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 .
Priority
1. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 4/8/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of this application as required by 37 CFR 1.55, with a notification mailed 5/8/2024 indicating that the priority document exchange program has failed.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 5, 10, 14 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5, 10, 14, and 15 each present improper sentence constructs in terms of dangling modifiers. A descriptive phrase should not be left without its matching subject directly following it. Thus, for example, the following section of claim 5 (in terms of a grammar correction only) should be re-written as:
“wherein a part of the base film layer, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer
This same type of correction is needed in multiple occurrences in each of claims 5, 10, 14, and 15.
Claims 5 and 14 each define multiple parts (i.e., “a part”) of a single entity. For clarity, these should be delineated as “a [first] part” and “a [second] part.” Thus, for example, claim 5 (in terms of this correction only) should be re-written as:
“wherein a first part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a cut-off portion or a corner portion; and
a second part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a straight portion.”
The same is true in claims 10 and 15. The “parts” of claim 15 are [second] parts relative to what would be [first] parts in claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claim 3; claim 4; claim 5; claim 10, and thus dependent claims 11-13 and 15; claim 11; claim 12; claim 13, and thus dependent claim 15; claim 14; and claim 15 are 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.
A) Claim 3 recites “the metal layer” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The parent claim recites metal layers, wherein it is not clear from the claim whether the feature claimed is applicable to each metal layer present or just one1 of the metal layers of the parent claim. Moreover, changing this to “each metal layer” or “at least one of the metal layers” is problematic in terms of a single metal layer cannot simultaneously be on both sides of the base film layer. The claim requires clarity corrections to clearly set forth what is required of claim with respect to the “both sides” feature.
B) Claim 5 recites the following emphasis added:
“wherein a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a cut-off portion or a corner portion; and
a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a straight portion.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for all of these bolded entities which are each recited in the plural in the parent claim. Furthermore, in lines 3-4 of the quoted portion above, it is not clear from the claim whether the feature claimed is applicable to each active material layer and its corresponding metal layer or just one thereof.
C) Claim 5 recites the following, “…wherein a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a cut-off portion…” The claims are drawn to the construct shown in Fig. 1 of the instant application. There is not a portion that is “cut-off” in the embodiment claimed. Accordingly, the claim appears to recite a requirement that is not part of the actual embodiment, but rather, drawn to a subsequent processing step. It would appear this could be amended to the following to correct the issue: “forms a portion capable of being cut-off…”
D) Claim 10 recites all of the following features which have insufficient antecedent basis:
“wherein the positive electrode plate is configured to form a discrete positive electrode plate by cutting a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer;
the negative electrode plate is configured to form a discrete negative electrode plate by cutting the part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer…”
The parent claim recites these both of these entities in the plural, wherein it is not clear from the claim whether the feature claimed is applicable to each metal (or active material) layer present or just one1 of the metal (or active material) layers of the parent claim. Moreover, the claims do not delineate and clearly set forth that there are multiple base film layers required in claim 10 (i.e., the “and” option in claim 9 is required, and there is thus what would be, “the base film layer of the positive electrode plate” and “the base film layer of the negative electrode plate”), and that the referenced metal layer and active material is with respect to the respective electrode plate being claimed.
E) Claim 10 relies upon parent claim (claim 9) which defines that only one of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate is formed by the electrode plate according to claim 1 (i.e., the “or” porton of “and/or”). Claim 10 appears to require that both the positive and negative plates have the features of claim 1 (i.e., the “and” option), but does not positively set this forth first. The claim then recites the following:
“wherein the positive electrode plate is configured to form a discrete positive electrode plate by cutting a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer;
the negative electrode plate is configured to form a discrete negative electrode plate by cutting the part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer…”
Accordingly, it appears there is a singular base film layer being referenced that is not delineated in the claim from one another rendering the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. In other words, the claim neither sets forth that there are multiple base film layers required (i.e., what would be, “the base film layer of the positive electrode plate” and “the base film layer of the negative electrode plate”), nor does the claim set forth that the referenced metal layer and active material are with respect to the respective electrode plate being claimed.
F) Claim 10 recites the following:
“wherein the positive electrode plate is configured to form a discrete positive electrode plate by cutting a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer;
the negative electrode plate is configured to form a discrete negative electrode plate by cutting the part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer; and
the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are stacked alternately”.
The negative electrode plate is not previously defined with “a part” such that claiming “the part” is improper as there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Moreover, it appears to be claiming antecedent basis to the part [of the positive electrode plate] previously defined (see bolding) such that the metes and bounds of the claim are highly unclear.
G) Claim 10 recites the following:
“wherein the positive electrode plate is configured to form a discrete positive electrode plate by cutting a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer;
the negative electrode plate is configured to form a discrete negative electrode plate by cutting the part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer; and
the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are stacked alternately.”
Claim 10 does not positively require a discrete positive electrode or a discrete negative electrode, merely that the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are respectively “configured to form” such. Accordingly, claims 11-13 and 15, reciting features of the discrete positive electrode plate and the discrete negative electrode plate are indefinite as they have not been positively set forth and required in the claim set.
H) Claim 13 recites “the length” twice in the final two lines of the claim; however, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the features defined in the final two lines of the claim (they are not the same as the lengths defined in lines 1-3 of the claim).
Claim 13 recites “the active material layer” in both lines 3 and 4-5. The parent claim recites these both of these entities in the plural, wherein it is not clear from the claim whether the feature claimed is applicable to each metal (or active material) layer present or just one1 of the metal (or active material) layers of the parent claim. Moreover, the claims do not delineate and clearly set forth that these are distinctive active material layers of the respective electrode plate that they are a part of.
I) Claim 14 is reproduced below:
“…wherein the electrode assembly is configured to:
bend a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer of the positive electrode plate,
bend a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer of the negative electrode plate,
so that a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the positive electrode plate and a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the negative electrode plate are stacked alternately.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for all of these bolded entities which are each recited in the plural in the parent claim. The parent claim recites these entities in the plural, wherein it is not clear from the claim whether the feature claimed is applicable to each metal (or active material) layer present or just one1 of the metal (or active material) layers of the parent claim. These claims also do not set forth that the referenced metal layer and active material are with respect to the respective electrode plate being claimed.
J) Claim 15 has the claim tree of 9-10-13-15. Claim 13 attempts to require the features of the discrete positive electrode plate and the discrete negative electrode plate (see section G above). Claim 15, dependent on claim 13, then geos back to defining features of the positive electrode plate (now cut up and no longer existing) and features of the negative electrode (plate) (now cut up and no longer existing). The feature is thus impossible to meet in the context claimed.
K) Claim 4 recites “a corresponding metal layer.” Claim 1 already recites “a corresponding metal layer.” It is not clear from the claim whether there is a failure in invoking proper antecedent basis to the already-recited corresponding metal layer of claim 1 within claim 4, or if claim 4 is attempting to define a [second] corresponding metal layer. It appears the issue is the former.
Appropriate correction is required. The claims will be examined as best as possible for prior art examination.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
6. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 17 recites “A battery comprising the battery cell of claim 16.” A battery is a battery cell; they are one in the same. The claim recites no additional features such that claim 17 is non-limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
7. Claims 10 and 14 each recite “configured to” statements that do not positively require the features claimed and are instead presented as capabilities of the positive and negative electrode plates. If Applicant intends to require these features of the electrode assembly, then they should be positively set forth in these claims without “configured to” statements.
8. The claims recite multiple instances of product-by-process limitations (at least claims 1, 7, 9, 10,a nd 13), wherein with respect to such limitations, the court has held:
“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 as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
With respect to claims 9-13 and 15, the following analysis is made:
Claim 9 recites:
An electrode assembly, comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate is formed by the electrode plate according to claim 1, and/or, the negative electrode plate is formed by the electrode plate according to claim 1.
Claim 10 recites a “configured to” features that are drawn to subsequent processing steps/capabilities of the positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate. Claim 10, as outlined above, is highly indefinite and also does not positively set forth that the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate takes the format of discrete positive and negative electrode plates; hence, the subsequent claiming (claims 11-13 and 15) of features of the discrete positive and negative electrode plates is held indefinite as outlined above.
In the interest of compact prosecution, assuming that Applicant intends to positively require these features, it is noted that the structure thus required once the “discrete” electrode plates are positively set forth is that shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
438
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The process by which this is achieved (see at least product-by-process limitations in claims 1 and 10) does not lend any additional specific structure to the final product outside of the above structure illustrated, wherein 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 as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113). The claims, in a compact prosecution rejection below (assuming the discrete positive positive electrode achieved by the process in claim 10, and assuming the discrete negative electrode achieved by the process in claim 10 are required constituents) is applied against claims 11-13 and 15.
9. The figures of the instant application illustrate that the active material layers 30 are directly on the respective sides of the corresponding metal layer 24 (see cross-sections presented in Figs. 1-8; see P90 of the PGPUB), and then teaches that the metal layer 24 is not exposed to the external environment (P91). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure as teaching that the active material layers 30 are directly on the respective sides of the corresponding metal layer 24 as well as directly on the top surface thereof such that the active material layer entirely surrounds the corresponding metal layer 24. The claims do not presently claim such a construct; however, in the interest of compact prosecution, should Applicant amend the claims to recite such features (P90-91), it is entirely unclear how such a hypothetically-claimed electrode plate would be operational.
Specifically, the disclosure teaches an electrically non-conductive base film layer 20 with a plurality of discrete current collector metal layers 24. Should these metal layers 24 be claimed such that the active material layers 30 are directly on the respective sides of the corresponding metal layer 24 as well as the top surface thereof such that the active material layer entirely surrounds the corresponding metal layer 24, there would be no manner in which to provide contact with the corresponding metal layers 24 for electrical extraction. The disclosure as a whole is entirely silent on how terminals and electrical extraction are being provided or achieved in such a construct. The non-conductive base layer cannot provide electrical extraction. If the metal layers are entirely surrounded on the top and side surfaces by the active material layer, there is no manner to provide any means of electrical connection therewith.
Accordingly, should such a feature be amended into the claims, Applicant should provide corresponding comments as to how the construct is operational and enabled to provided a viable electrode plate to avoid rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/first paragraph.
For example, one of the anticipatory pior art rejections as applied below to Laramie et al. (US 2020/0220149) teaches the manner in which electrical connection is achieved is taught as including an overall current collector domain 125 including current collector bus 121 electrically connected to a respective side of current collector bridges 123 that are in turn electrically connected to a side of the discrete current collector segments 122 made of metal (P61) (i.e., the “metal layers” of the claim) (Figs. 2A-2B, reproduced below for convenience; see at least P61-65):
PNG
media_image2.png
439
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
257
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B of Laramie
The active material layers 130 of Laramie are not directly on the respective sides of the corresponding metal layer 122 as well as the top surface thereof such that each active material layer 130 entirely surrounds the corresponding metal layer 24 as this would void any possibility of electrical contact and extraction with the metal layer 122. If electrical extraction cannot be made with the metal layers 122, then the electrode plate becomes non-operational because base film 120 is non conductive (as required of the instant configuration- claim 2 and the entire disclosure).
Accordingly, the closest prior art of record demonstrates the need for the active material layers 130 to not be entirely surrounded in the manner described above in order to be a viable electrode. A claimed construct must be operational (MPEP 2104-2017) and the specification must describe how to make and use the invention defined by the claims (MPEP 2164)
If a claim fails to meet the utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is shown to be non- useful or inoperative, then it necessarily fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph (MPEP 2164.07).
Thus, should such a hypothetical amendment be claimed, Applicant should provide an appropriate explanation as to how such an electrode plate is considered operational and enabled by the instant application given the analysis provided above that demonstrates otherwise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laramie et al. (US 2020/0220149).
Regarding claim 1, Laramie teaches an article 100 that is a cathode plate or an anode plate (“an electrode plate”) (P6-7, 38, 118, 144, 150) (Figs. 2A-3, 5-8B; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
a current collector (substrate 120 + discrete current collector segments 122), wherein the current collector (120, 122) comprises a substrate (“a base film layer”) and + discrete current collector segments 122 made of metal (P61) (“metal layers”) that are disposed on the substrate (“base film layer”) layer in a spaced-apart manner (Figs. 2A-3, 5-8B; P61-62, 113-115); and
discrete electrode segments 130 comprising active material (“active material layers”) (P62, 157-166) applied to the substrate (“base film layer”) in a spaced-apart manner (P46, 113-115), and each discrete electrode segment 130 comprising active material (“each active material layer”) at least partially covers a corresponding discrete current collector segment 122 made of metal (P61) (“metal layer”).
Figures 2A-2B of Laramie are reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image2.png
439
487
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
257
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2A and FIG. 2B of Laramie
It is noted that the claim is a product-by-process claim in terms of the limitation, “wherein the active material layers are applied to the base film layer in a spaced-apart manner…” The feature is fully taught and met by Laramie (P113-115) such that the product-by-process limitation is met (i.e., the process itself is taught); however, the court has held:
“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 as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
The feature is thus evaluated for its implicit or explicit structure lent to the product itself, which in this case would appear to be that there are active material layered disposed on the base film layer in a spaced-apart manner. Accordingly, for example, prior art teaching an alternative method such as applying a single layer active material and then ablating/etching/removing portions thereof would provide the same final structure. The issue is moot given the process of applying the discrete electrode segments 130 comprising active material (“active material layers”) to the substrate (“base film layer”) in a spaced-apart manner is taught (P113-115); however it is presented here for compact prosecution in terms of what is considered required to meet the claim.
Regarding claim 2, Laramie teaches wherein the substrate 120 (“base film layer”) is non-conductive (P43, 156).
Regarding claim 3, Laramie teaches wherein the metal layer is disposed on one side or both sides of the substrate 120 (“base film layer”). Laramie illustrates the construct of being disposed [directly] on side of the substrate and [indirectly] on the other side such that both features could be met by a single-sided construct (see at least Figs. 2A-3). Laramie also teaches that double-sided electrode construct (P150).
Regarding claim 5, Laramie teaches wherein:
a [first] part (P61) [see gap portion(s) in any of Figs. 2A, 5-8B between either adjacent segments or between a segment and the end of the substrate], overlaid with neither the metal layer 122 nor the active material layer 130, of the substrate 120 (“base film layer”), forms a cut-off portion2 or a corner portion (see Figs. 2A, 5-8B; P61); and
a [second] part, overlaid with both the metal layer 11 and the active material layer 130, of of the substrate 120 (“base film layer”), forms a straight portion (see Figs. 2A, 5-8B).
Regarding claim 6, Laramie teaches wherein [respective] lengths of the metal layers 122 are equal to each other, and [respective] lengths of the active material layers 130 are equal to each other (see Figs. 2A, 5-8B).
Regarding claim 7, Laramie wherein the metal layers 122 are attached (“affixed”) to the substrate 120 (“base film layer”) by coating or deposition methods including casting, evaporative deposition (“vacuum evaporation”), vacuum deposition, spin coating, or sputtering (P113-115; see also P61).
While the specific method is taught, it is noted that the claim is a product-by-process claim that is evaluated solely for its implicit or explicit structure imparted to the product claim (MPEP§ 2113; case law quoted above in the rejection of claim 1 . In this case, the product-by-process feature is considered to require the metal layers 122 are affixed to the substrate 120 (“base film layer”), wherein alternative methods of achieving the affixing than those recited in the claim would provide metal layers that are the same as metal layers deposited in other manners (e.g., a sputtered metal layer would not have any intrinsic structure different from a vacuum evaporated layer).
Regarding claim 9, Laramie teaches an electrode assembly (see Fig. 6A-B and Figs. 9A-10B3), comprising a cathode (“positive electrode plate”), an anode (“a negative electrode plate”), and a separator (250 in Fig. 6B; 450 in Figs. 9A-1B) disposed between cathode (“positive electrode plate”) and the anode (“negative electrode plate”), wherein the cathode (“positive electrode plate”) is formed by4 the electrode plate according to claim 1, and/or, the anode (“negative electrode plate”) is formed by4 the electrode plate according to claim 1 (see P111-177; Figs. 6A-B and Figs. 9A-10B).
Regarding claim 10, Laramie teaches wherein the positive electrode plate is configured to form a discrete positive electrode plate by cutting a part of the [positive electrode plate] substrate 120 (“base film layer”), overlaid with neither the metal layer 122 nor the active material layer 130, [see gap portion(s) in any of Figs. 2A, 6A-6B 5-8B between adjacent segments that appear to meet at the structure necessary for the positive electrode plate to be considered “configured to” achieve the result achieved];
the negative electrode plate is configured to form a discrete negative electrode plate by cutting [a] part of the [negative electrode plate] substrate 120 (“base film layer”), overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer [see gap portion(s) in any of Figs. 2A, 6A-6B 5-8B between adjacent segments that appear to meet at the structure necessary for the positive electrode plate to be considered “configured to” achieve the result achieved]; and
the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are stacked alternately (Figs. 6A-6B, 9A-10B).
It is noted the claim is highly indefinite and the claim has been examined as best as possible in terms of prior art examination.
Regarding claim 14, Laramie teaches wherein the electrode assembly is configured to:
bend a [first] part of the substrate 120 (“base film layer”) of the cathode (“positive electrode plate”) overlaid with neither the metal layer 122 nor the active material layer 130,
bend a [first] part of the base film layer 120 of the anode (“negative electrode plate”), overlaid with neither the metal layer 122 nor the active material layer 130, so that:
a [second] part, overlaid with both the metal layer 122 nor the active material layer 130, of the positive electrode plate, and a [second] part, overlaid with both the metal layer 122 nor the active material layer 130, of the negative electrode plate are stacked alternately (see Figs. 6A-6B, 9A-10B; P13-15, 38, 118, P136; see footnote above).
12. Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishimura (JP 5371979 B2) (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Nishimura teaches an electrode plate (at least Figs. 1-2; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
a current collector (3, 2, 2) or (3, 6, 6), wherein the current collector comprises a base, resin film layer 3 and metal layers (2, 2) or (6, 6), and the metal layers are disposed on the base film layer 3 in a spaced-apart manner(Figs. 1-2; P7, 15); and
active material layers (1, 1 or 5, 5- respectively), wherein the active material layers are applied to the base film layer in a spaced-apart manner (see Figs. 1-2), and each active material layer at least partially covers a corresponding metal layer (Figs. 1-2; P15; not limited to entire disclosure):
PNG
media_image4.png
234
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1
PNG
media_image5.png
247
437
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2
Regarding claim 2, Nishimura teaches wherein the base film layer is non-conductive (P8; intrinsic to the taught materials thereof – see P13, 45, 49).
Regarding claim 3, Nishimura teaches wherein the metal layer is disposed on one side or both sides of the base film layer (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 5, Nishimura teaches wherein a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a cut-off portion or a corner portion; and a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a straight portion (see Fig. 2 embodiment).
Regarding claim 6, Nishimura teaches wherein lengths of the metal layers are equal to each other, and lengths of the active material layers are equal to each other (see Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 7, Nishimura wherein the metal layers are affixed to the base film layer by vacuum evaporation, bonding, or mechanical joining (P30).
Regarding claim 8, Nishimura teaches wherein a thickness of each of the metal layers ranges from 0.5 to 5 µm or 1-2 µm (P32). Nishimura also teaches examples that anticipate the range presented (P49-52; Fig. 2) with metal (copper) layers 2 of the negative electrode plate being 2µm thick, and metal (aluminum) layers 6 of positive electrode plate being 1 µm thick (P49).
Regarding claim 9, Nishimura teaches an electrode assembly (Figs. 2-3), comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate, wherein the positive electrode plate is formed by the electrode plate according to claim 1, and/or, the negative electrode plate is formed by the electrode plate according to claim 1 (Figs. 1-2; P15; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 10, Nishimura teaches wherein the positive electrode plate is configured to form a discrete positive electrode plate by cutting a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer (see Figs. 2-3 construct);
the negative electrode plate is configured to form a discrete negative electrode plate by cutting the part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer (see Figs. 2-3 construct); and the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are stacked alternately.
Regarding claims 11, note the instant claim is examined according to the Claim Interpretation section presented above (with respect to being indefinite and a compact prosecution rejection being made).
Nishimura teaches wherein a length of the discrete positive electrode plate is less than a length of the discrete negative electrode plate (see Fig. 1). With regard to the feature claimed, neither of the presented “lengths” are claimed relative to anything or defined even in the same direction as one another such that many interpretations exist. Accordingly, a length of the discrete positive electrode plate (5, 5, 3, 6, 6) that is less than a length of the discrete negative electrode plate could be the length in the left-right direction (using the reproduced figures above) of the metal layer 6 of positive electrode plate relative to a length of the resin layer 3 of the discrete negative electrode plate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, note the instant claim is examined according to the Claim Interpretation section presented above (with respect to being indefinite and a compact prosecution rejection being made).
Nishimura teaches wherein a length of the active material layer 5 (selecting the length as that in the left-right direction relative to reproduced figures above) of the discrete positive electrode plate (5, 5, 3, 6, 6) is less than a length (selecting the length as that in the left-right direction relative to the reproduced figures above) of active material layer 1 of the discrete negative electrode plate (Fig. 1).
Alternatively, to demonstrate the breadth of the claim, Nishimura teaches wherein a length of the active material layer 5 (selecting the length as that in the up-down direction relative to reproduced figures above) of the discrete positive electrode plate (5, 5, 3, 6, 6) is less than a length (selecting the length as that in the left-right direction relative to the reproduced figures above) of active material layer 1 of the discrete negative electrode plate (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Nishimura teaches wherein the electrode assembly is configured to:
bend a part (see leftmost part jutting out in the reproduced figures above), overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer 3 of the positive electrode plate,
bend a part (see leftmost part jutting out in the reproduced figures above), overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer of the negative electrode plate,
so that a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the positive electrode plate and a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the negative electrode plate are stacked alternately (Fig 1).
It is noted that that the leftmost “tabs” of the resin film layers, illustrated as capable of being bent in Fig. 2), fully meet the “configured to” statement in that these could be bent (i.e, “configured to bend”) and all the structure that is positively recited in the claim is met.
Regarding claim 15, note the instant claim is examined according to the Claim Interpretation section presented above (with respect to being indefinite and a compact prosecution rejection being made).
Nishimura teaches wherein a length of a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the (discrete?) positive electrode plate is less than or equal to a length of a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the (discrete?) negative electrode plate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Nishimura teaches a battery cell, comprising: a housing ; and the electrode assembly according to claim 9, wherein the electrode assembly is disposed in the housing (P44).
Regarding claim 17, Nishimura teaches a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 16 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(d) in which this claim is non-limiting as “a battery” does not require any additional intrinsic limitations to those already defined for “the battery cell according to claim 16”) (P2, 44).
Regarding claim 18, Nishimura teaches an electrical device, comprising the battery cell according to claim 16 (P1).
13. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peralta et al. (US 2018/0190992).
Regarding claim 1, Peralta teaches an electrode plate (Figs. 4-8; P32-40; 131-148), comprising:
a current collector (4, 5, 7), wherein the current collector comprises a base film layer 7 and metal layers (4, 5), and the metal layers are disposed on the base film 7 layer in a spaced-apart manner (see Figs. 4-8); and
active material layers (2, 3), wherein the active material layers (2, 3) are applied to the base film layer in a spaced-apart manner (Figs. 4-8); and each active material layer (2, 3) at least partially covers a corresponding metal layer (4, 5).
Regarding claim 2, Peralta teaches wherein the base film layer is non-conductive (P32).
Regarding claim 3, Peralta teaches wherein the metal layer is disposed on one side or both sides of the base film layer 7.
Regarding claim 4, Peralta teaches wherein each active material layer completely covers a corresponding metal layer (Figs. 4-8, specifically Fig. 5); interpreting the “corresponding metal layer” as the left-right protrusions extending from vertical base). It is noted that while the metal layers are claimed as being “in a spaced apart manner,” the claim does not allow for some connection of the layers at another location where they are not spaced apart.
Regarding claim 5, Peralta teaches wherein a part, overlaid with neither the metal layer nor the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a cut-off portion or a corner portion; and a part, overlaid with both the metal layer and the active material layer, of the base film layer, forms a straight portion (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 6, Peralta teaches wherein lengths of the metal layers are equal to each other, and lengths of the active material layers are equal to each other (Figs. 4-5)
Regarding claim 7, Peralta wherein the metal layers are affixed to the base film layer by vacuum evaporation, bonding, or mechanical joining (P75).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Laramie et al. (US 2020/0220149).
Regarding claim 16, Laramie teaches a battery cell (P38, 113, 118) comprising: the electrode assembly according to claim 9. Laramie does not explicitly teach a housing in which the electrode assembly is disposed; however, such would be intrinsic to the described battery that may utilize liquid electrolytes (P168-177). Without the use of a housing comprising the electrode assembly and the housing, the battery would not be capable of being achieved, accordingly a housing of the taught battery is considered intrinsic to the taught configuration (PP38, 113, 118, 168-177). Alternatively, in the instance that Applicant can demonstrate a possible means of provide a liquid electrolyte and an electrode assembly that provides a viable battery that lacks a housing, the feature is considered prima facie obvious to incorporate into the claimed construct in order to provide a viable means by which the battery cell and liquid electrolyte can be combined.
Regarding claim 17, Laramie teaches a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 16 (see rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(d) in which this claim is non-limiting as “a battery” does not require any additional intrinsic limitations to those already defined for “the battery cell according to claim 16”).
Regarding claim 18, Laramie teaches an electrical device, comprising the battery cell according to claim 16 (P82).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al. (US 2020/0220149) as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Laramie fails to teach wherein each active material layer 130 completely covers a corresponding metal layer 122; instead the figures illustrate partial coverage (of at least the top surface) of each corresponding metal layer 122 via its corresponding active material layer 130. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In addition, it is the position of the Examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the feature as claimed (see subsequent comments).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to alter the length/width dimensions of the active material layers 130 such that each completely covers the corresponding metal layer 122 (i.e., at least the top surface thereof) in view of design requirements and given that it is well known in the art that the amount of active material within an electrode dictates the charge/discharge capacity of a battery comprising same such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to alter the length/width dimensions of the active material layers 130 such that each is larger and completely covers a top surface of their corresponding metal layer 122.
Regarding the position of the Examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the feature as claimed (see subsequent comments), the figures of the instant application illustrate that the active material layers 30 are directly on the respective sides of the corresponding metal layer 24 (see cross-sections presented in Figs. 1-8; see P90 of the PGPUB), and then teaches that the metal layer 24 is not exposed to the external environment (P91). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the specification as teaching that the the active material layers 30 are directly on the respective sides of the corresponding metal layer 24 as well as the top surface thereof such that the active material layer entirely surrounds the corresponding metal layer 24. The claim does not present such a construct and merely recites that each active material layer “completely covers” a corresponding metal layer which may just be an active material layer on a top surface thereof having the same length and width dimensions of the underlying metal layer such that it completely covers the underlying metal layer.
In the interest of compact prosecution, the above comments are made because in the instance that Applicant amends the claims to recite such features (P90-91), it is entirely unclear how such a hypothetical electrode plate is operational (see claim analysis section above).
Regarding claim 8, Laramie is silent as to a thickness of each of the metal layers 122 (claimed range is from 0.01 μm to 3 μm). The metal layers 122 intrinsically have some thickness (see at least Figs. 2B-2C), wherein the metal layers 122 function to extract/relay electrons to/from the corresponding active material layers 130 in the construct of a rechargeable lithium battery (P38). As would be immediately understood by one having ordinary skill in the art, the goal of a rechargeable battery designer and its corresponding electrode plates is to maximize the amount of active material of an electrode plate and thus its capability for maximum charge/discharge capacity within a rechargeable battery, while providing the other remaining entities (e.g., current collector layers, separators, housing, etc.) in as small as a volume/thickness as possible while they perform their corresponding functions in order to achieve the highest charge/discharge capacity of the electrode plate and the battery. The courts has held: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the thickness of each of the the metal layers 122 in order to provide metal layers 122 viable to perform their functionality of extracting/relaying electrons to/from the corresponding active material layers 130 in the construct of a rechargeable lithium battery (P38), while not being present in so large a thickness/volume as to lessen the overall charge/discharge capacity of the electrode plate and the rechargeable battery comprising same.
17. Claim 4 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al. (US 2020/0220149) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2019/0267664).
Regarding claim 4, Laramie fails to teach wherein each active material layer 130 completely covers a corresponding metal layer 122; instead the figures illustrate partial coverage (of at least the top surface) of each corresponding metal layer 122 via its corresponding active material layer 130. In the same field of endeavor of an electrode plate (entire disclosure relied upon), Lin teaches it is a known technique to provide complete coverage of a current collector with an active material layer (P 26, 29) to ensure a protective effect of the current collector (P26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure each active material layer 130 of Laramie to completely cover a corresponding metal layer 122 given the technique and configuration are known in the art as taught by Lin, and provides the predictable result of ensuring a protective effect of the current collector as taught by Lin (P26, 29).
18. Claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laramie et al. (US 2020/0220149) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura (JP 5371979 B2) (machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 8, Laramie is silent as to a thickness of each of the metal layers 122 (claimed range is from 0.01 μm to 3 μm). In the same field of endeavor and teaching a construct that fully anticipates claim 1 (see rejection above in which Nishimura is applied as a primary reference), Nishimura teaches electrode plates including analogous metal layers 2 applied to a resin layer 3 to form a negative current collector, and metal layers 6 applied to a resin layer 3 to form a positive current collector to which respective active materials are applied in a spaced apart manner (P15; Figs 1-2), wherein Nishimura teaches the thickness of the applied metal layers may vary depending on the type of metal to be utilized, and generally teaches the ranges of 0.5 to 5 µm, or 1-2 µm (P32). Nishimura teaches that if the thickness is smaller than 0.5 µm, the strength of the metal layer is lowered and the internal resistance of the battery may be increased, whereas if larger than 5 µm, a useless volume is generated and the cost of forming the metal layer may increased (P32). Nishimura also teaches examples that anticipate the range presented (P49-52; Fig. 2) with metal (copper) layers 2 of the negative electrode plate being 2µm thick, and metal (aluminum) layers 6 of positive electrode plate being 1 µm thick (P49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure each of the metal layers 122 of Laramie within the thickness ranges of of 0.5 to 5 µm, or 1-2 µm (P32) given Laramie teaches this is a suitable range for the construct as claimed and the reasons for the upper and lower bounds to provide the predictable results/advantages described (P32). Furthermore, the thickness of the metal current collector layer is thus considered a known result effective variable such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to determine the optimum value and/or range for such for a given metal (P32), the court holding that the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
19. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 5371979 B2) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 2019/0267664).
Regarding claim 4, Nishimura fails to teach wherein each active material layer completely covers the corresponding metal layer (2, 2, 6, 6). In the same field of endeavor of an electrode plate (entire disclosure relied upon), Lin teaches it is a known technique to provide complete coverage of a current collector with an active material layer (P 26, 29) to ensure a protective effect of the current collector (P26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to configure each active material layer of Nishimura to completely cover a corresponding metal layer (2, 2, 6, 6) given the technique and configuration are known in the art as taught by Lin, and provides the predictable result of ensuring a protective effect of the current collector as taught by Lin (P26, 29).
20. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura (JP 5371979 B2) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claims 1, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of Liang et al. (US 2018/0198132).
Regarding claim 13, note the instant claim is examined according to the Claim Interpretation section presented above (with respect to being indefinite and a compact prosecution rejection being made).
Nishimura fails to the structure of the recited product claim that is claimed as a product-by-process feature: a length of the base film layer 3 of the discrete positive electrode plate is equal to a length of the active material layer and a length of the base film layer 3 of the discrete negative electrode plate is equal to a length of the active material (Fig. 1). The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In addition, it is the position of the Examiner that disclosure provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the feature claimed, wherein none of the presented “lengths” are claimed relative to anything or defined even in the same direction as one another such that many interpretations exist.
Moreover, the construct is known and taught by Liang in which an analogous discrete positive electrode plate 1 is stacked with an analogous discrete negative electrode plate 2, the discrete positive electrode plate 1 including an insulation resin layer 101 coated with metal layers 102 is provided with respective active material layers 11 thereon (Fig. 9; not limited to entire disclosure), and the discrete negative electrode plate 2 includes an insulation resin layer 201 coated with metal layers provided with respective active material layers 21 thereon. Liang teaches a length (measured in the left-right direction of Fig. 9) of the base film layer 101 of the positive electrode plate is equal to a length (also measured in the left-right direction of Fig. 9) of the active material layer 11 of the positive electrode plate (see Fig. 9), and a length of the base film layer 201 of the discrete negative electrode plate 2 is equal to a length of the active material layer 21 (see Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide this feature as a design modification to the configuration of Nishimura given Liang teaches the construct is known (Fig. 9), the configuration providing the predictable result of providing no extra/additional base layer beyond what is needed to support the corresponding metal and active material layers which in turn reduces cost of the base layer, as well removal of any additional volume within a battery not optimized for charge/discharge capacity features.
Conclusion
21. The prior art made of record below is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cai et al. (US 2021/0288330) teaches a current collector comprising a resin base layer 136 with metal layers 132, 135 thereon, wherein the active material layer (137, 137) [alternatively see also 153 applied to analogous metal layers) is applied so as to completely cover a corresponding a metal layer (see Fig. 1) and is an anticipatory reference against the majority, if not all, of the claims.
Liang et al. (US 2018/0198132) as applied above as a secondary reference fully anticipates the majority, if not all, of the claims.
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BILLIET, nee Barrow, whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula C Tavares-Crockett can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/AMANDA J BILLIET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 The written description must support such language if amended into the claim, wherein Applicant should cite support for any claim amendments made. See MPEP 2163, section 3(b); MPEP § 714.02; and MPEP § 2163.06:
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
"Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
2 Interpreted for compact prosecution purposes as “a portion capable of being cut-off…”
3 It is noted that Figs. 9A-10B illustrate continuous current collectors, the disclosure of Laramie explicitly teaches that these constructs may be used with a current collector domain comprising a plurality of current collector segments as shown in the prior figures (P136). See also the disclosure as a whole including P13-15, 38, 118.
4 See Claim Interpretation section; this is product-by-process language.
Prosecution Insights