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).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/23, 1/17/24, 2/2525 are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 5/30/23 has been considered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yongbing et al. (CN108630896).
Regarding claims 1-3, the Yongbing et al. reference discloses a negative electrode structure (Title), the negative electrode structure comprising an aluminum metal base (Experimental 1), and a plurality of holes (Fig. 2), on a surface of the metal base with pore size of each of the plurality of holes ranges from 0.05 µm to 500 µm (1-20 microns) .
It is noted that claim limitation such as “applied to an aluminum battery” and “disposed on” comprises product-by-process claim limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since the negative electrode structures is the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the Yongbing et al. reference is silent in disclosing the plurality of holes are made by corrosion” and “by electroplating or electroforming deposition.” However, “are made by corrosion” and “by electroplating or electroforming deposition are product-by-process claim limitations. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since holes are the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claim 5, the Yongbing et al. reference discloses wherein the plurality of holes have different sizes, and the pore size is an average pore size (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, the Yongbing et a. reference discloses wherein a material of the metal base is nickel.
Regarding claim 9, the Yongbing et al. reference discloses wherein the negative electrode structure is a mesh structure (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, the Yongbing et al. reference discloses the plurality of holes have substantially the same size (Fig. 2 when viewed and measured by larger scale inch scale).
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seong et al. (KR 10-2016-0027365).
Regarding claims 1-3, the Seong et al. reference discloses a negative electrode structure (P17), the negative electrode structure comprising an aluminum metal base, and a plurality of holes (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), on a surface of the metal base with pore size of each of the plurality of holes ranges from within the claimed range of 0.05 µm to 500 µm (Fig. 1).
It is noted that claim limitation such as “applied to an aluminum battery” and “disposed on” comprises product-by-process claim limitation. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since the negative electrode structures is the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the Seong et al. reference is silent in disclosing the plurality of holes are made by corrosion” and “by electroplating or electroforming deposition.” However, “are made by corrosion” and “by electroplating or electroforming deposition are product-by-process claim limitations. “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F. 2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since holes are the same as to that of the Applicant’s, Applicant’s process is not given patentable weight in this claim.
Regarding claim 5, the Seong et al. refernce discloses the the plurality of holes have different sizes and the pore size is an average pore size.
Regarding claims 7 , the Seong et al. reference discloses wherein a material of the metal base is nickel (P17).
Regarding claim 9, the Seong et al. reference discloses the negative electrode structure is a mesh structure (Fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claims 10, the Haijun et al. reference discloses the plurality of holes have substantially the same size (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. (KR 10-2016-0027365).
Regading claim 6, the Seong et al. reference discloses an average pore size of 0.3-0.9 microns or 300-900 nm. The Seong et al. reference also discloses the average diameter of the pores corresponds to (D) in the current collector shown schematically in FIG. 3, and when the average diameter of the pores is less than 300 nm , the resistance increases, so that the lifespan and output characteristics of the secondary battery decrease. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed value through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN OI CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5162. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights