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 without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 7/2/2026 is acknowledged.
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 non-obviousness.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka et al. (JP 2017/123236, see Machine Translation) in view of Numata et al. (US 2006/0019166) and further in view of Takeda et al. (US 2018/0108903).
Regarding claim 1, Saka et al. discloses in Figs 1-4, an electrode body (ref 20) for a non-aqueous rechargeable battery ([0001], ref 100), the electrode body (ref 20) comprising: a positive electrode plate (ref 50) including a positive electrode substrate (ref 52) and a positive electrode mixture layer (ref 54).
While Saka et al. does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a specific surface area of the positive electrode plate to a density of the positive electrode mixture layer being 1.0 to 2.0, inclusive, the change in the specific area vs density is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Numata et al. (see [0054]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the specific area vs density will vary the energy density of said positive electrode. Therefore the energy density is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the specific area vs density of said positive electrode. For that reason, the specific area, and density, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the specific area vs density cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the specific area and density in the positive electrode of Saka et al. as taught by Numata et al. to obtain the desired energy density (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim 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).
Further, while Saka et al. does not explicitly disclose a ratio of a spring constant of the electrode body to the specific surface area of the positive electrode plate being 30 to 80, inclusive, the change in the surface area vs spring constant is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. Numata et al. (see [0027], [0028]) teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention that varying the surface area vs spring constant will vary the cycle characteristics / performance of said positive electrode. Therefore the cycle characteristics / performance is a variable that can be modified, among others, by varying the surface area vs spring constant of said positive electrode. For that reason, the surface area vs spring constant, would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. As such, without showing unexpected results, the surface area vs spring constant cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the surface area vs spring constant in the positive electrode of Saka et al. as taught by Takeda et al. to obtain the desired the cycle characteristics / performance (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim 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).
Regarding claim 4, modified Saka et al. discloses in Fig 1-4, a non-aqueous rechargeable battery (ref 100, [0001]), comprising: the electrode body (ref 20) as set forth above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka et al. (JP 2017/123236, see Machine Translation) in view of Numata et al. (US 2006/0019166) and Takeda et al. (US 2018/0108903) as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Baek et al. (US 2020/0373559).
Regarding claim 3, modified Saka et al. discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the positive electrode mixture layer (ref 54) contains a positive electrode conductive material ([0014]); but does not explicitly disclose carbon nanotubes having a specific surface area of 150 m2/g to 300 m2/g, inclusive.
Baek et al. discloses a secondary battery (Abstract) including a positive electrode comprising a conducting agent including carbon nanotubes ([0023]), the carbon nanotubes having a specific surface area of 195 m2/g ([0026]). This configuration enhances conductivity and performance of the battery ([0013], [0026]).
Baek et al. and Saka et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the carbon nanotubes of surface area disclosed by Baek et al. into the positive electrode of X et to enhance conductivity and overall battery performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Instant dependent claim 2 discloses a specific set of values for each of the specific surface area of the positive electrode plate, the density of the positive electrode mixture layer, and the spring constant of the electrode body. None of the above-applied prior art references discloses all of these features in totality. Namely, Saka et al. discloses spring constants in a range of 13 kN/mm to 14.3 kN/mm ([0008]), which is outside of the range set forth in the instant claim, as well as an order of magnitude different / higher than the instant claim. Neither of Numata and Takeda remedy this deficiencies with the above combination of parameter values in totality.
Further, Oyama et al. (US 2020/0106101) discloses in Figs 1-7, a battery (Abstract) including a negative electrode (ref 20) having a negative active material layer (ref 22) a spring constant of 230 – 252 kN/mm ([0063]). However, this range is for the negative electrode only, not an electrode body in totality. As such, these limitations are deemed to contain allowable subject matter over the above-cited prior art references of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Watanabe et al. (US 2007/0269714) discloses in Figs 1-9, a battery (Abstract) including components having definite surface area to spring constant ratios ([0074]).
Torita et al. (US 2018/0090763) discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery (Abstract) including a discussion of the spring constant of electrode components ([0013]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P EST.
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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights