DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “ wherein t at least one of the two first stack sections of the first electrode plate is provided with a tab” in lines 1-2 includes a drafting error. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “ wherein at least one of the two first stack sections of the first electrode plate is provided with a tab”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 11 and 12-14 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 11 recites the limitation “a plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence” in line 3. It is not clear whether it is the same or different plurality of second stack sections as recited in claim 10 from which it depends. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence”.
5. Claim 11 recites the limitation " the second stack sections " in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " the plurality of second stack sections " as there is antecedent basis.
6. Claims 12-14 are rejected as depending from claim 11.
7. Claim 15 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.
8. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the tab of the second electrode plate and the tab of the first electrode plate" in lines 1-2. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as limitation "a tab of the second electrode plate and a tab of the first electrode plate".
9. Claims 20 and 21 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.
10. Claim 20 recites the limitation " the tab of the first electrode plate is located at the end of the first electrode plate away from the bent portion " in lines 1-2. There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. For the purpose of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as " a tab of the first electrode plate is located at the end of the first electrode plate away from a bent portion ".
11. Claim 21 is rejected as depending from claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 10, 15, 19, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagi et al. (JP2015185359A) as cited in IDS dated 6/26/23 with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Yanagi discloses an electrode assembly (Figs. 3 and 4, [0015]) comprising: a first electrode plate(positive electrode 20, Fig. 4, [0013]); a first separator(41, Fig. 4, [0013]); and a second separator(42, Fig. 4, [0013]), wherein the second separator and the first separator are located on two opposite sides of the first electrode plate (20) in a thickness direction(Fig. 4, [0021]), and the first separator and the second separator are both turned over and enclose an edge of the first electrode plate that is provided with no tab (Figs. 3 and 4, [0023]). The examiner notes a broad and reasonable interpretation is a first separator is located on one side of a first electrode plate and a second separator is located on the other side of the first electrode plate, i.e., only one separator on each side of the first electrode plate.
Regarding claim 2, Yanagi disclose the first separator and the second separator are compounded on the first electrode plate([0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Yanagi discloses the first separator and the second separator are hot-pressed on the first electrode plate([0023]). The instant claim includes a recitation describing the manner in which the electrode assembly is formed: by hot pressing. Said recitation appears to be product-by-process language. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 4, Yanagi discloses the first electrode plate is a positive electrode plate(positive electrode 20, Fig. 4, [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Yanagi discloses the first electrode plate is not folded(Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Yanagi discloses the electrode assembly further comprises a second electrode plate(negative electrode 30, Fig. 4, [0013]), the second electrode plate has an opposite polarity to the first electrode plate and is stacked together with the first electrode plate(Fig. 4), and the first separator and the second separator separate the second electrode plate from the first electrode plate(Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Yanagi discloses the second electrode plate is not folded(Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Yanagi discloses a tab of the second electrode plate (31a, Fig. 3) and a tab of the first electrode plate (21a, Fig. 3) are located on the same side (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19, Yanagi discloses a battery cell(10, Figs. 1 and 2), comprising a shell further comprising an electrode assembly of claim 1(exterior material 50, Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the electrode assembly is arranged inside the shell(Fig. 2, [0025]).
Regarding claim 24, Yanagi discloses a method for manufacturing an electrode assembly (abstract) comprising the steps of: providing a first electrode plate(positive electrode 20, Fig. 4, [0013]); and providing a first separator (41, Fig. 4, [0013]) and a second separator (42, Fig. 4, [0013]) on two opposite sides of the first electrode plate in a thickness direction(Fig. 4, [0021]), and turning over both the first separator and the second separator to enclose an edge of the first electrode plate that is provided with no tab(Figs. 4, 12, and 13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagi et al. (JP2015185359A) as cited in IDS dated 6/26/23 with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN105633451A) as cited in IDS dated 6/26/23 with citation from machine translation provided with this Office Action.
Regarding claim 6, Yanagi does not explicitly disclose at least one of the two first stack sections of the first electrode plate is provided with a tab.
Wang teaches ultra-thin polymer battery and fabrication method thereof(title). Wang teaches a composite separator 24b is hot pressed onto the fabricated second electrode 20b (Figs. 14 and 16, [0066]). Wang teaches the folding fixture 30b includes two clamping plates 31b, which are pivotally connected to each other, so that the two clamping plates 31b can be clamped relative to each other to fold the second electrode 20b([0069], Figs. 17-19). Wang teaches flipping one clamp 31b causes one side of the second electrode 20b to bend to the other side, the second electrode 20b can be folded in half along its middle ([0069]). Wang teaches the electrode plate is folded once in a first direction such that the electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other ( second electrode 20b in Figs. 18 and 19 when it is folded in half along its middle). Wang teaches at least one of the two first stack sections of the electrode plate is provided with a tab (second electrode 20b with second electrode tab 23b in Figs. 18 and 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode assembly of Yanagi with the first electrode plate is folded once in a first direction (Y) such that the first electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other, at least one of the two first stack sections of the first electrode plate is provided with a tab as taught by Wang as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 7, Yanagi discloses the first electrode plate has an inert zone(21a, Fig. 3), but does not explicitly disclose the inert zone comprises a folded portion of the first electrode plate, and the inert zone is coated with no active material.
Wang teaches ultra-thin polymer battery and fabrication method thereof(title). Wang teaches a composite separator 24b is hot pressed onto the fabricated second electrode 20b (Figs. 14 and 16, [0066]). Wang teaches the folding fixture 30b includes two clamping plates 31b, which are pivotally connected to each other, so that the two clamping plates 31b can be clamped relative to each other to fold the second electrode 20b([0069], Figs. 17-19). Wang teaches flipping one clamp 31b causes one side of the second electrode 20b to bend to the other side, the second electrode 20b can be folded in half along its middle ([0069]). Wang teaches the electrode plate is folded once in a first direction such that the electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other ( second electrode 20b in Figs. 18 and 19 when it is folded in half along its middle). Wang teaches the first electrode plate has an inert zone(see second electrode 20a with coating gap 25a in Fig. 2), the inert zone comprises a folded portion of the first electrode plate(Fig. 8), and the inert zone is coated with no active material([0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode assembly of Yanagi with the electrode plate is folded once in a first direction such that the electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other, the first electrode plate has an inert zone, the inert zone comprises a folded portion of the first electrode plate, and the inert zone is coated with no active material as taught by Wang as obvious to try choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yanagi discloses an inner surface of the inert zone of the first electrode plate is provided with an insulating material(Wang, insulating material 40a, Fig. 10, [0038]-[0039]).
18. Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagi et al. (JP2015185359A) as cited in IDS dated 6/26/23 with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claims 1, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of
Zhu et al. (EP3381078B1) as cited in IDS dated 5/1/24 with citations from equivalent US2017/0149092.
Regarding claim 11, Yanagi does not explicitly disclose the second electrode plate is repeatedly folded in the second direction (X) such that the second electrode plate comprises the plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence, and the first electrode plate is folded once in the first direction (Y) such that the first electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other, the first direction (Y) being perpendicular or parallel to the second direction (X); and the first stack sections and the plurality of second stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence.
Zhu teaches an electrode assembly, where one of the electrodes is wrapped with two separators (Figs 9 and 10), the separators are to ensure preventing electrical short circuits ([0038], Figs. 9 and 10); and where both electrodes are folded in directions perpendicular to each other and designed to ensure desired volumetric efficiency ([0011]-[0014], Figs. 12, 13, and 18) and easier manufacture due to the folding process ([0051]). Zhu teaches the second electrode plate is repeatedly folded in the second direction (X) such that the second electrode plate comprises the plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence(beta electrode 60, Fig. 18), and the first electrode plate is folded once in the first direction (Y) such that the first electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other(alpha electrode 80, Fig. 18), the first direction (Y) being perpendicular to the second direction (X); and the first stack sections and the plurality of second stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence(Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode assembly of Yanagi with the second electrode plate is repeatedly folded in the second direction (X) such that the second electrode plate comprises the plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence, and the first electrode plate is folded once in the first direction (Y) such that the first electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other, the first direction (Y) being perpendicular or parallel to the second direction (X); and the first stack sections and the plurality of second stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence as taught by Zhu in order to ensure desired volumetric efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, modified Yanagi discloses a tab of the first electrode plate is located at an edge of the first electrode plate except for a bent portion(Zhu, 75a, 75b, Fig. 18); and/or a tab of the second electrode plate is located at an edge of the second electrode plate except for the bent portion(Zhu, 55a, 55b, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 13, modified Yanagi discloses the first direction (Y) is perpendicular to the second direction (X)(Zhu, Fig. 18), the tab of the second electrode plate is located at the edge of the second electrode plate adjacent to the bent portion(Zhu, 55a, 55b, Fig. 18), and the tab of the first electrode plate is located at the end of the first electrode plate away from the bent portion(Zhu, 75a, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 14, modified Yanagi discloses the first direction (Y) is perpendicular to the second direction (X)(Zhu, Figs. 12, 13, and 18); and among any two adjacent second stack sections, only one second stack section is provided with a tab(Zhu, beta electrode 60 with tabs 55a, 55b, Fig. 5), and the bent portion of the first electrode plate encloses the second stack section that is provided with no tab(Zhu Figs. 12 and 13).
19. Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagi et al. (JP2015185359A) as cited in IDS dated 6/26/23 with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (EP3381078B1) as cited in IDS dated 5/1/24 with citations from equivalent US2017/0149092.
Regarding claim 16, Yanagi does not explicitly disclose the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate are/is provided with a folding guide portion, for guiding the folding of the first electrode plate.
Zhu teaches an electrode assembly, where one of the electrodes is wrapped with two separators (Figs 9 and 10), the separators are to ensure preventing electrical short circuits ([0038], Figs. 9 and 10); and where both electrodes are folded in directions perpendicular to each other and designed to ensure desired volumetric efficiency ([0011]-[0014], Figs. 12, 13, and 18) and easier manufacture due to the folding process ([0051]). Zhu teaches the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate are/is provided with a folding guide portion, for guiding the folding of the first electrode plate(creases in Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electrode assembly of Yanagi with the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate are/is provided with a folding guide portion, for guiding the folding of the first electrode plate as taught by Zhu in order to ensure desired volumetric efficiency.
Regarding claim 17, modified Yanagi discloses the folding guide portion comprises a crease or an indentation(Zhu, Fig. 18).
Regarding claim 18, modified Yanagi discloses the folding guide portion is parallel to a width direction of the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate(Zhu, Fig. 18).
20. Claim(s) 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagi et al. (JP2015185359A) as cited in IDS dated 6/26/23 with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (EP3381078B1) as cited in IDS dated 5/1/24 with citations from equivalent US2017/0149092.
Regarding claim 20, Yanagi does not explicitly disclose a tab of the first electrode plate is located at the end of the first electrode plate away from a bent portion, and the bent portion of the first electrode plate is in contact with an inner wall of the shell.
Zhu teaches an electrode assembly, where one of the electrodes is wrapped with two separators (Figs 9 and 10), the separators are to ensure preventing electrical short circuits ([0038], Figs. 9 and 10); and where both electrodes are folded in directions perpendicular to each other and designed to ensure desired volumetric efficiency ([0011]-[0014], Figs. 12, 13, and 18) and easier manufacture due to the folding process ([0051]). Zhu teaches a tab of the first electrode plate is located at the end of the first electrode plate away from a bent portion(see tab 75a of alpha electrode 80 in Fig. 10), and the bent portion of the first electrode plate is in contact with an inner wall of the shell(see electrode 44 in cell housing 22 in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery cell of Yanagi with a tab of the first electrode plate is located at the end of the first electrode plate away from a bent portion, and the bent portion of the first electrode plate is in contact with an inner wall of the shell as taught by Zhu in order to ensure desired volumetric efficiency.
Regarding claim 21, modified Yanagi discloses the surface of the bent portion of the first electrode plate facing away from the second electrode plate faces the direction of gravity(Zhu, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, Yanagi does not explicitly disclose a battery comprising a packaging box further comprising a battery cell of claim 19, wherein the battery cell is arranged in the packaging box.
Zhu teaches an electrode assembly, where one of the electrodes is wrapped with two separators (Figs 9 and 10), the separators are to ensure preventing electrical short circuits ([0038], Figs. 9 and 10); and where both electrodes are folded in directions perpendicular to each other and designed to ensure desired volumetric efficiency ([0011]-[0014], Figs. 12, 13, and 18) and easier manufacture due to the folding process ([0051]). Zhu teaches a battery (cells 20, Figs. 1 and 2) comprising a packaging box (2, Fig. 1) further comprising a battery cell, wherein the battery cell is arranged in the packaging box(Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the battery cell of Yanagi with a battery comprising a packaging box further comprising a battery cell, wherein the battery cell is arranged in the packaging box as taught by Zhu as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 23, Yanagi discloses the battery cell supplies electric energy ([0025]) does not explicitly disclose a power consuming device, comprising a body, further comprising a battery cell of claim 19, wherein the battery cell supplies electric energy for the body.
Zhu teaches an electrode assembly, where one of the electrodes is wrapped with two separators (Figs 9 and 10), the separators are to ensure preventing electrical short circuits ([0038], Figs. 9 and 10); and where both electrodes are folded in directions perpendicular to each other and designed to ensure desired volumetric efficiency ([0011]-[0014], Figs. 12, 13, and 18) and easier manufacture due to the folding process ([0051]). Zhu teaches a power consuming device(hybrid vehicle [0004]), comprising a body(body of hybrid vehicle [0004]), further comprising a battery cell (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein the battery cell supplies electric energy for the body([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the battery cell of Yanagi in a power consuming device, comprising a body, wherein the battery cell supplies electric energy for the body as taught by Zhu as applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143.
21. Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagi et al. (JP2015185359A) as cited in IDS dated 6/26/23 with citations from machine translation provided with this Office Action as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (EP3381078B1) as cited in IDS dated 5/1/24 with citations from equivalent US2017/0149092.
Regarding claim 25, Yanagi does not explicitly disclose further comprising: folding the first electrode plate, which is enclosed by the first separator and the second separator that are turned over, once in a first direction (Y) such that the first electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other; providing a second electrode plate, and repeatedly folding the second electrode plate in a second direction (X) such that the second electrode plate comprises a plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence, the second direction (X) being perpendicular or parallel to the first direction (Y); and inserting the first electrode plate into the second electrode plate such that the first stack sections and the second stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence.
Zhu teaches an electrode assembly, where one of the electrodes is wrapped with two separators (Figs 9 and 10), the separators are to ensure preventing electrical short circuits ([0038], Figs. 9 and 10); and where both electrodes are folded in directions perpendicular to each other and designed to ensure desired volumetric efficiency ([0011]-[0014], Figs. 12, 13, and 18) and easier manufacture due to the folding process ([0051]). Zhu teaches further comprising: folding the first electrode plate(80, Figs. 9, 10 and 18), which is enclosed by the first separator and the second separator (47, 48, Fig. 11), once in a first direction (Y) such that the first electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other(Fig. 18; providing a second electrode plate(60, Fig. 18), and repeatedly folding the second electrode plate in a second direction (X) such that the second electrode plate comprises a plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence(Fig. 18), the second direction (X) being perpendicular to the first direction (Y)(Fig. 18); and inserting the first electrode plate into the second electrode plate such that the first stack sections and the second stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence(Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Yanagi with further comprising: folding the first electrode plate, which is enclosed by the first separator and the second separator that are turned over, once in a first direction (Y) such that the first electrode plate comprises two first stack sections connected to each other; providing a second electrode plate, and repeatedly folding the second electrode plate in a second direction (X) such that the second electrode plate comprises a plurality of second stack sections connected and stacked in sequence, the second direction (X) being perpendicular or parallel to the first direction (Y); and inserting the first electrode plate into the second electrode plate such that the first stack sections and the second stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence as taught by Zhu in order to ensure desired volumetric efficiency.
Double Patenting
22. 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.
23. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/617,472 (reference application).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 9, and 16, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the major difference between the instant claims and those of copending application 18/617,472 is that the claims of copending application 18/617,472 are drawn to two separators on two opposite sides of the second electrode plate in a thickness direction are both turned over and enclose an edge of the second electrode plate that is provided with no tab, whereas the instant claims are drawn to a first electrode plate and the first separator and the second separator are both turned over and enclose an edge of the first electrode plate that is provided with no tab. However, copending application 18/617,472 does include a dependent claim 16 which recites the second electrode plate may be a positive electrode plate. Instant claim 4 recites the first electrode plate is a positive electrode plate.
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 VICTORIA HOM LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-0489. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM EST M-F.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/VICTORIA H LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724