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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20100285353A1 (Katayama).
Regarding claim 1, Katayama teaches an electrode structure for a secondary battery [abs]; the electrode lead structure comprising: an electrode lead [#30; i.e. lead fig 12; 0177] having a hole [#34; i.e. cut and raised portions; 0179] ; and a lead film [i.e. adhesive tape #20/26; 0103-104] formed on the electrode lead, wherein the hole is provided to be spaced apart from an end of the electrode lead, and the lead film fills the hole [fig. 15/16 ].
Regarding claim 2, Katayama teaches the spacing is at intervals of 10mm, which overlaps with the required range of at least 2.5mm, therefore teaches wherein the hole is spaced at least 2.5 mm apart from the end of the electrode lead [0194; Four slit-like through-holes 36 were formed in the part of the electrode 32 to overlap an electrode lead 30 by a punch process so that they aligned in the width direction of the electrode 30 at intervals of 10 mm]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 3, Katayama teaches wherein the hole is provided in plural in the electrode lead [fig. 13; 0180].
Regarding claim 6, Katayama teaches a secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly including a negative electrode plate, a positive electrode plate, and a separator; an electrode tab formed at one end of the electrode assembly [0233]; the electrode lead structure for a secondary battery according to claim 1, one end of which is coupled to the electrode tab; and a battery case wrapping the electrode assembly and the electrode tab and adhered to the lead film of the electrode lead structure [fig. 28; 0092-0095; 0233].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100285353A1 (Katayama).
Regarding claim 4, Katayama does not teach wherein the holes are spaced apart from each other by 5 mm or less. However, it is the Examiners position, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the spacing of the holes to be 5mm or less, as adjusting the spacing of the holes would not affect the electrode structure and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100285353A1 (Katayama) further in view of US20140011060A1 (Yang)
Regarding claim 5, Katayama does not teach wherein the lead film includes polypropylene, polyethylene, and naphthalate. In a similar field of endeavor, Yang teaches a secondary battery and teaches the sealing tape, i.e. lead film is made of polyethylene [0064]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lead film taught by Katayama to be comprise polyethylene as it prevents a short circuit between the lead and the metal layer of the casing and improves the sealing of the case [0064].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100285353A1 (Katayama) further in view of US20150086863A1 (Hwang)
Regarding claim 7, Katayama does not teach wherein the lead film has adhesion of 4 to 5 N/mm with the battery case. In a similar field of endeavor, Hwang teaches a highly heat-resistant film for electrode terminals [abs]. Hwang teaches the films may be formed of modified polyolefin resin, a cast polypropylene resin, an ethylene-propylene copolymer, an ethylene-propylene isotactic block copolymer or an ethylene-propylene syndiotactic block copolymer [0067]; which are similar to the materials in the lead films taught in the instant claim. Hwang further teaches: The highly heat-resistant film may have an adhesive strength after thermal pressing of 2 N/mm or more. If the adhesive strength is less than 2 N/mm, the heat-resistant film cannot withstand stress caused by repeated shrinkage and expansion during charging/discharging of a secondary battery, resulting in leakage of an electrolyte solution. The upper limit of the adhesive strength is not particularly limited and may be, for example, 20 N/mm. The reason for this limitation is that the adhesive strength of the heat-resistant film can sufficiently compensate for deterioration of the durability of a secondary battery resulting from a reduction in adhesive strength at other sites of the pouch [0068-0070]. Hwang does not explicitly teach the adhesion between the film and the case, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the adhesion strength as claimed as one skilled in the art would easily understand that incorporating the adhesive strength in this range would result in an improved battery structure [0070] and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100285353A1 (Katayama) further in view of US20160315301A1(Kim) and US20150086863A1 (Hwang)
Regarding claim 8, Katayama fails to teach the battery case has an upper/lower case and the upper case and the lower case have adhesion of 8 to 10 N/mm due to the lead film. In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches a secondary battery [abs] and teaches wherein the battery case includes an upper case [#21] and a lower case [#22; 0056] adhered by the lead film. Kim does not teach the upper case and the lower case have adhesion of 8 to 10 N/mm due to the lead film. Hwang teaches the adhesion strength as required by the instant claim. Please refer to the rejection of claim 7 which discusses the adhesion strength. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Katayama to incorporate the battery case of Kim to have an upper/lower case as this is a common structural feature in this field of endeavor and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. As noted in claim 7, Hwang does not explicitly teach the adhesion between the film and the case, however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the adhesion strength as claimed as one skilled in the art would easily understand that incorporating the adhesive strength in this range would result in an improved battery structure [0070] and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights