape, a snowflake shape, a radial or dandelion-like arrangement having sharp portions dispersed outwardly from a central region, or sharp protrusions dispersed in a convex or concave hemispherical surface, … Each of these arrangements may be characterized as “dispersed”, but they have substantially different structural configurations. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be determined.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. KR-20170081907-A, hereinafter Kim. See examiner provided machine translation for prior art discussion of KR-20170081907-A.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses an electrode (para [0061]) having a current collector (abstract) that has a three-dimensional structure (abstract). The electrode (para [0061]) comprising: a pair of current collectors, since two surfaces of the current collector forming the positive plate and the negative plate (para. [0001]). Kim teaches that a negative plate disposed oppositely with a predetermined distance from one surface of the positive plate (para [0017]), thus the pair of current collectors positioned parallel to each other at a predetermined interval. A three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure (pointed tip, para. [0047]) is formed on surfaces of the pair of current collectors (para. [0047]). A charge distribution is concentrated on the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure (high charge density at the pointed tip, para. [0044]), thereby increasing a charging capacity per unit area of a battery (para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses a battery (abstract) using an electrode (para [0061]) that has a current collector (abstract) that has a three-dimensional structure (abstract). The battery (abstract) comprising: a pair of current collectors, since two surfaces of the current collector forming the positive plate and the negative plate (para. [0001]). Kim teaches that a negative plate disposed oppositely with a predetermined distance from one surface of the positive plate (para [0017]), thus the pair of current collectors positioned parallel to each other at a predetermined interval. An electrolyte positioned between the pair of current collectors (para [0007]). Kim teaches that an electrolyte is filled between the positive plate and the negative plate permitting ions movement between the positive plate and the negative plate (para [0007] and [0035]), thus the electrolyte is being in contact with the pair of current collectors. A three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure (pointed tip, para. [0047]) is formed on surfaces of the pair of current collectors (para. [0047]). A charge distribution is concentrated on the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure (high charge density at the pointed tip, para. [0044]), thereby increasing a charging capacity per unit area of a battery (para. [0059]).
Regarding claim 2 and claim 6, Kim discloses the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure (para. [0049]) having a tack shape (cones, para. [0049]) is formed on the surfaces of the pair of current collectors (para. [0048] – [0049]).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 7, Kim discloses the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure (para. [0052]) having a T-shape (sawtooth, para. [0052]) is formed on the surfaces of the pair of current collectors (para. [0052]).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 8, Kim discloses the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure (para. [0052]) having a dispersed shape (Fig. 2-5) is formed on the surfaces of the pair of current collectors (10, 20) because Fig. 2-5 illustrate a plurality of sharp portions dispersed on the surfaces of the current collectors (10, 20).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. KR-20170081907-A, hereinafter Kim, in view of Sato et al. (US PG Pub. 2005/0064291 A1), hereinafter Sato. See examiner provided machine translation for prior art discussion of KR-20170081907-A.
Regarding claims 2-6, Kim is relied upon as described above.
In the alternative, to the extent where Kim is found not to disclose the respective shapes of the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure.
Sato discloses a negative electrode for a battery including a current collector (abstract), and the surface of the current collector is provided with protrusions (abstract). Sato discloses the current collector protrusions shape including a tack shape (Fig. 4D), a T-shape (para [0073], FIG. 4H, a T-shape protrusion) and a dispersed shape (Fig. 4J). The protrusion in Fig. 4D resembles the projecting portion of a tack shape. The protrusion in Fig. 4J has a plurality of sharp portions, thus resembles a dispersed shape.
Kim et al. and Sato et al. are analogous in the field of battery current collectors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the three-dimensional sharp protrusion structure on the surfaces of the current collector taught by Kim et al. to have the respective shapes taught by Sato et al. to prevent electrode materials from peeling off from the current collector and to improve the capacity maintaining rate (Sato et al. Table 1, Table 2 and para [0093]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THU T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:30 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/T.T.T./THU T TRANExaminer, Art Unit 1788
9/2/2026
/Alicia Chevalier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights