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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 5/18/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions share a related field of technology. This is not found persuasive because, while the inventions share a related field of technology, the inventions are patentably distinct as is admitted by the applicant, and there is a search burden on account of the difference in classifications which were designated in the requirement for restriction.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/18/26.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on page 2, line 5 of the specification, the applicant has written “or su control”. The examiner is unsure what is meant to be written here, appropriate correction to this typo is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP-2014120404-A (T).
Regarding claim 1, T teaches an electrode plate for a rechargeable battery (see all of Fig. 2), the electrode plate comprising: an electrode current collector (24); a first active material layer in a pattern at the electrode current collector (31, see the pattern of protrusions in Fig. 2); and a second active material layer (32) covering the first active material layer and a portion of the electrode current collector (portion covered by 34).
Regarding claim 9, T teaches a rechargeable battery (1) comprising: a separator [0015], a first electrode plate on one surface of the separator [0015], and a second electrode plate on another surface of the separator opposite the one surface [0015], wherein at least one electrode plate of the first electrode plate or the second electrode plate comprises: an electrode current collector (24); a first active material layer in a pattern at the electrode current collector (31, see the pattern of protrusions in Fig. 2); and a second active material layer (32) covering the first active material layer and a portion of the electrode current collector (portion covered by 34).
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.
Claims 3, 4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2014120404-A (T), in view of US-20200295360-A1 (B).
Regarding claim 3, the teachings of T are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
T does not teach the first active material layer has a trapezoidal shape in a cross-sectional view.
B teaches an electrode plate for a rechargeable battery (all of Fig. 3C) with a first and second active material layer (see Fig. 3C), where the first active material layer has a trapezoidal shape from a cross-section view. B teaches the benefit of this arrangement is that it improves adhesion between the first active material layer and the conductive substrate, reduces interfacial resistance, and improves ion conductivity by increasing the impregnating ability of the electrolyte [0155].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the first active material layer of T to be trapezoidal like the first active material layer of B in order to achieve the above benefits. It would have been obvious to do because T and B teach electrode plates with two active materials, and B teaches the above benefits that may be attained by T using the geometry taught by B. Doing so would amount to no more than selecting a known geometry for active material layers in the field of electrode plates in order to achieve a known set of benefits with a reasonable chance of success.
Claim 3 is unpatentable over this combination.
Regarding claim 4, the first active material layer of B is smaller at the end facing away from the current collector (see Fig. 3C). This means the combination of T and B has a first active material layer with a first width at a side of the electrode current collector; and a second width at a side of a surface of the second active material layer, the second width being less than the first width.
Claim 4 is unpatentable over this combination.
Regarding claim 11, the teachings of T are explained in the rejection of claim 9.
T does not teach the first active material layer has a trapezoidal shape in a cross-sectional view.
B teaches an electrode plate for a rechargeable battery (all of Fig. 3C) with a first and second active material layer (see Fig. 3C), where the first active material layer has a trapezoidal shape from a cross-section view. B teaches the benefit of this arrangement is that it improves adhesion between the first active material layer and the conductive substrate, reduces interfacial resistance, and improves ion conductivity by increasing the impregnating ability of the electrolyte [0155].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the first active material layer of T to be trapezoidal like the first active material layer of B in order to achieve the above benefits. It would have been obvious to do because T and B teach electrode plates with two active materials, and B teaches the above benefits that may be attained by T using the geometry taught by B. Doing so would amount to no more than selecting a known geometry for active material layers in the field of electrode plates in order to achieve a known set of benefits with a reasonable chance of success.
Claim 11 is unpatentable over this combination.
Regarding claim 12, the first active material layer of B is smaller at the end facing away from the current collector (see Fig. 3C). This means the combination of T and B has a first active material layer with a first width at a side of the electrode current collector; and a second width at a side of a surface of the second active material layer, the second width being less than the first width.
Claim 12 is unpatentable over this combination.
Claims 2, 5, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2014120404-A (T) in view of US-20240030427-A1 (K).
Regarding claim 5, the teachings of T are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
T is silent to the surface contact angle of the second active material layer at the surface of the second active material layer.
K teaches a cathode with first and second mixture layers [0010]. K teaches the difference in water contact angles of the first and second layers is between 10° and 30° [0011]. K teaches the benefit of this range of difference in water contact angles is that it allows for better adhesive strength between the first mixture layer and the current collector and the second mixture layer and the first mixture layer [0028]. K further teaches in Example 1 that the second mixture layer has a static water contact angle of 110° ([00115], Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to optimize the water contact angle of the first and second active material layers of T in order to achieve the benefit of maximizing the durability of the electrode plate. It would have been obvious to do so because K teaches that water contact angle is a result affective variable for the interfacial adhesive strength. In the process of optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in arriving at a second active material layer water contact angle between 100° and 110° without undue experimentation. This conclusion is further supported by 110° being the value of the water contact angle in Example 1.
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over the combination of T and K.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of T and K is explained in the rejection of claim 5. T and K do not explicitly teach the roughness of the second active material before or after the drying of the layer. However, T involves a drying step. The instant discloses that the roughness of the second active material layer increases from when it is coated, but provides no specific mechanism outside of merely drying it and achieving a water contact angle in the range of 100-110° [0077-80]. Through the optimization of T and K, as explained in the rejection of claim 5, the contact angle would fall in that range. T teaches a drying step [0040]. Therefore, because the contact angle falls within the claimed range of the instant, and T teaches a drying step, the roughness of the second active material layer at the surface must be greater when it dries than when it is coated. Claim 2 is therefore unpatentable over the combination of T and K.
Regarding claim 13, the teachings of T are explained in the rejection of claim 9.
T is silent to the surface contact angle of the second active material layer at the surface of the second active material layer.
K teaches a cathode with first and second mixture layers [0010]. K teaches the difference in water contact angles of the first and second layers is between 10° and 30° [0011]. K teaches the benefit of this range of difference in water contact angles is that it allows for better adhesive strength between the first mixture layer and the current collector and the second mixture layer and the first mixture layer [0028]. K further teaches in Example 1 that the second mixture layer has a static water contact angle of 110° ([00115], Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to optimize the water contact angle of the first and second active material layers of T in order to achieve the benefit of maximizing the durability of the electrode plate. It would have been obvious to do so because K teaches that water contact angle is a result affective variable for the interfacial adhesive strength. In the process of optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable chance of success in arriving at a second active material layer water contact angle between 100° and 110° without undue experimentation. This conclusion is further supported by 110° being the value of the water contact angle in Example 1.
Therefore, claim 13 is unpatentable over the combination of T and K.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of T and K is explained in the rejection of claim 5. T and K do not explicitly teach the roughness of the second active material before or after the drying of the layer. However, T involves a drying step. The instant discloses that the roughness of the second active material layer increases from when it is coated, but provides no specific mechanism outside of merely drying it and achieving a water contact angle in the range of 100-110° [0077-80]. Through the optimization of T and K, as explained in the rejection of claim 5, the contact angle would fall in that range. T teaches a drying step [0040]. Therefore, because the contact angle falls within the claimed range of the instant, and T teaches a drying step, the roughness of the second active material layer at the surface must be greater when it dries than when it is coated. Claim 10 is therefore unpatentable over the combination of T and K.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11430988. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, see table below for comparison.
Instant
Reference
An electrode plate for a rechargeable battery, the electrode plate comprising: an electrode current collector; a first active material layer in a pattern at the electrode current collector; and a second active material layer covering the first active material layer and a portion of the electrode current collector.
C1 An electrode, comprising: a conductive substrate; and a first active material layer and a second active material layer; the first active material layer is on the substrate, the second active material layer is on the first active material layer;
in a pattern
the first active material layer or the second active material layer includes convex portions and concave portions, the concave portions have a triangular cross section or a trapezoidal cross section in a plane perpendicular to a surface of the electrode, and the convex portions are spaced apart from each other at intervals of about 15 m to about 100 m
a second active material layer covering the first active material layer and a portion of the electrode current collector.
C5 the first active material layer is completely covered by the second active material layer.
If the first active material layer is on the substrate (which is equivalent to a current collector), it must cover a portion of the substrate. if the second active material layer covers the first active material layer, then the second active material layer also covers the substrate because covering without directly contacting is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights