CTNF 18/401,935 CTNF 75777 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed January 17, 2024 and June 17, 2024 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. With respect to foreign language references and foreign language patent office communications with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii). Drawings The drawings received January 1, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes. Specification The specification received January 1, 2024 has been reviewed for examination purposes. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 15 and 18 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ about ” in claim s 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ about ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification states (para. [0038]): “As used herein, terms "about", "approximately", and "substantially" are used to mean a range of values or degrees, or approximations thereof, considering unique manufacturing and material tolerances, and are used to prevent an infringer from unfairly exploiting the described content where precise or absolute values are mentioned in order to aid understanding of the present disclosure.” However, this is not a sufficient definition for the term about. In addition, the disclosure fails to provide any other definition for what the term about effectively means. Legal precedent has established that a patent must provide clear notice of what the invention is. If the language is susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations that leave a skilled person guessing, the claim fails. While patent language is inherently limited, so some uncertainty is permitted. However, the scope must be precise enough to apprise the public of exactly what is and is not covered. In patent law, "about" is considered a "term of degree". Because it does not define an exact numerical limit (e.g., exactly 10 inches), it risks being struck down for indefiniteness unless specific guidelines are established. In the case of the instant application, the specification does not provide objective, measurable standards for how far the variance can extend. If the patent specification provides clear, objective guideposts (such as giving exact ranges, standard tolerances or concrete testing metrics), using "about" will usually survive an indefiniteness challenge. It is accepted to account for minor measurement discrepancies or manufacturing tolerances. This is not the case in the instant application. The term “about” fails to be definite in the instant application as it does not provide clear objective description as to what the term “about” limits to (no specifics to the term nor clear definition of the term). In short, the specification gives no guidance on how far off "about" extends, leaving a person of ordinary skill in the art left to guess what the term may or may not be limited to. Since "about" leaves the reader guessing at the boundaries of the invention (e.g., if it creates a "zone of uncertainty" that forces innovators to guess what might constitute infringement without any objective metric in the patent), as is the case in the instant application, the language is held as being indefinite . 07-34-03 AIA The term “ substantially similar ” in claim s 15 and 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantially similar ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification states (para. [0038]): “As used herein, terms "about", "approximately", and "substantially" are used to mean a range of values or degrees, or approximations thereof, considering unique manufacturing and material tolerances, and are used to prevent an infringer from unfairly exploiting the described content where precise or absolute values are mentioned in order to aid understanding of the present disclosure.” However, this is not a sufficient definition for the term about. In addition, the disclosure fails to provide any other definition for what the term “ substantially similar” effectively means. Legal precedent has established that a patent must provide clear notice of what the invention is. If the language is susceptible to multiple reasonable interpretations that leave a skilled person guessing, the claim fails. While patent language is inherently limited, so some uncertainty is permitted. However, the scope must be precise enough to apprise the public of exactly what is and is not covered. In patent law, " substantially similar " is considered a "term of degree". Because it does not define an exact limit, it risks being struck down for indefiniteness unless specific guidelines are established. In the case of the instant application, the specification does not provide objective, measurable standards for how far the “ substantially similar ” can extend. If the patent specification provides clear, objective guideposts (such as giving exact ranges, standard tolerances or concrete metrics), using " substantially similar " will usually survive an indefiniteness challenge. It is accepted to account for minor measurement discrepancies or manufacturing tolerances. This is not the case in the instant application. The term “ substantially similar ” fails to be definite in the instant application as it does not provide clear objective description as to what the term “ substantially similar ” limits to (no specifics to the term nor clear definition of the term). In short, the specification gives no guidance on how far off “ substantially similar " extends, leaving a person of ordinary skill in the art left to guess what the term may or may not be limited to. Since " substantially similar " leaves the reader guessing at the boundaries of the invention (e.g., if it creates a "zone of uncertainty" that forces innovators to guess what might constitute infringement without any objective metric in the patent), as is the case in the instant application, the language is held as being indefinite . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Nakajima et al. (JP2019-075268A) . As to claim 13, Nakajima discloses a lithium secondary battery electrode assembly comprising: a positive electrode 12; a negative electrode 14; and a separator 13, wherein at least one of the positive electrode 12 and the negative electrode 14 includes a heat dissipation current collector 21 including a heat dissipation layer 11 or 15 having a lower thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of the metal of layer 21 used as the current collector of the corresponding electrode, and wherein the heat dissipation layer 11 or 15 is connected to an outside of the battery via region 11b and 15b, correspondingly and is configured to dissipate heat inside the battery to the outside of the battery. In the context of Nakajima the current collector designs include a two layer structure wherein one layer (11/15) is a conductive resin and the other layer (21) is a material such as a metal foil. The assemblies are noted for providing thermal conductivity of internal heat outside of the battery via portions 11b/21b and 15b/21b. The two layer structure of Nakajima includes both a metal layer and a resin layer and the resin layer has a lower thermal conductivity than the adjacent metal layer and the overall design of the collectors of Nakajima provide for dissipating heat outside of the cell via outer portions 11b/21b and 15b/21b (Figs. 3 and 4). Nakajima further teaches that the thermally conductive material 21 having a thermal conductivity higher than that of the above-mentioned positive electrode resin current collector 11 and negative electrode resin current collector 15. Therefore the resin current collectors 11, which also provide for heat dissipation, at a different rate than the adjacent metal foils, effectively reads on the heat dissipation layer having a lower thermal conductivity than the metal layers 21 (as applied to claim 13). As to claim 16, Nakajima discloses a method of making a lithium secondary battery electrode assembly including a positive electrode 12; a negative electrode 14; and a separator 13, the method comprising: Configuring at least one of the positive electrode 12 and the negative electrode 14 to include a heat dissipation current collector 21 including a heat dissipation layer 11 or 15 having a lower thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of the metal of layer 21 used as the current collector of the corresponding electrode, and wherein the heat dissipation layer 11 or 15 is connected to an outside of the battery via region 11b and 15b, correspondingly and is configured to dissipate heat inside the battery to the outside of the battery. In the context of Nakajima the current collector designs include a two layer structure wherein one layer (11/15) is a conductive resin and the other layer (21) is a material such as a metal foil. The assemblies are noted for providing thermal conductivity of internal heat outside of the battery via portions 11b/21b and 15b/21b. The two layer structure of Nakajima includes both a metal layer and a resin layer and the resin layer has a lower thermal conductivity than the adjacent metal layer and the overall design of the collectors of Nakajima provide for dissipating heat outside of the cell via outer portions 11b/21b and 15b/21b (Figs. 3 and 4 as applied to claim 16) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Kano et al. (WO2018/207643A1) . As to claim 13, Kano discloses a lithium secondary battery electrode assembly (paras. [0003], [0035]) comprising: a positive electrode 12; a negative electrode 13; and a separator 15, wherein at least one of the positive electrode 12 and the negative electrode 13 includes a heat dissipation current collector 16 or 17 including a heat dissipation layer 30 having a lower thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of the metal of layer 31 used as the current collector of the corresponding electrode, and wherein the heat dissipation layer 30 is connected to an outside of the battery via region 16a or 17a, correspondingly and is configured to dissipate heat inside the battery to the outside of the battery. In the context of Kano the current collector designs include a two layer structure 30/31 wherein one layer (30) is a polymer material (PE, PP, PEN, etc.) and the other layer (31) is a material such as a metal foil. The assemblies have the same two layer structure as in claim 13 and is sufficiently designed for providing thermal conductivity of internal heat outside of the battery via portions 16a, 17a. The two layer structure of Kano includes both a metal layer and a resin layer and the resin layer has a lower thermal conductivity than the adjacent metal layer and the overall design of the collectors of Kano provide for dissipating heat outside of the cell via outer portions 16a, 17a (see annotated Fig. 1 below). PNG media_image1.png 710 843 media_image1.png Greyscale As to claim 16, Kano discloses a method of making a lithium secondary battery electrode assembly including a positive electrode 12; a negative electrode 13; and a separator 15, the method comprising: Configuring at least one of the positive electrode 12 and the negative electrode 13 to include a heat dissipation current collector 16 or 17 including a heat dissipation layer 31 having a lower thermal conductivity than a thermal conductivity of the metal of layer 30 used as the current collector of the corresponding electrode, and wherein the heat dissipation layer 31 is connected to an outside of the battery via region 16a or 17a, correspondingly and is configured to dissipate heat inside the battery to the outside of the battery. In the context of Kano the current collector designs include a two layer structure 30/31 wherein one layer (30) is a polymer material (PE, PP, PEN, etc.) and the other layer (31) is a material such as a metal foil. The assemblies have the same two layer structure as in claim 16 and is sufficiently designed for providing thermal conductivity of internal heat outside of the battery via portions 16a, 17a. The two layer structure of Kano includes both a metal layer and a resin layer and the resin layer has a lower thermal conductivity than the adjacent metal layer and the overall design of the collectors of Kano provide for dissipating heat outside of the cell via outer portions 16a, 17a (see annotated Fig. 1 below) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-3, 5, 8, 11 and 12 are allowed. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: none of the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination, are held to reasonably teach, suggest or render obvious the lithium secondary battery of at least claim 1 comprising the electrode assembly and battery case recited therein and wherein at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode includes a heat dissipation current collector and an electrode active material layer formed on at least one surface of the heat dissipation current collector, wherein the heat dissipation current collector includes a heat dissipation layer, a polymer layer disposed on the heat dissipation layer, and a metal layer disposed on the polymer layer, and wherein the heat dissipation layer of the heat dissipation current collector includes a passage extending to an outside of the battery case and configured to dissipate heat inside the battery. Nakajima teaches only of a metal current collector layer and resin current collector layer where the resin current collector layer but neither teaches nor suggests the inclusion of the polymer layer in the construct of at least claim 1. Kano teaches only of a metal current collector layer and polymer current collector layer where the resin current collector layer but neither teaches nor suggests the inclusion of a three layer structure (heat dissipating layer, polymer layer and metal layer) in the construct of at least claim 1. According to the present disclosure, since the electrode assembly includes the heat dissipation layer having a thermal conductivity lower than the thermal conductivity of the metal layer, heat from the metal layer is transferred to the heat dissipation layer, and the heat dissipation layer dissipates the heat to the outside of the battery. Therefore, it is possible to prevent a risk such as ignition of the lithium secondary battery, to ensure safety, and to prevent deterioration of the lithium secondary battery. The polymer layer is configured to interconnect the heat dissipation layer and the metal layer in the heat dissipation current collector. The presence of the polymer layer in combination with the heat dissipation layer and metal layer suppresses current inflow to another electrode, which is required for a rapid rise in the temperature of the lithium secondary battery. There is simply no reasonable teaching or suggestion in the cited prior art of record to modify Nakajima or Kano to arrive at the particular heat dissipation current collector of claim 1 . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 14 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claims 14 and 17, claims 14 and 17, respectively, claim that the heat dissipation current collector includes a polymer layer on at least one surface of the heat dissipation layer and a metal layer disposed on the polymer layer . Nakajima teaches only of a metal current collector layer and resin current collector layer where the resin current collector layer but neither teaches nor suggests the inclusion of the polymer layer in the construct of at least claims 14 and 17. Kano teaches only of a metal current collector layer and polymer current collector layer where the resin current collector layer but neither teaches nor suggests the inclusion of a three layer structure (heat dissipating layer, polymer layer and metal layer) in the construct of at least claims 14 and 17. According to the present disclosure, since the electrode assembly includes the heat dissipation layer having a thermal conductivity lower than the thermal conductivity of the metal layer, heat from the metal layer is transferred to the heat dissipation layer, and the heat dissipation layer dissipates the heat to the outside of the battery. Therefore, it is possible to prevent a risk such as ignition of the lithium secondary battery, to ensure safety, and to prevent deterioration of the lithium secondary battery. The polymer layer is configured to interconnect the heat dissipation layer and the metal layer in the heat dissipation current collector. The presence of the polymer layer in combination with the heat dissipation layer and metal layer suppresses current inflow to another electrode, which is required for a rapid rise in the temperature of the lithium secondary battery. There is simply no reasonable teaching or suggestion in the cited prior art of record to modify Nakajima or Kano to arrive at the particular heat dissipation current collector of claims 14 and 17 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 2007/114310A discloses a battery wherein a cooling tab extends out of the battery via a layer 46 adjacent to a current collector 36 but layer 46 is held to be the same type of material as 36 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 5pm. 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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. /GREGG CANTELMO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/401,935 Page 2 Art Unit: 1725 Application/Control Number: 18/401,935 Page 3 Art Unit: 1725
Prosecution Insights