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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2023-086246, filed on May 25, 2023.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/646,244 in view of Yang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0050957). The primary reference application, 18/646,244, teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 of the instant application with the exception of at least one of the upper folded portion and the lower folded portion is provided with a discharge hole for discharging gas (Claim 1).
To solve the same problem of gas accumulation in an electrode assembly, Yang teaches a fan folded separator 100 including a vent 110 on the folded sections of the separator ([0069] and Figure 11). Therefore, absent of a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the power storage cell of Application No. 18/646,244 to include vents in the folded portion of the separator, as in Yang, because Yang teaches gas may discharge out of the vent ([0069]).
Modifying the power storage cell of Application No. 18/646,244 to include vents for gas discharge on the folded portion of the separator, as in Yang, teaches the limitations of instant Claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0050957).
Yang teaches a power storage cell comprising: an electrode assembly; and a cell case containing the electrode assembly ([0020] teaches an electrode assembly and a battery case), wherein the electrode assembly includes: a plurality of electrodes arranged in one direction ([0041] teaches a plurality of cathode plates 200 and anode plates 300); and a separator formed in a fanfold shape and electrically insulating the plurality of electrodes from each other, the separator includes: a plurality of intervening portions each intervening between a pair of electrodes adjacent to each other in the one direction ([0067]-[0070] teaches the separator arrangement shown in Figure 11 in a fanfold shape); an upper folded portion connecting an upper end of one intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions, and an upper end of an intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions that is located on one side in the one direction and adjacent to the one intervening portion; and a lower folded portion connecting a lower end of the one intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions, and a lower end of an intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions that is located on the other side in the one direction and adjacent to the one intervening portion ([0067]-[0071] and Figure 11 teach the intervening portions between folded portions at each end of the electrode assembly), and at least one of the upper folded portion and the lower folded portion is provided with a discharge hole for discharging gas ([0069] and Figure 11 teach the use of the vent 110 at the folded portion where gas may discharge).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above in the embodiment of Figure 11.
In the embodiment of figure 11, Yang does not teach the separator further includes an outermost covering portion covering the upper folded portion and the lower folded portion collectively, and the outermost covering portion is provided with the discharge hole.
In another embodiment, however, Yang teaches the separator further includes an outermost covering portion covering the upper folded portion and the lower folded portion collectively (Figures 9 and 10 teach the separator including an outer covering section, wrapping the entire electrode assembly), and the outermost covering portion is provided with the discharge hole (Figures 9 and 10 teach the presence of a vent 110 on the outermost portion of the separator 100).
To solve the same problem of allowing gas to discharge through a separator to escape an electrode assembly, Yang teaches that wrapping the separator around the entire electrode assembly and providing vent holes on this outermost layer is suitable structure to allow gas to discharge ([0064] and Figures 9 and 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included an outermost covering portion that includes discharge holes.
Regarding Claim 3, modified Yang teaches all the limitations of claim 2 as described above.
Modified Yang does not teach the discharge hole provided in the outermost covering portion overlaps, in a top-bottom direction, with the discharge hole provided in at least one of the upper folded portion and the lower folded portion.
In the same embodiment that is taught in Figures 9 and 10 Yang teaches the discharge hole provided in the outermost covering portion overlaps, in a top-bottom direction, with the discharge hole provided in at least one of the upper folded portion and the lower folded portion ([0051]-[0054] and Figure 5 teach that the vents 110 of the outermost and more inner layers of the separator 100 overlap to form a predetermined passage, allowing for easier flow of gas).
To solve the same problem of allowing gas to discharge though a separator to escape an electrode assembly, Yang teaches aligning the vents disposed on multiple layers of separators in order to provide a clear passage for gas to flow ([0051]-[0054] and Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have aligned the discharge hole on the folded portion with the discharge hole on the outermost layer such that the holes overlap in order to provide an unimpeded path for gas to flow.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heon (KR 100861705 B1) teaches a separator wrapped around a plurality of cells with holes in the separator to facilitate electrolyte access.
Choi (US 2025/0007002) teaches a plurality of stacked electrodes with a separator in a fanfold assembly where an extended end of the separator is wrapped around the entire assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN G. DIAMOND whose telephone number is (571)270-5888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/B.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights