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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 reads “according to any one of claim 1” and should be changed to read “according to claim 1”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “plane view” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plane view” 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. For the purpose of examination, since the specification does not provide further explanation for the term, plane view will be interpreted in view of either the horizontal plane or vertical plane.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, the structural relationship described by distance for the negative electrode and the separator as well as the negative electrode and positive electrode, is not clearly defined by the claim language, specification or drawings provided. For examination purposes, the language will be read with broadest reasonable interpretation as it applies to lithium secondary battery structures.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurihara et al (US 2017133660 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kurihara teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery 110 with a positive electrode, a negative electrode current collector 102 that does not include a negative electrode active material layer and a separator stacked between the two electrodes (paragraph 0045; meets claimed lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode which does not have a neg electrode active material and a separator arranged between the two electrodes). Kurihara also teaches a separator 104 that shares an edge with the negative electrode current collector 102 (figure 1A and 1B); meets claimed part of an edge of the negative electrode and edge of separator arranged at the same position in a plane view).
Regarding claim 2, Kurihara teaches a rectangular shape for both the negative electrode and the separator (figure 1A and 1B; meets claimed rectangular shape for the negative electrode and the separator).
Regarding claim 3, Kurihara teaches a separator 104 that is arranged to align with one side of the negative electrode current collector 102 (figure 1A and 1B); meets claimed one side of negative electrode and one side of separator arranged in the same position in a plane view).
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.
Claims 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. (US 2017133660 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matuzaki et al. (WO 2018163775 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kurihara teaches a lithium secondary battery as seen above.
Kurihara fails to teach a negative electrode aligned on four sides with the separator.
Matuzaki teaches the separator 50 is adhered to both main surfaces 10B11, 10B12 of the negative electrode 10B1 to form the electrode constituent layer precursor 100α1 (see FIG. 2); after forming the electrode constituent layer precursor 100α1, the electrode constituent layer precursor 100α1 is cut along the lamination direction and the side surface of the already cut electrode composition layer precursor 100β1 can be substantially flush (central region of FIG. 2 and page 7; meets claimed negative electrode sides corresponding to sides of separator in a plane view).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the negative electrode and separator as seen in Matuzaki in the battery assembly of Kurihara to improve efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, Kurihara and Matuzaki teach a layered electrode assembly structure for a lithium secondary battery as seen above for claims 1-4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to space the negative electrode and separator apart with a specific distance, such as the claimed distance of 0.3 mm to 5.0 mm, dependent upon the desired size of the completed cell.
Regarding claim 6, Matuzaki teaches it is preferable to further adhere the positive electrode 10A (10A1, 10A2) to the separator 50 of the electrode constituent layer precursor 100β (100β1, 100β2) cut along the laminating direction (FIG. 2 and 1C and page 8; meets claimed four sides of the negative electrode arranged in the same position as four sides of the separator).
Regarding claim 7, Matuzaki teaches the planar laminated structure type electrode assembly is obtained by alternately adhering and laminating the positive electrode 10A 'and the negative electrode 10B' via the separator 50 'along the stacking direction (FIG. 4 and 5 and page 1; meets claimed positive electrode and negative electrode sharing an edge).
Regarding claim 8, Kurihara and Matuzaki teach a layered electrode assembly structure for a lithium secondary battery as seen above for claims 1-7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to space the positive electrode and negative electrode apart with a specific distance, such as the claimed distance of 0.3 mm or greater, dependent upon the desired size of the completed cell.
Regarding claim 9, Kurihara teaches a lithium secondary battery 110 with a positive electrode, a negative electrode current collector 102 that does not include a negative electrode active material layer and a separator stacked between the two electrodes (paragraph 0045; meets claimed lithium secondary battery comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode which does not have a neg electrode active material and a separator arranged between the two electrodes).
Kurihara fails to teach an outer container for the electrode assembly.
Matuzaki teaches the secondary battery has a structure in which an electrode assembly and an electrolyte are contained and sealed in an exterior body and the electrode assembly has a planar laminated structure in which a plurality of electrode constituent layers including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator are laminated (page 2; meets claimed positive electrode and negative electrode with a separator arranged in an outer container).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the exterior body of Matuzaki with the lithium secondary battery of Kurihara for protection of the electrode assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT whose telephone number is (571) 270-0240. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571) 272-1234. 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.
/OLIVIA MARGARET EVERITT/Examiner, Art Unit 1759
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights