Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20150155528A1 (Takahashi).
Claim 1, Takahashi teaches a power storage unit and a secondary battery comprising: a laminated body comprising a positive electrode current collector, a separator, and a negative electrode current collector [0052] surrounded by an exterior body, wherein the secondary battery comprises a bent portion [0144], wherein a positive electrode active material layer is provided over the positive electrode current collector, wherein a negative electrode active material layer is provided over the negative electrode current collector [0093-0094], and wherein the negative electrode active material layer comprises a lithium film [0095-0098]. It is noted, the following “a bent portion capable of being bent” is considered a functional limitation; Regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).Since Takahashi teaches the exterior body is made of a resin [0127], which is bendable, the claim limitation is accordingly met fully and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 2, Takahashi teaches wherein the negative electrode active material layer, with regards to is formed by an evaporation method or a sputtering method, this is considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim 3, Takahashi teaches wherein the exterior body is an embossed film comprising parallel grooves or intersecting grooves [0145-0147; 0127-0128].
Claim 6, Takahashi teaches wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises lithium cobalt oxide with a median diameter of less than or equal to 10 µm [0068-0072; 0078].
Claim 7, Takahashi teaches wherein the positive electrode active material layer comprises a positive electrode active material particle comprising nickel, cobalt, and manganese [0069-0072].
Claim 8, Takahashi teaches an electronic device comprising: the secondary battery according to claim 1 [0052].
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150155528A1 (Takahashi) further in view of US20240055702A1 (Ota).
Claim 4, Takahashi does not teach wherein the laminated body comprises a stack of a first negative electrode current collector and a second negative electrode current collector in contact with the first negative electrode current collector. Ota teaches a single pouch battery cells [abs]; and teaches the first/second negative current collectors as claimed [0174-0178]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi in view of Ota to have the first/second negative current collectors to be in contact with one another as this provides numerous benefits for a battery structure [0052]; one of which is it can reduce or eliminate such fire hazard because all welding processes can be performed after each individual battery cell contained in the pouch, thereby preventing welding sparks from reaching the electrolyte and igniting the electrolyte [0052].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20150155528A1 (Takahashi) further in view of US20210020927A1 (Youn)
Claim 5, Takahashi does not teach wherein the lithium film has a thickness greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 10 µm. Youn teaches a lithium electrode [abs]; and the thickness of the lithium layer is from 1 µm to 20 µm; which falls within the claimed range [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi in view of Youn and incorporate the thickness of the lithium layer within the claimed range as this would enhance the battery’s performance [0054].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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 Ruddock 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights