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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2017143004A to Nakamura (machine translation relied upon herein).
Regarding claims 1-6, 9-16, 19, and 20, Nakamura teaches an electronic device (“energy storage device”10, described on p. 2 of the translation), comprising a secondary battery (bottom of p. 2 of translation), the secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 400 (shown in full in Fig. 3, passage spanning p. 3, 4 of translation), the electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate 410 and a negative electrode plate 420 (Figs. 4, 5, p. 4, 5 of translation), the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate are stacked up, wherein
The positive electrode plate 410 comprises a positive current collector 411 and a positive active material layer 414 disposed on a surface of the positive current collector
The negative electrode plate 420 comprises a negative current collector 421 and a negative active material layer 424 disposed on a surface of the negative current collector
The positive active material layer 414 is oriented toward the negative active material layer 424 (a portion of 414 is formed across from a portion of 424 with only a separator 450 between)
In a width direction X of the positive electrode plate 410, the negative active material layer 424 comprises two opposite first edges (see Marked-up Figs. 3, 4 below)
The positive active material layer 414 comprises two opposite second edges (Marked-up Figs. 3, 4)
The two second edges are located between the two first edges (Fig. 4 explicitly compares the relative locations of a second edge and a first edge; Fig. 3 shows that an opposite second edge inset from a first edge in the width direction X by a portion of separator 430)
The width direction X of the positive electrode plate 410 is perpendicular to a thickness direction Z of the electrode assembly 400
An inert layer 415 (415 is electrically insulating) is provided on a surface of the positive active material layer 414
The inert layer coincides with at least a part of the second edges.
The disclosure is clear that the relative size of elements 415, 414 as shown in most detail in Fig. 5 is representative of that invention (bottom of p. 5 of translation). Notably, a main portion 415a of the inert layer is thinner than the positive active material layer, so that the portion 415b of the inert layer covers only a portion of a surface of 415. Therefore a thickness of the positive active material layer 414 is larger than a thickness of the inert layer 415. The reference teaches that a preferable thickness of the insulating layer is between 5 and 60 μm (top of p. 9 of translation). Therefore a range of thickness of the positive active material layer excludes 10 μm, and extends at least to more than 60 μm. Further a skilled artisan would understand that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to vary the dimensions of active layers are formed so as to preserve ion transport between layers.
“[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
The material of the inert layer is a composite of inorganic particles and polymer binder (p. 6 of translation). A skilled artisan would therefore understand that a chosen volume of the inert layer would not be uniform in composition, and that a percent of a particular element could be determined and expressed in terms of mass percent. Further, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to form inorganic particles to be silicon carbide, silicon oxide, or a clay or silicate that comprises silicon, because it would have merely required the choice of a known material for art-recognized purposes (see third paragraph of p. 6). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). A skilled artisan would therefore understand that a volume of the inert layer of modified-Nakamura could be determined to have a mass percent of silicon.
The claimed quantity of “a mass percent of silicon in a region of 15 μm x 15 μm on the inert layer” seems to be an indirect measurement of a thickness of a layer with a known composition (according to paragraph [0032] of the instant specification). As noted above, an inert layer with a composition comprising some mass percent of silicon per volume is obvious, and the cited passages of Nakamura also clearly recite that it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the inert layer to and the proportion of inorganic material in the inert layer in order to achieve a low stress relationship between the inert layer and the positive active material layer.
Therefore, since the thickness of the positive active material layer, the composition of the inert layer, and the thickness of the inert layer are obvious to optimize, the claimed values D, B, and BD/100 in claims 1, 2, 11, and 12 are obvious results of that optimization.
[AltContent: textbox (First edges)][AltContent: textbox (Second edge)][AltContent: textbox (Second edge)]
PNG
media_image1.png
418
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
206
288
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claims 3-6 and 13-16, modified-Nakamura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Nakamura is clear that the width of the inert layer 415 must be sufficient to protect against contact between a first edge and a second edge (top of p. 5 of translation: the positive electrode plate 410 includes the insulating layer 415 disposed so as to straddle the positive electrode base material layer 411 and the positive electrode composite material layer 414, thereby reliably preventing a short circuit between the positive electrode plate 410 and the negative electrode plate 420), and account”; “the possibility of electrical contact between the active material uncoated part 411 a and the negative electrode plate 420 having portions overlapping each other in the thickness direction (Z-axis direction) is reduced”), and sufficient to accommodate misalignment or motion between plates (“since the insulating layer 415 is formed so that a part of the insulating layer 415 overlaps the edge of the positive electrode mixture layer 414, the insulating layer 415 is opened with a gap between the positive electrode mixture layer 414. A process requiring high accuracy such as adjoining each other is unnecessary”). Therefore it would have been obvious as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize the width of the inert layer in order to ensure against short circuit.
As such, the claimed value E, and the claimed relationships between E and D are obvious results of optimization.
Per claims 9 and 19, modified-Nakamura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11. As noted previously, the illustrations of the geometry of the inert layer 415 with respect to positive active material layer 414 in Nakamura’s Figs. are representative of the invention. The portion 415A of the inert layer 415 is limited to be between 5 and 60 μm, as described above. In an embodiment, the inert layer 415 has a portion 415b which covers the positive active material layer 414 (Fig. 9, p. 9 of translation), which need not be as thick as the portion 415A (MPEP §2125). Therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would optimize the thickness of that portion of the inert layer in order to achieve improve protection against short circuits, and would not limit the thickness to more than 5 μm.
Per claims 10 and 20, modified-Nakamura teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 11. The electrode assembly 400 has a jelly-roll structure (Fig. 3, MPEP §2125).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The particular polymer is not used in the prior art as the material of an inert layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan S Cannon whose telephone number is (571)270-7186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5:30pm PST.
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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
Ryan S. Cannon
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights