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 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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda (US 2005/0031948A1) in view of Mizukami et al. (US 2012/0281339A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses an electrode assembly (electrode assembly [0116], Fig. 1-22), comprising:
a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, and an separator, wherein the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, and the separator are wound to form the electrode assembly, the separator wraps on both sides of each positive electrode layer and each negative electrode layer (positive plate 24, a negative plate 26 and a separator 28 and are formed by spirally winding the positive plate 24 and the negative plate 26 via the separator 28 [0116]), and a current collector of the negative electrode layer is made of a three-dimensional porous metal material;
wherein the negative electrode layer comprises a first negative electrode section and a second negative electrode section extending along a winding direction and connected to each other (negative plate 26 includes negative main portion 96 and outer end portion 42, wherein negative outer end portion 42 is thinner than negative main portion 96 [0147]), a winding start end of the second negative electrode section is substantially aligned with a winding termination end of the positive electrode layer (winding start end of outer end portion is ‘substantially aligned’ with a winding termination end of positive plate, see Fig. 1, 13-15), and a thickness d2 of the second negative electrode section is less than a thickness d1 of the first negative electrode section (negative outer end portion 42 is thinner than negative main portion 96 [0147]).
Mizukami discloses an electric storage device comprising a porous metal foil used as the anode current collector ([0056]).
An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art.
The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”
It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses the thickness d2 of the second negative electrode section is: d2=d1(1/2*x%+1-x%) wherein x% is a porosity of the first negative electrode section (negative plate 26 includes negative main portion 96 and outer end portion 42, wherein negative outer end portion 42 is thinner than negative main portion 96 [0147]; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 3, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses the thickness d2 of the second negative electrode section is: d2=d1(1/2*x%+(1-x%)/(1+k%)) wherein x% is a porosity of the first negative electrode segment, and k% is an elongation rate of the negative electrode layer (negative plate 26 includes negative main portion 96 and outer end portion 42, wherein negative outer end portion 42 is thinner than negative main portion 96 [0147]; In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 4, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses the second negative electrode section is configured to be calendered so that the thickness d2 of the second negative electrode section is less than the thickness d1 of the first negative electrode section (negative plate 26 includes negative main portion 96 and outer end portion 42, wherein negative outer end portion 42 is thinner than negative main portion 96 [0147]).
Further regarding claim 4 reciting “configured to be calendered so that the thickness d2 of the second negative electrode section is less than the thickness d1 of the first negative electrode section”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114).
Regarding claim 5, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses the second negative electrode section surrounds an outermost positive electrode layer for at most one coil (Fig. 1, 13-14 show negative outer end portion surrounding an outermost positive plate).
Regarding claim 6, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses the positive electrode layer comprises a first positive electrode section and a second positive electrode section extending along the winding direction and connected to each other (positive main portion 60 and positive outer end portion 40 [0125]), and a winding start end of the second positive electrode section is substantially aligned with a winding start end of the first negative electrode section (winding start end of positive outer end portion 40 is ‘substantially aligned’ with a winding start end of the negative main portion 96, see Fig. 1, 13-15).
Regarding claim 7, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses the first positive electrode section is located between a first inner negative electrode layer and a second inner negative electrode layer (positive main portion 60 located between negative inner end portion 38, see Fig. 1, 13-15), the first inner negative electrode layer is a first straight section of the negative electrode layer along the winding direction, and the second inner negative electrode layer is a second straight section of the negative electrode layer along the winding direction (see Fig. 1, 13-15).
Regarding claim 8, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses a winding start end of the first positive electrode section extends to a bend of the negative electrode layer between the first inner negative electrode layer and the second inner negative electrode layer (winding start end of positive main portion 60 extends to a bend between negative main portion 96 and outer end portion 42, see Fig. 1, 13-15).
Regarding claim 9, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses a thickness of the positive electrode layer is identical to the thickness of the first negative electrode section (thickness of the positive main portion 60 becomes equal to or greater than 2.5 times the thickness of the negative main portion 96 [0149]; ratio of a thickness T2 at the distal ends of the positive inner end portion 36 and the positive outer end portion 40 to a thickness T1 of the positive main portion 60 is set in a range from 10% to 70% [0127], [0174]; Thus, the thickness at distal ends of the positive outer end portion 40, having a thickness of 10% to 70% of the positive main portion 60, overlaps with the thickness of the negative main portion 96. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). see MPEP 2144.05(I).).
Regarding claim 10, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses a battery cell (battery [0113]), comprising: the electrode assembly according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); a housing with an opening, configured to accommodate the electrode assembly; and an end cap, configured to seal the opening (case 10 and conductive lid plate 14 placed in the opening of the case 10 [0113]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Maeda further discloses an electrical device (electronic and electric device [0007]), comprising: a battery (battery [0113]), wherein the battery is configured to provide electrical energy and comprises a plurality of battery cells each being the battery cell according to claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at (571)270-3879. 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.
/James Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights