`
`Docket No.: P190899US00
`
`REMARKS
`
`Claims 1-8 are pendingin the application.
`
`Applicant’s Response to the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C.§103
`
`Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Masatoet
`
`al. (JP 2014216086 A) hereinafter Masato, in view of Sharmaet al. (US 2016/0211507 A1)
`
`hereinafter Sharma.
`
`In responsethereto, applicant respectfully submits that the claims as now presented are not
`
`obvious over Masato in view of Sharma for at least the reason that the combination does not
`
`provide for all the aspects of the claims, nor is there any rationale prompting a skilled artisan to
`
`modify the combination so as to derive the current invention.
`
`Specifically, Masato in view of Sharmaat least fails to provide for the aspects of parent
`
`claim 1 asto the ratio (A/B) ofthe thickness (A)ofthe elastic sheet at 100% SOCto the thickness
`
`(B) of the elastic sheet at 0% SOC being 0.05 to 0.3.
`
`Per page 3 bridging page 7 of the Office Action, the rejection primarily relies on Masato,
`
`and cites to Sharma for the disclosure of the mass energy density of the nonaqueouselectrolyte
`
`secondary battery being not less than 200 Wh/kg, which is missing in the primary reference.
`
`Regarding the ratio (A/B) of the thickness (A) of the elastic sheet at 100% SOCto the thickness
`
`(B) of the elastic sheet, the rejection points to measurements of thickness of the electrode body
`
`and the elastic spacer disclosed in Masato, from which the rejection determines a reference
`
`thickness ratio (A/B) to be “0.8.”
`
`Applicant respectfully notes that present claim 1 specifically requires that the ratio (A/B)
`
`be “0.05 to 0.3.” The ratio (A/B) of 0.8 derived from Masato as applied in the rejection neither
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/495,943
`
`Docket No.: P190899US00
`
`overlaps nor lies inside the range instantly claimed. Rather, the reference ratio is identical to
`
`Comparative Example 1 disclosed in the present application, where experimental
`
`results
`
`summarized in paragraphs [0057-0059] of the specification as filed demonstrate potential superior
`
`effects of having a thicknessratio (A/B) of 0.05 to 0.3, for example, in maintaining an appropriate
`
`range of reaction force on an electrode assembly compared to non-representative counterparts.
`
`The rejection notesthat “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges‘overlaporlie inside ranges
`
`disclosed by the priorart’ a primafacie case of obviousness exists.” Since the ratio derived from
`
`Masatois outside the range defined in present claim 1, the asserted case of obviousness should not
`
`exist. Moreover, the aforementioned experimental results tend to indicate the criticality of the
`
`range instantly claimed, which the prior art of record fails to recognize.
`
`In short, Masato lacksthe ratio (A/B)of the thickness (A)ofthe elastic sheet at 100% SOC
`
`to the thickness (B) of the elastic sheet at 0% SOC being 0.05 to 0.3. Sharma, cited for the
`
`disclosure of the mass energy density range, cannot remedy the deficiency of Masato. Hence,
`
`arguendo combining Masato with Sharma would notresult in the above-noted aspect of present
`
`claim 1, and there would be no rationale whereby a skilled artisan would modify the suggested
`
`combination to arrive at the invention as currently presented.
`
`Wherefore, applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 as now presented, as well as its
`
`respective dependent claims are not obvious over Masato in view of Sharma.
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and accompanying remarks, it is submitted thatall
`
`pending claims are in condition for allowance. A prompt and favorable reconsideration of the
`
`rejection and an indication of allowability of all pending claimsare earnestly solicited.
`
`
`
`Application No.: 16/495,943
`
`Docket No.: P190899US00
`
`If the Examiner believes that there are issues remaining to be resolved in this application,
`
`the Examineris invited to contact the undersigned attorney at the telephone number indicated
`
`below to arrange for an interview to expedite and complete prosecution of this case.
`
`If this paperis not timely filed, Applicants respectfully petition for an appropriate extension
`
`of time. The fees for such an extension or any other fees that may be due with respect to this paper
`
`may be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-2866.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`
`/Michael J. Caridi/
`
`MichaelJ. Caridi
`Attorney for Applicants
`Registration No. 56,171
`Telephone: 703-827-3800
`Facsimile: 571-395-8753
`
`MJC/fo
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
