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 .
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saimaru et al. (US 20130157094 A1, “Saimaru”) in view of Takabayashi et al. (WO 2020158255 A1, “Takabayashi”, US 20220094024 A1 used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Saimaru discloses a battery (see abstract “secondary battery”), comprising: a charge/discharge body including electrodes each having a collector and an active material (see abstract “battery container which contains the electrode group therein” & see [0040] “positive and negative current collector foils, i.e., metallic foils, each having an active material mixture applied onto both sides of the metallic foil”); and a current collection member bonded to the collector (see FIG. 4 describes “6F” & see [0040] “designates a coated portion onto which an active material mixture is applied”), wherein the collector (see [0045] “connecting plate 5B” & “a joint leaf 54B which is the lower half portion of the side portion 52B and is curved toward the electrode group 6, namely, curved along the wide surface 104 of the battery casing 1 at a substantially right angle”) includes a first stiff portion having predetermined stiffness, and a second stiff portion adjacent to the first stiff portion (see [0045] see [0045] “The joint leaf 54B and side portion 52B together form a unified structure having an L-shaped cross-section and have high strength and high rigidity” & see [0068] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are prevented from turning upward”), and the other of the current collection member and the collector are bonded to each other (see [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B”). Regarding the limitation and higher in stiffness than the first stiff portion, and wherein the second stiff portion provided in at least one selected from the group of the current collection member and the collector, Saimaru does not explicitly disclose higher stiffness, however, stiffness is an inherent property of the material.
Takabayashi teaches variation in thickness (see FIG. 1 describes “8x irregularities formed part” & “8 negative electrode current collector” & “negative electrode core body stacked part 50” & [0063] describes “8” & “50” are ultrasonically joined & see [0075] "Note that the oxidized film 8y has a sufficiently greater thickness than that of a normal oxidized film formed on the surface of copper or copper alloy” & see FIG.10 describes “8y” & “8x” & difference in thickness reads on difference in stiffness). Takabayashi teaches in [0032] “it is possible to provide the secondary battery with reduced short circuit between the positive plate and the negative plate”.
Saimaru and Takabayashi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate difference in thickness as suggested by Takabayashi (see FIG. 1, [0063], [0075], FIG. 10) into the battery of Saimaru because doing so reduces short circuit as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0074]).
Regarding claim 2, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 1, and further discloses wherein a bonding portion provided in at least one selected from the group of the current collection member and the collector, and the other of the current collection member and the collector are bonded to each other (see [0045] “The joint leaf 54B and side portion 52B together form a unified structure having an L-shaped cross-section and have high strength and high rigidity” &
see [0068] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are prevented from turning upward” & see [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B”). Saimaru does not explicitly disclose higher stiffness, however, stiffness is an inherent property of the material.
Takabayashi teaches variation in thickness (see FIG. 1 describes “8x irregularities formed part” & “8 negative electrode current collector” & “negative electrode core body stacked part 50” & [0063] describes “8” & “50” are ultrasonically joined & see [0075] “Note that the oxidized film 8y has a sufficiently greater thickness than that of a normal oxidized film formed on the surface of copper or copper alloy” & see FIG.10 describes “8y” & “8x” & difference in thickness reads on difference in stiffness). Takabayashi teaches in [0032] “it is possible to provide the secondary battery with reduced short circuit between the positive plate and the negative plate”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate difference in thickness as suggested by Takabayashi (see FIG. 1, [0063], [0075], FIG. 10) into the battery of Saimaru because doing so reduces short circuit as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0074]).
Regarding claim 3, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the current collection member and the collector are bonded by ultrasonic waves (see [0059] “ultrasonic bonding sites of the joint leaves 54A, 54B”; see [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B” &
see FIG. 2 “electrode group 6” & “54A” & “6EE”). Saimaru discloses ultrasonic bonding (see [0059]) and a skilled artisan would recognize inherently contains ultrasonic waves.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim(s) 3 “wherein the current collection member and the collector are bonded by ultrasonic waves”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a 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 MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 4, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 1. Saimaru does not explicitly disclose wherein in the current collection member or the collector, a second thickness of the second stiff portion is thinner than a first thickness of the first stiff portion, however, stiffness is a property of the material.
Takabayashi teaches variation in thickness (see FIG. 1 describes “8x irregularities formed part” & “8 negative electrode current collector” & “negative electrode core body stacked part 50” & [0063] describes “8” & “50” are ultrasonically joined & see [0075] “Note that the oxidized film 8y has a sufficiently greater thickness than that of a normal oxidized film formed on the surface of copper or copper alloy” & see FIG.10 describes “8y” & “8x” & difference in thickness reads on difference in stiffness). Takabayashi teaches in [0032] “it is possible to provide the secondary battery with reduced short circuit between the positive plate and the negative plate”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate difference in thickness as suggested by Takabayashi (see FIG. 1, [0063], [0075], FIG. 10) into the battery of Saimaru because doing so reduces short circuit as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0074]).
Regarding claim 5, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 4 and further discloses in [0045] “The joint leaf 54B and side portion 52B together form a unified structure having an L-shaped cross-section and have high strength and high rigidity”.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim(s) 5 “wherein the second stiff portion is formed by plastically deforming at least one selected from the group of the current collection member and the collector”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a 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 MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 7, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the current collection member on the positive electrode side contains aluminum (see [0036] “the positive side are formed from an aluminum alloy”), and wherein the current collection member on the negative electrode side contains copper (see [0026] “negative side are formed from a copper alloy”). Regarding the limitation wherein the first stiff portion and the second stiff portion are provided on at least one side of a positive electrode or a negative electrode of the electrodes, Saimaru does not explicitly disclose higher stiffness, however, stiffness is a property of the material.
Takabayashi teaches variation in thickness (see FIG. 1 describes “8x irregularities formed part” & “8 negative electrode current collector” & “negative electrode core body stacked part 50” & [0063] describes “8” & “50” are ultrasonically joined & see [0075] “Note that the oxidized film 8y has a sufficiently greater thickness than that of a normal oxidized film formed on the surface of copper or copper alloy” & see FIG.10 describes “8y” & “8x” & difference in thickness reads on difference in stiffness). Takabayashi teaches in [0032] “it is possible to provide the secondary battery with reduced short circuit between the positive plate and the negative plate”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate difference in thickness as suggested by Takabayashi (see FIG. 1, [0063], [0075], FIG. 10) into the battery of Saimaru because doing so reduces short circuit as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0074]).
Regarding claim 10, Saimaru discloses a method for producing a battery (see abstract “secondary battery” & see [0057] “method for producing the rectangular secondary battery”) including: a charge/discharge body (see abstract “battery container which contains the electrode group therein”) including electrodes each having a collector and an active material (see [0040] “positive and negative current collector foils, i.e., metallic foils, each having an active material mixture applied onto both sides of the metallic foil”); and a current collection member bonded to the collector (see FIG. 4 describes “6F” & see [0040] “designates a coated portion onto which an active material mixture is applied”), and in which the collector (see [0045] “connecting plate 5B” & “a joint leaf 54B which is the lower half portion of the side portion 52B and is curved toward the electrode group 6, namely, curved along the wide surface 104 of the battery casing 1 at a substantially right angle”) includes a first stiff portion having predetermined stiffness, and a second stiff portion adjacent to the first stiff portion (see [0045] see [0045] “The joint leaf 54B and side portion 52B together form a unified structure having an L-shaped cross-section and have high strength and high rigidity” & see [0068] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are prevented from turning upward”), and the other of the current collection member and the collector are bonded to each other (see [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B”). Regarding the limitation the method comprising: a producing process of laminating and bonding the second stiff portion provided in at least one selected from the group of the current collection member and the collector, and the other of the current collection member and the collector to each other, Saimaru discloses in [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B.” & a skilled artisan would recognize ultrasonic bonding reads on laminating and bonding. Regarding the limitation and higher in stiffness than the first stiff portion, Saimaru does not explicitly disclose higher stiffness, however, stiffness is an inherent property of the material.
Takabayashi teaches variation in thickness (see FIG. 1 describes “8x irregularities formed part” & “8 negative electrode current collector” & “negative electrode core body stacked part 50” & [0063] describes “8” & “50” are ultrasonically joined & see [0075] "Note that the oxidized film 8y has a sufficiently greater thickness than that of a normal oxidized film formed on the surface of copper or copper alloy” & see FIG.10 describes “8y” & “8x” & difference in thickness reads on difference in stiffness). Takabayashi teaches in [0032] “it is possible to provide the secondary battery with reduced short circuit between the positive plate and the negative plate”.
Saimaru and Takabayashi are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely secondary batteries (see title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate difference in thickness as suggested by Takabayashi (see FIG. 1, [0063], [0075], FIG. 10) into the battery of Saimaru because doing so reduces short circuit as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0074]).
Regarding claim 11, Saimaru discloses the method for producing a battery of claim 10 and further discloses wherein in the producing process, the current collection member and the collector are bonded by ultrasonic waves (see [0059] “ultrasonic bonding sites of the joint leaves 54A, 54B” & see [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B” & see FIG. 2 “electrode group 6” & “54A” & “6EE” & a skilled artisan would recognize ultrasonic bonding would inherently contain ultrasonic waves).
Regarding claim 12, Saimaru discloses the method for producing a battery of claim 10. Saimaru does not explicitly disclose wherein in the producing process, the stiffness of the second stiff portion is made higher than the stiffness of the first stiff portion by pressing the second stiff portion, however, stiffness is an inherent property of the material and Saimaru discloses compressing (see [0049]).
Takabayashi teaches in FIG. 4 describes pressing with “90a” & “91a” & see [0069] describes “clamped by a horn 90 and an anvil 91” which clamped reads on pressing & see [0070] describes “application of ultrasonic vibration to the horn 90 allows the negative electrode core bodies 5a in the negative electrode core body stacked part 50 as well as the negative electrode core body stacked part 50 and the lead part 8b to be joined”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “clamped by a horn 90 and an anvil 91” as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0069]) & “application of ultrasonic vibration to the horn 90” into the method of Saimaru because doing so joins the parts (see Takabayashi [0070]) & further doing so reduces short circuit as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0032]).
Regarding claim 14, Saimaru discloses the method for producing a battery according to claim 10 and further discloses in [0049] “formed by compressing the uncoated portion 6A into a plane, and the joint leaf 54A are ultrasonic bonded together at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2”. Saimaru does not explicitly disclose wherein in the producing process, a reduction ratio S of the thickness of the second stiff portion is set to 0%<S≤10% by pressing the second stiff portion.
Takabayashi teaches in [0075] “For example, the thickness of the oxidized film 8y formed by the oxidation treatment is preferably greater than or equal to twice the thickness of a naturally oxidized film present on the surface of a portion where the oxidation treatment has not been performed, more preferably greater than or equal to five times the thickness, and further preferably greater than or equal to 10 times the thickness. FIG. 8 (b) is a cross-sectional view taken along VIIIb-VIIIb in FIG. 10” & greater than or equal to 10 times the thickness reads on ≤10% reduction ratio of thickness.
Takabayashi teaches a range of greater than or equal to 10 times the thickness, which overlaps with the claimed range of reduction ratio of the thickness is less than or equal to 0%<S≤10%. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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 15, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the current collection member and the collector are bonded by ultrasonic waves (see [0059] “ultrasonic bonding sites of the joint leaves 54A, 54B”; see [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B” &
see FIG. 2 “electrode group 6” & “54A” & “6EE”). Saimaru discloses ultrasonic bonding (see [0059]) and a skilled artisan would recognize inherently contains ultrasonic waves.
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim(s) 15 “wherein the current collection member and the collector are bonded by ultrasonic waves”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a 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 MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 16, Saimaru discloses the method for producing a battery of claim 11. Saimaru does not explicitly disclose wherein in the producing process, the stiffness of the second stiff portion is made higher than the stiffness of the first stiff portion by pressing the second stiff portion, however, stiffness is an inherent property of the material and Saimaru discloses compressing (see [0049]).
Takabayashi teaches in FIG. 4 describes pressing with “90a” & “91a” & see [0069] describes “clamped by a horn 90 and an anvil 91” which clamped reads on pressing & see [0070] describes “application of ultrasonic vibration to the horn 90 allows the negative electrode core bodies 5a in the negative electrode core body stacked part 50 as well as the negative electrode core body stacked part 50 and the lead part 8b to be joined”.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “clamped by a horn 90 and an anvil 91” as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0069]) & “application of ultrasonic vibration to the horn 90” into the method of Saimaru because doing so joins the parts (see Takabayashi [0070]) & further doing so reduces short circuit as suggested by Takabayashi (see [0032]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saimaru et al. (US 20130157094 A1, “Saimaru”) in view of Takabayashi et al. (WO 2020158255 A1, “Takabayashi”, US 20220094024 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2014003185 A1, “Tanaka” machine translation used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 6, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second thickness of the second stiff portion provided in at least one selected from the group of the current collection member and the collector is thicker than a third thickness of the other of the current collection member and the collector.
Tanaka teaches adding a resin which reads on increasing thickness (see FIG. 13 “419 resin” & “cover member 413” & “407” & “417 joints” & “as shown in FIG. 13, the surface of the junction part 417 (three junction parts 417a, 417b, 417c) is covered with the resin 419. In FIG. By covering the surface of the joint portion 417 with the resin 419 in this way, burrs generated at the time of joining are also covered with the resin 419. Therefore, it is possible to make it difficult for an operator to be injured during battery assembly. Such a structure can be used not only in the fifth embodiment but also in other embodiments of the present invention.”).
Saimaru and Tanaka are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely current collection structure of secondary cell (see Tanaka title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate “419 resin” into the battery of Saimaru (see FIG. 13) which describes adding a thickness because doing so “make[s] it harder for workers to be injured during battery assembly” as suggested by Tanaka (see [0038]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saimaru et al. (US 20130157094 A1, “Saimaru”) in view of Takabayashi et al. (WO 2020158255 A1, “Takabayashi”, US 20220094024 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Maeda et al. (JP 2017199651 A, “Maeda”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 8, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first stiff portion and the second stiff portion are provided only on the positive electrode side.
Maeda teaches at complicated angles, reinforcement is used to improve the joining strength (see FIG. 9 & FIG. 16A & 16B describes “swaged joint portion 90” & describes “54c end portion of the cover member 54” & “90b” & [0050] describes “deformed shapes of the pos. electrode current collecting tab group 90b and the cover member 54 are complicated at the outer recessed portion 21 and the periphery thereof, whereby the joining strength between the second connecting portion 52, the pos. electrode current collecting tab group 21d, and the cover member 54 is improved” & [0051] describes “joining strength at the swaged joint portion 90 is improved”).
Saimaru and Maeda are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely positive electrode current collector (see [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reinforcing at complicated angles, as suggested by Maeda (see FIG. 9, FIG. 16, [0050], [0051]) into the battery of Saimaru because doing so improves the joining strength at the joint portion at the pos. electrode side as suggested by Maeda (see [0051]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saimaru et al. (US 20130157094 A1, “Saimaru”) in view of Takabayashi et al. (WO 2020158255 A1, “Takabayashi”, US 20220094024 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cyr et al. (US 20070134551 A1, “Cyr”) and Lee et al. (US 20220037747 A1, “Lee”).
Regarding claim 9, Saimaru discloses the battery of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the current collection member and the collector are bonded (see [0059] “the electrode plate end portions 6EE, 6DE are fixed by welding at the ultrasonic bonding sites 8A1, 8A2, 8B1, 8B2 in the joint leaves 54A, 54B” & see [0050] “The joint leaves 54A, 54B have, respectively, the same polarities as the polarities of the corresponding metallic foil exposed portions”). Saimaru does not explicitly disclose bonded via an adhesive member having conductivity.
Cyr teaches bonded with adhesive (see FIG. 6 & see [0043] “Preferably, the pressure is applied with a punch or a crimping tool to produce a strong mechanical connection between the current collecting terminal 82 and the current collecting elements 74 and 76. Generally, the crimping pressure alone is sufficient to bind the current collecting terminals with their associated current collecting elements, and bind the current collecting elements together. However, additional or other binding means (e.g., ultrasonic welding, riveting, laser welding, arc welding, pressure welding, soldering, adhesives, etc.) may be required in certain circumstances to improve the mechanical connections and therefore the electrical connections between all the various components.”).
Saimaru and Cyr are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to incorporate bonding with an adhesive, as suggested by Cyr into the battery of Saimaru because doing so “improve[s] the mechanical connections” as suggested by Cyr (see [0043]).
Lee teaches conductive adhesive (see [0060] “A current collecting region 141 of the second current collecting plate 140 may be coupled to the bottom portion 151, and welding may be used for coupling thereof or a conductive adhesive may also be used. Accordingly, the bottom portion 151 may have the same polarity as the second current collecting plate 140”).
Saimaru and Lee are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate conductive adhesive, as suggested by Lee (see [0060]) into the battery of Saimaru because doing so allows for the material to have the same polarity as the current collecting plate as suggested by Lee (see [0060]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saimaru et al. (US 20130157094 A1, “Saimaru”) in view of Takabayashi et al. (WO 2020158255 A1, “Takabayashi”, US 20220094024 A1 used herein for citation purposes) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (JP 2005071844 A, “Sato”, the machine translation is used herein for citation purposes).
Regarding claim 13, Saimaru discloses the method for producing a battery of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose wherein in the producing process, the stiffness is determined by Young's modulus, however, Young’s modulus is a reflection of the material’s elasticity which is an inherent property.
Sato teaches determining Young’s modulus (see [0033] “Young’s modulus” & “current collector which has a higher porosity and is less likely to be crushed even by the pressure at the time of filling the active material, and it is possible to fill a large amount of the active material, so that an electrochemical element having a large capacity can be produced, which is preferable”) & in [0019] describes Young’s Modulus is calculated according to JIS L 1015: 1999 & “the higher the Young’s modulus of the high-Young modulus fiber is, the more excellent the properties are”.
Saimaru and Sato are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries (see Sato title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate measuring the property of the material using Young’s modulus as suggested by Sato (see [0033], [0019]) into the method of Saimaru because doing so uses a common measuring technique to measure the material property as suggested by Sato (see [0019]) and further doing so also for an electrochemical element with a large capacity to be manufactured, as suggested by Sato (see [0033]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 10/07/2026
Prosecution Insights