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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 4, line 1, please change “accord’ ing” to –according--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2006012703 (Kojima) (cited on IDS filed 05/23/2024).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kojima discloses a secondary battery comprising packaging shell (nickel-plated steel battery can 19), a stack of positive and negative electrode plates (Figure 4), and insulating sheets formed on both sides of the stacked positive and negative electrode plates. Each set of positive and negative electrode plates is considered an electrode assembly and are separated by insulating thin plate/sheet (9) such as a polypropylene sheet. The coating amount of positive and negative electrode mixtures differs between the two stacks. The negative plates are formed with a current collector (copper foil) and a negative electrode mixture (active material) of carbon powder, PVDF (binder) and acetylene black (conductive agent) form a mixture layer on the current collector. The weight per unit area of the mixture layer is set to 35 g / m2 (53.9mg/1540.25 mm2) on one side of the copper foil in the negative electrode plate (2) and is set to 70 g / m2 (107.8mg/1540.25 mm2) in the negative electrode plate (4) providing a difference of 53.9mg /1540.25 mm2 which falls within the claimed range of 30-100 mg/1540.25 mm2 [0021]. The battery may be used in various electronic apparatuses such as mobile phones, computers etc.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the coating weight of the first negative electrode plate (2) is 35 g / m2 (53.9mg/1540.25 mm2) which falls within the claimed range of 50-140mg/mm2.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the first positive electrode plate comprises a layer weight of 120 g / m2 (184.8 mg/1540.25 mm2) one side of the aluminum foil in the positive electrode plate 1 and 240 g /m2 (396.6 mg/1540.25 mm2) in the positive electrode plate 3 providing a difference of 184.8 mg/1540.25 mm2
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kojima discloses a plurality of current collection tabs are formed at every certain length of a collector.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 19 and 20, Kojima discloses an accommodation cavity as discussed above where plate (9) is provided between the electrode assemblies as shown in Figure 4. The presence of the insulating sheet is considered to provide a separation into a first cavity and a second cavity where the first positive and first negative electrodes are provided in a first cavity, and the second positive and second negative electrodes are provided in the second cavity. The insulating sheet may be made of polypropylene or polyethylene [0035].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or 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) 3, 6, 7, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006012703 (Kojima) (cited on IDS filed 05/23/2024).
Kojima discloses the secondary batter used in electronic apparatuses as discussed above but does not give additional values for the coating weights of the negative and positive electrode plates.
Kojima discloses that when the positive and negative electrode plates have different coating amounts/weights, both high output and high capacity can be achieved. Kojima discloses that the amounts are not limited to the example only and may be selected as appropriate within the range that is usually used. In other words, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to adjust the coating amounts.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, as stated above the coating weight of the second negative active material layer is 70 g / m2 (107.8mg/1540.25 mm2) which is outside the range of 130-170 mg/1540.25 mm2), however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to optimize the coating amounts to adjust the discharge voltage and to make accommodations for different types of active materials, binders and conductive agents that are used to form the layer.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the first positive electrode plate comprises a layer weight of 120 g / m2 (184.8 mg/1540.25 mm2) on one side of the aluminum foil in the positive electrode plate 1 and 240 g /m2 (396.6 mg/1540.25 mm2) in the positive electrode plate 3 providing a difference of 184.8 mg/1540.25 mm2. This difference is outside the range claimed of 50-150 mg/1540.25 mm2. However, as noted above, Kojima is not limited to the single example only and optimization of the coating amounts and differences thereof between electrode sets would have been obvious to adjust the discharge voltage and to make accommodations for different types of active materials, binders and conductive agents that are used to form the layer.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the first positive electrode plate comprises a layer weight of 120 g / m2 (184.8 mg/1540.25 mm2) which is within the claimed range of 150-250 mg/1540.25 mm2).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2006012703 (Kojima) (cited on IDS filed 05/23/2024) in view of WO 2020/155993 (Huang).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kojima discloses the secondary battery discussed above and discloses carbon as the active material in the negative active material layer, but does not disclose graphite and does not disclose average particle sized thereof. Huang discloses a negative pole piece comprising a current collector having an active material thereon. The active material (both the first and second active materials) may be a carbon material such as graphite. It would have been obvious to select a known negative active carbon material as disclosed by Huang as the negative active material for the layer of Kojima as graphite is exemplary of a carbon material used as an active material in a negative electrode plate of a secondary battery. One of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success since Kojima discloses carbon material and Huang discloses graphite as a carbon material and uses the material in the same capacity.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Huang further discloses that two active material layers may be present where there is a size differential between the active materials of the two layers. The smaller the average particle size the second active material is, the more fully the contact with the electrolyte is, the more conducive to the charge exchange between active ions and electrons, which is more conducive to the rapid charging of the battery. The average particle size (D50) of the second active material is 5 μm-40 μm; more preferably, it is 8 μm-35 μm. It would have been obvious to adjust the particle size of the graphite active material of each layer to optimize the charging speed of the battery. Absent a showing of unexpected results, adjusting the size of the graphite particles is seen to be within the level of ordinary skill based upon its known effect as demonstrated by Huang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1723
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
