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 .
The Applicant has amended independent claim 1 and amended dependent claim 3; and canceled dependent claim 2. The pending claims are claims 1, 3-15.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al., JP 2008034353.
Regarding claim 1, Hirose et al., teaches an electrode assembly (0006), comprising: a negative electrode plate (0006) and a positive electrode plate (0006), wherein a width difference M2-M1 between the negative electrode plate and the positive electrode plate (0009; 0017; 0040); wherein M1 is a width of the positive electrode plate (0040) before the electrode assembly undergoes cyclic charging and discharging (0008; 0040), M2 is a width of the negative electrode plate (0113-0114) before the electrode assembly undergoes cyclic charging and discharging (0008; 0038-0039; 0041).
Hirose et al., does not teach the following conditions with respect to a: 1.5 < M2-M1</= 4.5 - M1 x a, and 0.2% 1.7%, and 10 mm 260 mm and does not teach a is an extension ratio of the negative electrode plate, wherein when a variation ratio of the width of the negative electrode plate before and after an m-th cycle of cyclic charging and discharging of the electrode assembly does not exceed 3%, a maximum width value of the negative electrode plate is denoted as M3, a = (M3 - M2)/M2 x 100%.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation does not teach one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation does not teach one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Hirose et al., does not teach wherein M2-M1 further satisfies the following condition: 2.8 mm </=M2-M1 </= 3.3 mm.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation does not teach one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Hirose et al., does not teach wherein M1 further satisfies the following condition: 80 mm </=M1</= 120 mm.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation does not teach one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Hirose et al., does not teach wherein the extension ratio a further satisfies the following condition: 0.6% </= a </= 1.0%.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation does not teach one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, Hirose et al., teaches wherein the negative electrode plate comprises a negative electrode active material, the negative electrode active material comprising at least one of a silicon material (0013; 0025; 0030) or a carbon material (0065; 0124; 0137).
Regarding claim 7, Hirose et al., teaches wherein when the negative electrode active material comprises the silicon material (0013; 0025; 0030), a weight percentage of silicon material content in the negative electrode active material is 3% to 40% (90 atomic% or less) (0072).
Regarding claim 8, Hirose et al., teaches wherein a condition satisfied between the silicon material content (0072).
Hirose et al., does not teach the extension ratio a includes: when the weight percentage of the silicon material content is 3% to 10%,0.2%</= a < 0.6%; when the weight percentage of the silicon material content is 10% to 20%,0.6%
PNG
media_image1.png
8
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a< 1.1%;o when the weight percentage of the silicon material content is 20% to 30%,1.1%
PNG
media_image1.png
8
7
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a< 1.4%; and
PNG
media_image2.png
8
26
media_image2.png
Greyscale
when the weight percentage of the silicon material content is 30% to 40%,1.4% 1.7%.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 9, Hirose et al., teaches wherein the negative electrode plate is stacked on the positive electrode plate (0032; 0045; 0056), and in a width direction (X) of the electrode assembly (0043), two opposite edges of the negative electrode plate both extend beyond the positive electrode plate (0023; 0050; 0098; 0105).
Regarding claim 10, Hirose et al., teaches wherein in the width direction (X) of the electrode assembly (0037; 0113-0114), widths by which the two opposite edges of the negative electrode plate extend beyond the positive electrode plate (0023); wherein a ratio satisfies the following condition: (0038-0043; 0108-0109).
Regarding claim 11, Hirose et al., does not teach wherein a prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Hirose et al., teaches wherein the negative electrode plate is stacked on the positive electrode plate (0032; 0045; 0056), and in a length direction (Y) of the electrode assembly (0021; 0024) , at least one end edge of the negative electrode plate (0023) extends beyond the positive electrode plate (0025; 0027-0028).
Regarding claim 13, Hirose et al., teaches wherein the positive electrode plate comprises a positive electrode active material (0021; 0023-0024; 0038), the positive electrode active material being an active substance capable of deintercalation of lithium ions (0018; 0022; 0098).
Regarding claim14, Hirose et al., teaches the secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly according to claim 1 (0022).
Regarding claim 15, Hirose et al., teaches an electrical apparatus, comprising the secondary battery according to claim 14 (0019; 0021; 0026).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that “the Examiner has failed to show that a width difference M2-M1 between a negative electrode plate and a positive electrode plate that satisfies the conditions of "0< M2-M1 </= 4.5 - Mxa, and 0.2% </=a </=1.7%, and 10 mm </=M1</=260 mm", as recited in pending claim 1.”
However, although Hirose does not disclose the width of the electrode plates, “[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 Applicant argues that “The Examiner has failed to show that Hirose would disclose or suggest that process fluctuations could be an issue causing overhang defects, or that the dimension range recited in amended claim 1 would address such as issue.”
However, although Hirose does not discuss “process fluctuations”, "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shen et al., CN 115411223.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA J MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1288. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
ANGELA J. MARTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/ANGELA J MARTIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights