DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 04/18/2025, has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1, 3-15, and 16- 21 are pending in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1,3-4, 8-10, 13, 15, and 18-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 20190160772 A1) in view of Takafumi (WO 2021131880 A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations) and further in view of Takahashi (US20140170449A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Liou teaches a battery cell [0016], comprising: a jellyroll ([0003], “cylindrical”; wherein it is the examiner’s position a cylindrical battery includes a jellyroll electrode structure), including a safety layer [0016] interposed between the jellyroll [0009] and the case [0009], wherein the safety layer prevents contact between the jellyroll and the case ([0006], [0009], “the protective structure is a bi-layered structure… porous layer”; wherein at least the protective porous layer is within the case) such that the safety layer includes both the porous layer and a surface layer. The porous layer, comprising: a copolymer, pores, and silica particles, is designed to provide structural support, impact resistance, and energy absorption [0010]. The surface layer, with its copolymer silica particles, and fiber reinforcement, is optimized to enhance adhesion strength, impact resistance, and energy absorption, contributing to elastic deformations within the bilayer structure [0011]. The use of fibers such as carbon fibers in the surface layer adds to the mechanical strength and reinforcement, supporting elastic deformation under mechanical loads [0011].
Thus, the bilayer structure, which makes up the safety layer, exhibits the characteristics of an elastic composite due to the interplay of its components: the copolymers, silica particles, and fiber reinforcement designed to work together to combine both mechanical resilience and elastic deformation in response to external forces ([0010-0011, 0041], “recess”) underscoring how Liou adopts the widely understood principle that force and collision time are inversely proportional. Therefore, Liou teaches when the case is in an undeformed state, wherein the safety layer thwarts a formation of an internal short circuit within the battery when the case is in a deformed state in which at least a portion of the case impinges on the jellyroll ([0005-0006], which describes a protective box that is insulated with polymers and anti-punching, wherein [0010-0011] and [0041] describe elastic deformation in response to external forces).
Thus, Liou also teaches wherein the safety layer thwarts the formation of the internal short circuit by at least stretching to accommodate one or more deformations in the case such that the safety layer remains interposed between the jellyroll and the case to continue to prevent contact therebetween when the case is in a deformed state (see above; [0006] [0009], wherein at least the protective porous layer is within the case). Additionally, since Liou teaches the safety layer in a deformed state or undeformed state (see above), Liou also teaches the safety layer in a stretched state or and unstretched state.
While Liou fails to explicitly teach the battery with the safety layer including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a separator interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, and wherein the safety layer in a stretched state or unstretched state undergoes a phase transition in response to an excess temperature, an excess voltage, and/or an excess current caused by the internal short circuit, wherein the phase transition interrupts a current flow caused by the case in the deformed state impinging on the jellyroll, and wherein the phase transition of the safety layer arrests one or more exothermic reactions within the battery cell by at least interrupting current flow within the battery cell, Takafumi teaches a battery with a safety layer (Fig. 2, 43; [016]) including a first electrode (Fig. 2, 20; [018]), second electrode (Fig. 2, 30; [018]), and separator (Fig. 2, 40; [018]). Takafumi also teaches the safety layer to be an elastic material (see Preparation of electrode body section, “polyethylene “) such that the prior are analogous. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to apply said safety layer comprising one or more elastic materials as described above to required battery components as Takafumi teaches such a configuration as acceptable.
Takahashi teaches wherein the safety layer (Fig. 2B, 21; [0045]) undergoes a phase transition [0045] in response to an excess temperature [0045], an excess voltage [0045], and/or an excess current [0045] caused by the internal short circuit [0052], and wherein the phase transition of the safety layer arrests one or more exothermic reactions [0045] within the battery cell (Fig. 2B) by at least interrupting current flow within the battery cell protecting from overcurrent (Fig. 2B, 21; [0045]; wherein the examiner notes that the safety layer 21 is in between the case 11 and electrode assembly (Fig. 1). While the phase transition material of Takahashi is intended for overcharge conditions [0052] and is intended to bring the case and electrode assembly into contact [0052], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a deformed state impinging on a jellyroll causes contact with the outer case and the electrode assembly results in the same condition required to activate the shut-off mechanism of Takahashi ([0052] ,”the lead- like members 24, 25 are brought into contact with the battery can 11 to cause short circuit”, which activates a fuse). Additionally, the phase transition material 21 is integrally connected with 23, which wraps around the stacked electrodes of the electrode assembly such that it is a safety layer. While the claimed safety layer is intended the prevent contact between the electrode assembly and the case, the claim language also requires contact with the safety layer and the case “a current flow caused by the case in the deformed state impinging on the jellyroll” such that the differences in the safety layer of Takahashi does not dissuade a combination which uses a phase transition material to cut off the circuit as a desired temperature, as taught by Takahashi [0052].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to implement a phase transition material overcurrent shutoff mechanism, as taught by Takahashi, into the battery of Liou, wherein the safety layer in a stretched state or and unstretched state undergoes a phase transition in response to an excess temperature caused by the internal short circuit, wherein the phase transition interrupts a current flow caused by the case in the deformed state impinging on the jellyroll, and wherein the phase transition of the safety layer arrests one or more exothermic reactions within the battery cell by at least interrupting current flow within the battery cell protecting from overcurrent in order to better protect from overcurrent.
Regarding claim 3,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the safety layer comprises Kevlar ([029], “Kevlar”)
Regarding claim 4,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the safety layer includes a conductive additive ([029], “carbon fibers”).
Regarding claim 8,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to disclose wherein the safety layer includes a binder. Takafumi teaches wherein the safety layer includes a binder ([037], “binder…PVDF”; [035] “that binds the particles to each other and the particles and a resin base material”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to include a binder in the safety layer to bind together the different protective materials of the safety layer.
Regarding claim 9,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 8, wherein the binder comprises polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) (see rejection of claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 10,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the safety layer includes a solvent. Takafumi teaches wherein the safety layer includes a solvent [038] such that the safety layer may better adhere to the surface of the electrode [038]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to apply the safety layer of Takafumi, which includes a solvent, such that the safety layer may better adhere to the surface of the electrode, enabling a more stable protective structure.
Regarding claim 13,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), teaching a bi-layered protective structure made of different materials with different functions (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein the porous layer has a different solvent than the surface layer ([010-011]).
Regarding claim 15,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the safety layer is disposed on an interior surface of the case (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 18,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), including an electrolyte ([011]) but fails to teach it further comprising: a first current collector coupled with the first electrode; a second current collector coupled with the second electrode; and an electrolyte. However, Takafumi teaches a first electrode and second electrode respectively paired with current collectors [021] as an acceptable battery configuration. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use ordinary battery structure in applying the invention of Liou, including a first current collector coupled with the first electrode; a second current collector coupled with the second electrode, as Takafumi teaches this as an acceptable configuration in the art.
Regarding claim 19,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the battery cell comprises a cylindrical cell (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 21,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the phase transition of the safety layer includes an expansion or a contraction of the safety layer (Takahashi; [0045], “undergoes a shape change…push” wherein a phase transition that results in a push indicates an expansion of the safety layer 21).
Claims 5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 20190160772 A1) in view of Takafumi (WO 2021131880 A1) and further in view of Takahashi (US20140170449A1) and Fan (US 20190013553 A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 5,
Modified Liou teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the safety layer includes carbon black. Fan teaches a safety layer (Fig. 1, 108; [0014]) between the electrode (Fig. 1, 102) and the case [0152] which uses carbon black [0158] in order to impart resistivity to the resistive layer upon thermal decomposition [0016], interrupting current. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use carbon black in the safety layer in order to insulate the case from the electrode during battery failure.
Regarding claim 11,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 10, wherein Fan teaches the safety layer to include a binder comprising N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP) as a solvent for carbon black [0188].
Regarding claim 12,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the safety layer includes a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer is interposed between an interior surface of the case and the second layer (see rejection of claim 1 above, “bi-layered structure”), and wherein the first layer is configured to release water while the second layer is configured to make direct contact with an electrolyte included in the battery cell [1065-1066].
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 20190160772 A1) in view of Takafumi (WO 2021131880 A1) and Sun (EP 3176847 A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 6,
Modified Liou teaches battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and while Liou may teach preventing flames, Liou fails to teach wherein the safety layer includes a fire retardant. Sun teaches wherein a safety layer (Fig. 2, between 1 and 2; [047]) includes are fire retardant [047] in order to better extinguish a fire [024] in cases of cell failure. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to apply the flame retardant of Sun to the battery of modified Liou in order to better protect the battery from fire.
Regarding claim 7,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the fire retardant comprises sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) [038].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 20190160772 A1) in view of Takafumi (WO 2021131880 A1), Takahashi (US20140170449A1), Fan (US 20190013553 A1) and Sun (EP 3176847 A1), and evidenced by “Sodium Metasilicate” (https://chemicalstore.com/products/sodium-metasilicate/).
Regarding claim 14,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein Sun teaches the safety layer includes silica gel [047] in the safety layer with water [038] in order to provide for a shock absorption aspect. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use silica gel in the safety layer in order to better protect from shock.
While modified Liou fails to specifically teach wherein the first layer includes sodium metasilicate nonahydrate dissolved in water, and wherein the second layer includes poly imide amide dissolved in N-Methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), it is known that sodium metasilicate nonahydrate is a common precursor to the silica gel (https://chemicalstore.com/products/sodium-metasilicate/), such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use sodium metasilicate nonahydrate in the safety layer with water to arrive at the silica gel.
Additionally, polyamide-imide is commonly mixed with NMP, as taught in the safety layer (Fig. 1, 108) of Fan [0055] [0169] in order to arrive at an effective safety layer for preventing fire [0016]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use polyamide-imide with NMP as it is a known configuration for a binder within a safety layer.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 20190160772 A1) in view of Takafumi (WO 2021131880 A1) and further in view of Takahashi (US20140170449A1) and Kanai (US 20030134189 A1).
Regarding claim 16,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein an interior surface of the case is corrugated, and wherein the safety layer is formed by disposing a solution of materials comprising the safety layer in one or more voids of the corrugated interior surface of the case.
Kanai teaches battery cases can be corrugated to conform to batteries ([0130]- [0132]) and can have vibration absorbing material on the inside ([0133]- [0135]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have an interior surface of the case is corrugated, and wherein the safety layer is formed by disposing a solution of materials comprising the safety layer in one or more voids of the corrugated interior surface of the case in order to conform to batteries and absorb vibrations.
Claim 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 20190160772 A1) in view of Takafumi (WO 2021131880 A1) and further in view of Takahashi (US20140170449A1) and Kazutaka (WO 2020245701 A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 17,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach further comprising: a lid including a first pin and a second pin, the case configured to form a chamber when sealed with the lid, the jellyroll being disposed inside the chamber, the jellyroll including a negative electrode tab configured to couple with the first pin to form a negative terminal of the battery cell, and the jellyroll further including a positive electrode tab configured to couple with the second pin to form a positive terminal of the battery cell; and a gasket configured to at least partially encase each of the negative electrode tab and the positive electrode tab to prevent a contact between the negative electrode tab, the positive electrode tab, and/or the case of the battery cell.
Kazutaka teaches further comprising: a lid (Fig. 8, top of 930) including a first pin and a second pin (Fig. 8, metal terminals 952; wherein it is the examiner’s position the terminals 951 and 952 meet the claimed limitation, given the drawings of the instant application (Fig. 1, pins 114) and the BRI of the term pin, a narrow conductive element transporting electrical current), the case configured to form a chamber when sealed with the lid, the jellyroll being disposed inside the chamber, the jellyroll (Fig. 8, 950) including a negative electrode tab configured to couple with the first pin to form a negative terminal of the battery cell, and the jellyroll further including a positive electrode tab configured to couple with the second pin to form a positive terminal of the battery cell (Fig. 4B and 4C, wherein 510 and 511 are paired to tab regions on 503 and 506 respective for each of the positive and negative electrodes); and a gasket configured to at least partially encase each of the negative electrode tab and the positive electrode tab to prevent a contact between the negative electrode tab, the positive electrode tab, and/or the case of the battery cell. (Fig. 14A, gasket 410). The battery of Kazutaka is described to have excellent characteristics (see Abstract) wherein the elements mentioned thereof are considered common in the art. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use the pin and gasket arrangement of Kazutaka because they are known configurations in the art and involved in ensuring excellent cell characteristics.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liou (US 20190160772 A1) in view of Takafumi (WO 2021131880 A1) and further in view of Takahashi (US20140170449A1) and Hao (CN 107768581 A) (see enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 20,
Modified Liou teaches the battery cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the first electrode and/or the second electrode comprise a poly-p-phenylene terephthalamide or an aramid dissolved and/or dispersed in a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS). Hao teaches an electrode wherein the separator comprises an aramid dissolved and/or dispersed in a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) in order to improve the mechanical strength of the separator (see Abstract). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to use the teaching of Hao, in which the electrode comprises an aramid dissolved and/or dispersed in a polyhedral oligomeric silsesquioxane (POSS) in order to improve the mechanical strength of the separator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that, at best, Liou describes a conventional mechanism for increasing the impact resistance of the case of the battery cell (Remarks, pg. 8). However, this is not persuasive. While the point is taken that certain materials within the composite of Liou are intended to increase impact resistance, the material of the safety layer as a whole still meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “configured to stretch to conform to deformations in the case of the battery cell where the case impinges on the jellyroll” due to the recess ([0010-0011, 0041], “recess”), which is clear evidence that the material is configured to conform to deformations in the case, rather than breaking. Additionally, [0005-0006] describes a protective box that is insulated with polymers and anti-punching, wherein [0010-0011] and [0041] describe elastic deformation in response to external forces.
Applicant argues that the protective structure is configured to withstand impact with little to no deformation (Remarks, pg. 9). However, this is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above, as the combined properties within the composite of Liou allow it to both withstand heavy impact as well as elastically deform in response to external forces [0010-0011] [0041]; these capacities are not mutually exclusive.
Applicant argues that Takahashi expressly describes its “temperature-sensitive deformation member” as being placed inside the electrode assembly, which should teach away from a phase transitioning safety layer. However, this is not persuasive as the position of the temperature sensitive, which, by referencing 21 in Fig. 2B and [0052], it is clear that the phase transition material 21 is integrally connected with 23, which wraps around the stacked electrodes of the electrode assembly such that it is a safety layer. While the claimed safety layer is intended the prevent contact between the electrode assembly and the case, the claim language also requires contact with the safety layer and the case “a current flow caused by the case in the deformed state impinging on the jellyroll” such that the differences in the safety layer of Takahashi does not dissuade a combination which uses a phase transition material to cut off the circuit as a desired temperature, as taught by Takahashi [0052].
Applicant argues that all other claims should be allowable based off an allowable independent claim. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL C. S. WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-5:30.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723