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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato et al., WO 2020/054801 A1. Sato is a non-English publication, and therefore Sato et al., US 2021/0344048 A1, which is in the same patent family as Sato, is cited as an English-language equivalent.
Regarding claim 1, Sato teaches a secondary battery 100 which reads on the claimed “battery.” See Sato Fig. 1A, [0040].
The battery 100 comprises a positive electrode 40 including positive electrode active material layers 42, 43. See Sato [0040]. The electrode 40 reads on the claimed ”positive electrode including a positive electrode active material.”
The battery 100 also comprises a negative electrode 20 including negative active materials layers 22, 23. See Sato [0040]. The electrode 20 reads on the claimed “negative electrode including a negative electrode active material.”
The battery 100 further comprises a first separator 10, a second separator 30, and separator webs 10A,30A that read on the claimed “separator.” See Sato Fig. 1A, [0040].
The battery 100 also comprises a wound structure with the separator 10 affixed to the negative electrode 20 and positive electrode 40 on the opposing sides. See Sato [0003],[0006].The separator 10 is positioned between the positive 40 electrode and negative electrode 20. See Sato Fig. 1A, 4A, [0056].
The separator 10 comprises an adhesive material that is applied to an affixing surface of a separator in sections that read on the “adhesive layer.” See Sato abstract.
The “adhesive layer” has a different weight per area in a longitudinal direction of the separator 10, as claimed, because the adhesive material comprises first and second coating sections 81, 82 where the coating weight M2 of the second coating section 82 is more than the coating weight M1 of first coating section 81. See Sato Fig. 6A, [0019].
Regarding claim 2, Sato teaches the separator 10 comprising of a first coated section 81 where an adhesive material is applied with a coating weight M1 and a second coated section 82 where an adhesive material is applied with a coating weight M2. See Sato abstract. The first coated section 81 and second coated section 82 read on “first formation regions in which the adhesive layer is disposed” and “second formation regions in which the adhesive layer in disposed.”
The adhesive material in the first coated section 81 has a smaller weight per area than the adhesive material in the second coated section 82, as claimed, because M1 is less than M2. See Sato abstract.
In the longitudinal direction of the separator 10, the first coated section 81 and the second coated section 82 are repeatedly disposed, as claimed, because Sato shows coated regions arranged alternately along the length of the separator. See Sato Fig. 6A, [0019].
Regarding claim 4, in Sato, the length of each "second formation region" 82A gets longer from the very beginning of each formation region 82A to the end of each formation region 82A when moving along the length of each formation region (e.g., from bottom to top from the perspective of Fig. 6A). This reads on "a length of each of the second formation regions varies in the longitudinal direction of the separator."
Regarding claim 5 and 8, Sato teaches the sections of the separator at the top extending from 82A to 82A (including the adhesive of 82A) that read on the "third formation regions” and “fourth formation regions,” respectively. See Sato Fig. 6A.
PNG
media_image1.png
1036
1272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The “third formation regions” are disposed closer to one end of the separator 10 than the “first formation regions” 81 in a width direction orthogonal to the longitudinal direction of the separator 10, as claimed, as seen in the annotated figure above.
Also, in the “third formation regions,” the adhesive material is disposed along the longitudinal direction of the separator 10, as claimed, as seen in the annotated figure above, where the adhesive material 82A in the left-hand section of a “third formation region” is disposed along the longitudinal axis (running up and down through the figure.)
Further, the adhesive material in the “third formation regions” has a larger weight per area than the adhesive material in the “first formation regions,” 81, as claimed, because the weight of the adhesive material in the “third formation regions” is M2, which is larger than M1. See Sato [0019]. (Claim 5.)
The “fourth formation regions” are disposed at an end where the third formation regions are not disposed in the width direction of the separator 10 as claimed, as seen in the annotated figure above.
Also, in the “fourth formation regions,” the adhesive material is disposed along the longitudinal direction of the separator 10, as claimed, as seen in the annotated figure above, where the adhesive material 82A in the left-hand section of a “fourth formation region” is disposed along the longitudinal axis (running up and down through the figure).
Further, the adhesive material in the “fourth formation regions” has a larger weight per area than the adhesive material in the “first formation regions,” 81, as claimed, because the weight of the adhesive material in the “fourth formation regions” is M2, which is larger than M1. See Sato [0019]. (Claim 8.)
Regarding claim 6, Sato teaches “formation regions” on a separator comprising of an “adhesive layer” that corresponds to a position where a positive electrode body is located. See Sato Fig. 6A, [0086]. The “adhesive layer” comes into contact with the positive electrode active material layer during the stacking and winding of the electrode which reads on “the wound electrode body is wound such that they adhesive layer and the positive electrode active material are in contact with each other.” See Sato Fig.1A, 4.
The “third formation” regions, of the affixing surface 80 is located along the separator where it interacts with the positive electrode 40 including positive electrode active material layers 42, 43. The “third formation regions” interact with the positive electrode active materials 42,43 See Sato Fig. 6A. The stacking and winding of the electrode body read on “at least a part of the third formation regions is in contact with the positive electrode active material.” See Sato Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 7, Sato teaches a wound electrode body with a “separator” comprising of “formation regions” including an “adhesive layer.” See Sato Fig. 1A, 6A, [003]. The separator 10 comes into contact with only the positive active material layer 42,43 during the stacking and winding of the electrode body instead of being affixed to the other surface of the negative electrode active material 22,23 which reads on “the wound electrode body is wound such that the adhesive layer and the negative electrode active layer are not in contact with each other.” See Sato Fig. 1A, [003],[006].
The “adhesive layer” is interpreted as the adhesive material on the surface of the separator 10 that contacts the positive electrode 40. This reads on “the wound electrode body is wound such that the adhesive layer and the negative electrode active material layer are not in contact with each other” because the negative electrode 20 is on the opposite side of the separator 10 from where the positive electrode 40 is adhered, as seen in Fig. 1A. Also, in a stacking direction of the wound electrode body, at least a part of the “third formation regions” (the elongated sections at the top of the separator 10 from the perspective of Fig. 5), overlaps with a position where the negative electrode active material layer 22,23 is disposed, as claimed, because the entirety of where the positive electrode 40 attaches to the separator 10 (including the “third formation regions”) overlaps with the negative electrode active material layer 22, 23, as seen in Fig. 1A.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al., WO 2020/054801 A1 in view of Hosokawa et al., WO 2020/110975 A1. Hosokawa is a non-English publication, and therefore Hosokawa et al., US 2021/0351441 A1, which is in the same patent family as Hosokawa, is cited as an English-language equivalent.
Regarding claim 3, Sato teaches the limitations of claim 2, as explained above. Sato differs from claim 3 because, while it teaches that the laminate structure is wound (see Sato [0003]), it is silent as to the shape of the wound configuration. But Hosokawa teaches a wound laminate structure of a positive layer, negative layer and separator, which is wound into a racetrack shape. See Hosokawa Fig. 2, [0022]. It would have been obvious for the wound laminate of Sato to have a racetrack shape because this would merely represent obvious change of shape. See MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. With this modification, the flat portion of the racetrack reads on the "flat portion" and the curved ends read on the "curved portion." The “separator” comprising of the “first formation regions” and “second formation regions” is used in the winding step to form the wound electrode body. See Sato Fig. 1A, 4A, [0056]. Thus the “first formation regions” and “second formation regions” would necessarily be present in both curved portions and flat portions of the wound electrode body due to the continuous winding of the separator reading on “the first formation regions are disposed in the flat portion, and the second formation regions are disposed in the curved portion.”
PNG
media_image2.png
521
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18359872 in view of Sato et al., WO 2020/054801 A1. Sato is a non-English publication, and therefore Sato et al., US 2021/0344048 A1, which is in the same patent family as Sato, is cited as an English-language equivalent. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of the ’872 application teaches the limitations of claim 1 except is silent to the electrode body being a wound electrode body in which the positive electrode and the negative electrode are disposed with the separator interposed therebetween.
Sato teaches that known battery structures include a stacked structure comprising a positive electrode, a separator and a negative electrode that are stacked alternately and wound, with this configuration being beneficial for providing excellent energy density, safety, quality and durability. See Sato [0003]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electrode body of claim 1 of the ’872 application to be a wound electrode body with the positive and negative electrodes disposed with the separator interposed therebetween to provide excellent energy density, safety, quality and durability.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of the ’872 application teaches all limitations of claim 2 except is silent to the first formation regions and second formation regions being repeatedly disposed in the longitudinal direction of the separator.
But Sato teaches “formation regions” located alternately in a longitudinal direction of the separator. See Sato Abstract. It would have been obvious for the separator of claim 1 of the ’872 application to include first formation regions and second formation regions being repeatedly disposed in the longitudinal direction of the separator as it is a conventional structural arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sandra M Arias whose telephone number is (571)438-9468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00 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, Insuk Bullock can be reached at 571-272-5954. 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.
/S.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776