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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: paragraph [0036] of the instant specification defines the reference characters including “L2” for the first preset length. L2 in reference to the first preset length also appears in paragraphs [0085]-[0088] and [00115] in the instant specification, but reference character “L2” is not included in any of the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3, 7-8 and 9 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "each of the separator bodies" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, only includes the limitation “a separator body…the separator body” with no indication of multiple separator bodies. Each separator body of claim 1 already requires a warning coating (one separator body with one warning coating). For the sake of examination, the examiner is interpreting each separator body to refer to the plurality of separator bodies introduced in claim 2.
In regards to claim 7, claim 7 includes the limitation “distances from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body are in the range of 1-1000 mm.” It is unclear if the distance defined by the 1-1000 mm is the sum of the distances from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body, or if each distance from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body is individually in the range of 1-1000 mm. For the sake of examination, either interpretation can be used. Claim 8 is rejected both for the same reason above with its respective range of 5-30 mm, and based on its dependency on claim 7.
The term “and the like” in claim 9, line 5 is an indefinite term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “and the like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the definition, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, it is unclear what the scope of possible materials for the formation of the warning coating is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda et al. (US 20170194611 A1), hereinafter Honda.
Regarding claim 1, Honda teaches a separator roll ([0001] microporous film roll for a battery separator), wherein the separator roll comprises: a separator body ([0037]), the separator body having a head end and a tail end in a length direction and being constructed to be capable of winding in the length direction to form a separator roll with the tail end as a roll core ([0037]; figs. 1-11); and a warning coating provided on the separator body ([0013]; [0017]; [0041];[0062] indicator part 18), the warning coating being configured to be spaced from the tail end by a first preset length ([0042] spaced 2 to 5 meters from an end of the separator material).
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (JP 2001035469 A), hereinafter Wada, cited using Espacenet translation, in view of Honda et al. (US 20170194611 A1), hereinafter Honda.
Regarding claim 1, Wada teaches a separator roll, wherein the separator roll comprises:
a separator body, the separator body having a head end and a tail end in a length direction and being constructed to be capable of winding in the length direction to form a separator roll with the tail end as a roll core ([0001] separator wound in a roll shape).
Wada fails to teach a warning coating provided on the separator body, the warning coating being configured to be spaced from the tail end by a first preset length.
Honda is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of separator rolls for batteries (Honda [0001]). Honda teaches a warning coating provided on the separator body ([0013]; [0017]; [0041];[0062] indicator part 18), the warning coating being configured to be spaced from the tail end by a first preset length ([0042] spaced 2 to 5 meters from an end of the separator material).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Wada and provided a warning coating on the separator body. Doing so allows for detection of the end part of the separator on the production line, quality of a separator and battery is improved, and production cost for the separator is reduced (Honda [0017]; [0041]-[0043]; [0061]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Wada also teaches wherein the separator roll comprises a plurality of the separator bodies, every two adjacent separator bodies being connected head-to-tail by a connecting member (Wada joint adhesive tape [0004]-[0005]), with a tail end of the separator body in the innermost layer forming the roll core (Wada fig. 1)
Regarding claim 3, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Wada also teaches wherein one warning coating is provided on each of the separator bodies (Honda [0042]; figs. 7-11).
Regarding claim 4, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Wada also teaches wherein the warning coating is provided on at least one surface of the separator body, and the warning coating extends along the length direction and/or width direction of the separator body (Honda figs. 7-11; [0042] 0.5 to 5 cm in the separator longitudinal direction; [0043] pattern may be along any direction).
Regarding claim 5, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Modified Wada also wherein the warning coating has a second preset length in the length direction of the separator body, the second preset length being in the range of 1–1000 mm (Honda [0042] 0.5 to 5 cm in the separator longitudinal direction). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Modified Wada also teaches wherein the second preset length is in the range of 10–50 mm (Honda [0042] 0.5 to 5 cm in the separator longitudinal direction). 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Modified Wada does not explicitly teach wherein in the width direction of the separator body, distances from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body are in the range of 1–1000 mm. Modified Wada does teach that the warning coating can be in a pattern, and that the pattern can be any pattern as long as the light shieldability or different reflectivity can be ensured (Honda [0043]). As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that in the width direction the distances from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body is optimizable as long as the light shieldability or different reflectivity can be ensured (Honda [0043]). "[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). Further, the patterns shown in fig. 7(c) of Honda show a striped pattern, where the stripes in the middle of the pattern include a distance in the width direction the distances from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body.
Regarding claim 8, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Modified Wada does not explicitly teach wherein in the width direction of the separator body, the distances from the two side edges of the warning coating to the two side edges of the separator body are in the range of 5–30 mm. Modified Wada does teach that the warning coating can be in a pattern, and that the pattern can be any pattern as long as the light shieldability or different reflectivity can be ensured (Honda [0043]). As such, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that in the width direction the distances from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body is optimizable as long as the light shieldability or different reflectivity can be ensured (Honda [0043]). "[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). Further, the patterns shown in fig. 7(c) of Honda show a striped pattern, where the stripes in the middle of the pattern include a distance in the width direction the distances from two side edges of the warning coating to two side edges of the separator body.
Regarding claim 10, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Wada also teaches wherein an RGB difference between the separator body and the warning coating is (a, b, c), wherein at least one of a, b, and c is not zero (Honda [0013] different in optical characteristics; [0041]-[0042] colored or character-printer).
Regarding claim 11, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Wada also teaches wherein the connecting member comprises a splicing adhesive formed by mixing one or more of polyethylene terephthalate, epoxy resin, polyurethane, unsaturated polyester resin, phenolic resin, polyacrylic resin, polyvinyl chloride resin, polysulfide rubber, silicone rubber, polyurethane rubber, neoprene rubber, and butyl rubber, to bond a head end and a tail end for two adjacent separator bodies ([0004] polyolefin based material, polyester based material, acrylic adhesive, polyvinyl chloride based material; a person of ordinary skill in the art would know that a polyvinyl chloride resin is a polyvinyl chloride based material).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Wada also teaches an electrode assembly, comprising a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator disposed therebetween for separation, wherein the separator comprises the separator body and the warning coating provided on the separator body in the separator roll according to claim 1 ([0003] separator encloses either the anode plate or cathode plate, meaning it would be between the two plates; separators interposed between cathodes and anodes is well known in the art).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Honda as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hasegawa et al. (US-20170263913-A1), hereinafter Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 13, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 12. Wada does not explicitly teach wherein the battery cell comprises a housing and the electrode assembly accommodated in the housing according to claim 12, however, a housing for the battery cell would be inherent to the lead acid battery. For example, Hasegawa also teaches a lead-acid battery with a bag-like separator ([0027]; fig. 3). Hasegawa teaches that the battery cell comprises a housing and the electrode assembly accommodated in the housing (fig. 1A; [0020] case 3 and cover 5)
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the lead acid battery of Wada would inherently be accommodated in a housing such as in Hasegawa. Doing so is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Modified Wada also teaches a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 13 (Wada [0003]-[0004] lead-acid battery).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 14. Modified Wada also teaches an electric device, comprising the battery according to claim 14, wherein the battery is configured to supply electrical energy (Wada [0007] automotive lead-acid battery).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in view of Honda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US-20200203459-A1), hereinafter Wang
Regarding claim 9, modified Wada teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Modified Wada teaches that the warning coating is formed by an inkjet printer, laser printer, or magic marker (Honda [0016]), with a preference for a quickly drying material (Honda [0044]). Modified Wada fails to teach wherein the warning coating is formed by mixing one or more of rubber, polyacrylic acid, polymethacrylic acid, methyl polyacrylate, ethyl acrylate, pure acrylic emulsion, polyacrylic acid-styrene copolymer, polyvinylpyrrolidone, epoxy resin, neopentyl glycol diacrylate, sodium polyacrylate series, fluorine-containing polyolefins, and the like. However, materials such as epoxy resin and acrylic polymers are known inkjet materials. For example, Wang teaches that epoxy resin and acrylic polymers are common inkjet materials (Wang [0065]). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the inkjet material of modified Wada can be an epoxy resin or acrylic polymer as demonstrated by Wang as these materials are commonly known in the art as inkjet materials.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights