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 § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0104515).
With respect to claim 1, Fujikawa, et al. teach a lithium secondary battery wherein the electrode has a sheet shape with a first main surface and a second main surface (see figure1; examiner notes that layered assembly anticipates the sheet shape as claimed and the electrode has surfaces which can be considered first and second main surfaces, respectively). In addition, the thickness of the electrode (paragraph 0055) may be between 3-100 um. While Fujikawa, et al. do not specifically teach the average thickness in the expression as recited; however, Fujikawa, et al. teach that the electrode thickness may vary from 3 – 100 micron (paragraph 0055). Based on this range and the fact that the reference teaches that the thickness may be determined at any 2 – 10 locations by taking thicknesses in a longitudinal cross-section and averaging it, examiner contends that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the expression in claim 1 to be satisfied. For example, if the average thickness is 50 micron and the thickness at any given point is 50 microns, expression 1 = 0 ≤ 0.1 (50).
With respect to claim 2, Fujikawa, et al. teach that the electrode comprises a flat part (item 31 – figure 3); and a plurality of pattern parts protruding with a predetermined width in a width direction of the electrode (figure 3), wherein the plurality of pattern parts is spaced apart from each other at a predetermined distance in a longitudinal direction of the electrode (figure 3).
With respect to claim 3, while Fujikawa, et al. do not specifically teach the expression as recited, Fujikawa et al. teach that the distance between pattern parts is approximately 2 – 100 microns (center to center distance, see paragraph 0090). The number and interval between protrusion is not limited and thus, if the shortest distance is 2 microns, and the center to center distance between any two pattern parts is 50 microns, expression 2 is satisfied.
With respect to claim 4, while Fujikawa, et al. do not specifically teach the expression as recited, if the D is 2 microns and the longest distance, E is 50 microns, expression 3 is satisfied.
With respect to claim 5, the distance between pattern parts is between 2 – 100 microns, which renders obvious the range as claimed. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
With respect to claim 7, Fujikawa et al. teach a pouch type lithium secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly (figure 1) and a case configured to store the electrode assembly (item 14 – figure 1) wherein the electrode assembly comprises the assembly of claim 1.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0104515) in view of Ugaji et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2010/0151330).
With respect to claim 6, Fujikawa discloses a range for the size of the protrusions while Ugaji et al. discloses the advantages of having concave and convex portions in which lithium ions can reversibly be inserted and be extracted with ease (paragraph 0014). Having this configuration improves high-rate discharging accompanied by low temperature and discharging with long life span (paragraph 0015). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to optimize the area of the flat part and the area of a pattern part to satisfy Expression 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY BAGNAL whose telephone number is (571)270-1080. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am-4:00 pm.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at (571) 272-1490. 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.
/C.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 1788
08/04/2026
/MARIA V EWALD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights