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 without traverse of Group I claims 1-8 & 20 in the reply filed on 7/10/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. US 2019/0252728
With respect to claim 1, Shimizu et al. discloses a cathode plate 102/104, wherein,
the cathode plate 102/104 is arranged in a laminated battery 13 [Figure 2], and the cathode plate 102/104 comprises:
a main body 102/103/104 in a cuboid shape, formed by stacking a cathode active material layer 120/104 and a cathode current collector 103 in a first direction [Figure 2], the main body 102/103/104 having four side faces and two end faces, the two end faces being arranged oppositely to each other in the first direction, and the four side faces being a first side face to a fourth side face and being respectively connected to the two end faces along the first direction [Figure 2];
a cathode tab, formed by the cathode current collector 103 extending from the first side face to an outside of the main body 102/103/104 [Figure 2]; and
an insulating layer 109a/109b, formed on the second side face to the fourth side face and covering 95% or more of each side face of the second side face to the fourth side face. [Figure 2]
PNG
media_image1.png
632
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Shimizu et al. discloses wherein, the insulating layer 19a/19b is also formed on the first side face and covers 95% or more of all other areas of the first side face except an area where the cathode tab is formed. [Figure 2]
With respect to claim 5, Shimizu et al. discloses wherein, the insulating layer is coated by one of spray coating, spot coating, and dip coating.
The limitation “ is coated by one of spray coating, spot coating, and dip coating ” is a product-by-process limitation, in which the Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP § 2113).
With respect to claim 20, Shimizu et al. discloses a battery, wherein the battery comprises the cathode plate according to claim 1, an anode plate 108, and a separator 105; the cathode plate and the anode plate are alternately stacked in the first direction; and the separator is sandwiched between the cathode plate and the anode plate. [Figure 5; Figure 6]
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.
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) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US 2019/0252728 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Nishimura JP2015215988
With respect to claim 3, Shimizu et al. does not disclose wherein, the insulating layer extends from the side faces on which the insulating layer is formed to the end faces connected to the side faces, and a length extending on the end faces that are connected to the side faces is no more than 0.5 mm
Nishimura discloses wherein, the insulating layer 21 extends from the side faces on which the insulating layer 21 is formed to the end faces connected to the side faces, and a length extending on the end faces that are connected to the side faces is 0.5mm to 3mm (overlaps no more than 0.5 mm) [0031-0035; Figure 2]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cathode plate of Shimizu et al. to include an insulating sheet, as disclosed in Nishimura, in order to ensure fixing and reliable covering.
With respect to claim 4, Shimizu et al. does not disclose wherein, a thickness of the insulating layer on the side faces on which the insulating layer is formed is 2-30 μm.
Nishimura discloses wherein, a thickness of the insulating layer 21 on the side faces on which the insulating layer is formed is 20-100 μm (overlaps 2-30 μm).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cathode plate of Shimizu et al. to include an insulating sheet, as disclosed in Nishimura, in order to ensure sufficient strength.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US 2019/0252728 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Kaito et al. US 2006/0204836.
With respect to claim 5, Shimizu et al. discloses wherein, the insulating layer is coated by one of spray coating, spot coating, and dip coating.
The limitation “ is coated by one of spray coating, spot coating, and dip coating ” is a product-by-process limitation, in which the Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP § 2113).
Furthermore Kaito et al. discloses wherein the insulating layer is coated by spray coating [0061]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the cathode plate of Shimizu et al. to include an insulating sheet coated by spray coating, as disclosed in Kaito, in order to ensure sufficient coating.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US 2019/0252728 as applied to claim 6 above in further view of Tang et al. US 20150155538.
With respect to claim 6, Shimizu et al. discloses wherein, a ceramic slurry for making the insulating layer comprises at least a magnesium oxide (ceramic material), a binder, and a solvent, [0071-0075; 0104-0105],
Shimizu et al. does not disclose wherein the ceramic material accounts for 10-70wt%, the binder accounts for 1-5wt% or wherein a viscosity of the ceramic slurry is 100-1000 mPa·s.
Tang et al. discloses wherein in the insulating layer the ceramic material accounts for 10-70wt%, the binder accounts for 1-5wt% [0065-0075]
Tang et al. does not disclose wherein a viscosity of the ceramic slurry is 100-1000 mPa·s.
However Tang et al. discloses wherein the viscosity of the insulating layer can prevent leakage during installation and allow for increased stability and excellent battery properties [0093; 0120-0128]
Although Tang et al. does not directly disclose a viscosity of the ceramic slurry is 100-1000 mPa·s, the viscosity is a variable that can be modified to provide increased stability [0093; 0120-0128] Thus the precise claimed product would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art as the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed viscosity cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the as of the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the viscosity of the ceramic slurry of the insulating layer to obtain a desired stability. (In re Boesch, 61 7 F.2d. 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the ceramic slurry of the insulating plate of Shimizu et al. to have a viscosity of the ceramic slurry is 100-1000 mPa·s, as disclosed in Tang et al., in order to ensure excellent ion conductivity.
With respect to claim 7, Shimizu et al. discloses wherein, the ceramic material is magnesium oxide; the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride. [0071-0075]
With respect to claim 8, Shimizu et al. discloses wherein, the ceramic material is magnesium oxide; the binder is polyvinylidene fluoride. [0071-0075]
Shimizu et al. does not disclose wherein, the ceramic material is pseudoboehmite,
Tang et al. discloses the use of pseudoboehmite as a ceramic material in an insulating layer. [0014; 0041; 0044; 0211]
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the insulating plate of Shimizu et al. to include pseudoboehmite, as disclosed in Tang et al., in order to ensure excellent ion conductivity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yun et al. US 2021/0075064.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights