DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/27/2025 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
2. The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of the correction filed which is accepted by the Examiner.
3. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). MPEP § 608.01(o) notes the following:
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. See MPEP § 2111.01 and § 2173.05(a).
Usually the terminology of the claims present on the filing date of the application follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification.
New claims, including claims first presented after the application filing date where no claims were submitted on filing, and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to ensure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification. See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01 and § 2103.
Correction of the following is required:
The quoted subject matter below in conjunction with proper annotations in the drawings such as those shown in Fig. 2B in the remarks filed 5/27/2025, along with an appropriate corresponding explanation within the specification:
“wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector are capable of contacting directly; and
wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current collector are capable of contacting directly…”
The above added language and terminology is entirely absent from the written description, wherein it is noted that the public does not have access to Applicant’s clarifying remarks in the record as to the intended meaning of the newly added subject matter. In order to ensure certainty in construing the claims in light of the specification, the language above must be adequately described and explained in the specification with reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the terminology applies.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. The objections to claims 2, 7, and 9 are withdrawn in view of the appropriate corrections filed.
5. Claim 1 is objected to for the following informalities. Claim 1 as amended is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
230
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claim fails to utilize proper English language punctuation as well as grammar with respect to the proper presentation of a series of clauses. An appropriate manner of punctuation and clause-ordering is presented in the claims below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-19, claim 10, claim 11, claim 17, claim 18, and claim 19, under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed.
The rejections of claim 1, and thus dependent claims 2-19, claim 10, claim 11, claim 17, claim 18, and claim 19, under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention are withdrawn in view of the corrections filed.
7. Claims 3, 10, 11, 17, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 17 recite features of constructs not possible or described in the written description in conjunction with the added feature of claim 1. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph and explanation provided below pertaining to the mutually exclusive requirements of claims 3 and 7 relative to the requirement of claim 1 are detailed below and incorporated herein, wherein the inventors did not contemplate or have possession of an embodiment meeting claim 1 + claim 3, or claim 1 + claim 17.
Claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 each recite “a bending direction of the electrochemical systems” which was newly added to the claims on 12/6/2024. The language violates the written description and appears counter to the disclosure which aims to not bend the electrochemical systems (see P4). Accordingly, clarifying language with respect what the bending direction is in reference to is required. It would further appear that the claimed “stack axis” as defined in claim 1 is (perhaps?) the same as the bending direction). Clarifying comments regarding support should be cited with respect to the defined components for clarity of the record.
Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claim 1, and thus those dependent claims 2-7, 10-19; claim 3; claim 17; and claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A) Claim 1 was amended to recite (with emphasis added):
“wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector are capable of contacting directly; and
wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current collector are capable of contacting directly…”
Accordingly, either the second iteration of “a stack axis” fails to provide proper antecedent basis to the first iteration thereof, or the claim is not clearly defining what would be a [second] stack axis such that the intent and meaning of the claim is indefinite. Based on the description, it appears the supported construct and intent is it is the same stack axis. Thus, the claim will be interpreted for compact prosecution purposes as if the second bolded “a stack axis” above recited, “the stack axis.”
B) Claim 1 was amended to recite:
“wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector are capable of contacting directly; and
wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current collector are capable of contacting directly…”
As explained in Applicants remarks, the “adjacent and overlapping portions” of the respective current collectors that are capable of contacting directly (with themselves, respectively) are shown in Fig. 2B of the instant application. The full explanation as explained in the remarks filed 5/27/2025 is repeated below for convenience and also clarity of the record in terms of how the feature is being interpreted for prior art examination purposes:
PNG
media_image2.png
647
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
107
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 then recites:
PNG
media_image4.png
178
643
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The construct described above is shown in Fig. 5F:
PNG
media_image5.png
476
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The claim 3 construct thus recites a mutually exclusive characteristic from what is required of claim 1; wherein the features of claim 3 and claim 1 cannot simultaneously be met rendering claim 3 indefinite. In other words, the use of the heat dissipating current collector (41 or 42) disposed in the location claimed and contacting the first belt current collector or second current collector cannot be met at the same that the claim 1 limitation recited below is met:
“wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector are capable of contacting directly; and
wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current collector are capable of contacting directly…”
C) Claim 17 defines that the battery devices further includes a conductive bus and an electrically insulating body (line 3). Claim 17, line 8 recites, “…and an electrically insulating body is disposed between a lowermost surface of the electrode assembly and the conductive bus.” Accordingly, claim 17 either fails to invoke proper antecedent basis at line 8, or the claim is not clearly defining what would be a [second] electrically insulating body, thereby rendering the meets and bounds of the claim unclear.
D) Claim 17 has the same issue as claim 3: it is not possible to simultaneously meet the limitation of claim 1 and the embodiment claimed (specifically the conductive bus configuration). The only embodiment teaching the conductive bus 615 and the electrically insulating body and the remainder of claim 17 is Fig. 8C. As shown in Fig. 8C, the conductive bus 615 exists in the configuration as shown in Fig. 8C, having the design of the heat dissipating current collector of Fig. 5F (P47 of the PGPUB), and thus cannot be met while simultaneously also meeting the defined claim 1 language of “…along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current collector are capable of contact directing” given the conductive bus 615 exists in the spacing between the adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current collector (see Figs. 5F, 8C).
E) Claims 10, 11, 18, and 19 each recite “a bending direction of the electrochemical systems” which was newly added to the claims on 12/6/2024. The language violates the written description and appears counter to the disclosure which aims to not bend the electrochemical systems (see P4 of the PGPUB). Accordingly, clarifying language with respect what the bending direction is in reference to is required to render the claims definitive. It would further appear that the claimed “stack axis” as defined in claim 1 would (maybe?) be one in the same as “a bending direction” [of the appropriate entity/entities]. Duplicative claim terminology for the same entity without appropriate antecedent basis renders these claims as indefinite; appropriate clarification is requested.
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 3 and 17 will not have a prior art rejection as it is impossible to simultaneously meet claim 1 + either of claim 3 or claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ § 103
9. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-243395) (machine translation previously provided) is maintained, and claims 1, 2, 4, and 14 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-243395) given the product-by-process language in the claim (see MPEP § 2113, Section III). Claims 12-13 and 16 are also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 1, Yasushi teaches an electrode assembly (Fig. 3; entire disclosure relied upon), comprising:
a first belt current collector 1 and a second belt current collector 3 opposed to the first belt current collector 1 (P15; Figs. 1-3);
a plurality of electrochemical systems 10 disposed between the first belt current collector 1 and the second belt current collector 3 (P15; Figs. 1-3);
a thermal fusion film 20 (“a glue frame”) adhering and being sandwiched between the first belt current collector 1 and the second belt current collector 3 and surrounding the electrochemical systems 10 to make each of the electrochemical systems be an independent module (P9, 15-17, 24, 28; Figs. 1-3), wherein the electrochemical systems 10 are completely sealed by the glue frame 20, the first belt current collector 1, and the second belt current collector 3 (P9, 17, 24, 28) in order to allow
a plurality of bending portions formed by bending portions of the glue frame 20 located between the electrochemical systems together with the first belt current collector 1 and the second belt current collector 3 adhered by the bending portions of the glue frame 20 to make the electrochemical systems be stacked in a back to front orientation (Figs. 1, 3)1;
wherein along a stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions (annotated below) of the first belt current collector 1 are capable of contacting directly (additional explanation/comments below);
wherein along [the] stack direction, adjacent and overlapping portions (annotated below) of the second belt current collector 3 are capable of contacting directly (additional explanation/comments below); and
wherein the electrochemical systems are vertically stacked in a zigzag shape along the stack axis to form a parallel connection (Fig. 3; P18).
Figs. 1-3 are reproduced below with Fig. 1 being two sides views of the same, pre-fusion electrode assembly (P17), and Fig. 3 including the annotated portions of the “adjacent and overlapping portions” claimed:
PNG
media_image6.png
379
449
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
338
312
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
445
586
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the capability of the adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector 1, and the capability of the adjacent overlapping portions of the second belt current collector 3 is considered met given, consistent with Applicant’s remarks filed 5/27/2025, the structure necessary for this capability to be achieved is that there are no intervening elements between the respective adjacent and overlapping portions of the respective collector, and if the electrode assembly or a portion thereof were subjected to additional force, pressure, and/or compression, the adjacent and overlapping portions are capable of contacting directly. Accordingly, the structure necessary to achieve the capability claimed appears to be fully met by Yasushi given if additional compression or force was applied to at least part or all of the electrode assembly and it was further “squeezed together” in certain areas, direct contact between the annotated portions above is capable of occurring. Functional limitations or “capabilities” of components in a product claim are evaluated for the implicit and/or explicit structure they convey to the product.
Regarding claim 2, Yasushi teaches wherein the glue frame 20 is a single element including a plurality of through openings 21, each of the through openings 21 connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the glue frame 20, and which each of the electrochemical systems 10 are accommodated in one of the through openings 21 (Figs. 1-3; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claim 4, Yasushi teaches wherein each of the electrochemical systems 10 comprising:
a first active material layer 11, being in contact with the first belt current collector 1;
a second active material layer 13, being in contact with the second belt current collector 3; and
a separator 12, disposed between the first active material layer 11 and the second active material layer 13 (Figs. 1-6; entire disclosure relied upon).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, by default, one of the claims is anticipated (i.e., there are inherently either an even number or odd number of the electrochemical systems 10), and the other claim is considered an obvious design choice based on the desired electrical output of the electrode assembly, the number of systems dictating the voltage and current output of the system, the selection thereof involving routine skill of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Yasushi teaches a battery device composed of the electrode assembly of claim 1 and an exterior body (“housing”) packaging the electrode assembly (P26, 40).
Regarding claim 16, Yasushi teaches a plurality of exterior bodies for packaging the laminate electrode assembly are provided (P40). Accordingly, Yasushi teaches a plurality of exterior body packaging members (i.e., “an upper case and a lower case”) for the housing (P40). Note that “upper” and “lower” are relative terms such that however the plurality of exterior bodies are shaped or applied, they read on the language presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kudoh et al. (US 2015/0072231) is withdrawn. See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph regarding the reason for withdrawal.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-243395) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kudoh et al. (US 2015/0072231) is withdrawn. See the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)/second paragraph regarding the reason for withdrawal.
11. The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) is maintained. Claims 14 and 16 are also rejected under this heading.
Regarding claim 1, Nishino teaches an electrode assembly (Figs. 8A-9D), comprising:
a first belt current collector 4 and a second belt current collector 5 opposed to the first belt current collector 4;
a plurality of electrochemical systems 10 disposed between the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5;
an insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) made from an insulating adhesive (“glue frame”) (P77) adhering and being sandwiched between the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 and (partially) surrounding the electrochemical systems 10 (i.e., at least on left and right sides) to make each of the electrochemical systems 10 be an independent module (note that the electrolyte layer is a solid electrolyte layer – (P53-57) such that there is no sharing of any electrochemical component among the electrochemical systems 10), wherein the electrochemical systems are sealed by the glue frame 9, the first belt current collector 4, and the second belt current collector 5 (Figs. 8A-B, 9A-9D; at least one their left, right, upper, and lower sides- further discussion below) in order to allow charge transfer between two adjacent electrochemical systems without electrochemical reaction occurring between two adjacent electrochemical systems (P77; note that the electrolyte layer is a solid electrolyte layer – (P53-57) such that there is no sharing of any electrochemical component among the electrochemical systems 10); and
a plurality of bending portions (see Fig. 9D), formed by bending portions of the glue frame 9 located between the electrochemical systems 10 together with the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 adhered by the bending portions of the glue frame 9 to make the electrochemical systems be stacked in a back to front orientation (Figs. 8A-9D; P77-80; not limited to entire disclosure);
wherein along a stack axis, there are adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector 4 (annotated below);
wherein along [the] stack axis, there are adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current collector 5 (annotated below); and
wherein the electrochemical systems 10 are vertically stacked in a zigzag shape along the stack axis to form a parallel connection (entire disclosure relied upon).
It is noted that the claim is a product-by-process claim (see MPEP § 2113).
PNG
media_image9.png
252
840
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Nishino does not explicitly teach that the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) made from an insulating adhesive (“glue frame”) (P77) [completely] surrounds the electrochemical systems 10 such that the electrochemical systems are completely sealed by the glue frame, the first belt current collector 4, and the second belt collector 5. Nishino teaches the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is between the adjacent power generating elements to prevent adjacent power generating elements 10 from short-circuiting (P77) and presents cross-sections of the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) with the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) as shown in the cross section of Fig. 8-9D showing the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) on left and right sides of the adjacent electrochemical systems 10. Accordingly, Nishino does not teach complete sealing by the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) of the electrochemical systems (i.e., also on top and bottom sides not shown in the figures in addition to left and right sides; note that the current collectors 4, 5 are provided on upper and lower surfaces of the systems 10) as it can only be said based on the disclosure and drawings that the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is presented on left and right edges of the electrochemical systems 10; however, Nishino teaches that the function of the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) is to prevent short-circuiting between adjacent electrochemical systems (P77).
Therefore, it would have been entirely obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) such that it completely surrounds the electrochemical systems 10 (i.e., is also present on top and bottom sides) to prevent short-circuiting of the components via all exposed sides including top and bottom sides (i.e., what would be electrical arcing) which would be just as relevant a concern at the top and bottom surfaces of the adjacent the electrochemical systems 10 as it would be along adjacent sides thereof, with the goal of Nishino to prevent short-circuiting between the adjacent electrochemical systems 10 by insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) (P77).
Nishino does not explicitly teach that the stack axis, adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector are capable of contacting directly, or that along the stack axis, the adjacent and overlapping portions of the second belt current are capable of contacting directly given exterior body 7 exists. The instant application describes at P18 and P40 (reference made to the PGPUB), Fig. 2E, and original claims 8 and 9 that the current collectors may include “a structural reinforcing layer on an outer surface to improve mechanical strength,” wherein the structural reinforcing layer is made of polymeric materials (e.g., PET, PVC, PE, PP, etc.). P40 of the instant application PGPUB is reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image10.png
316
472
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Nishino teaches exterior body 7 may include these same materials (P66-67) and may be present as a one-piece construct (Fig. 9C), or as two separate layers, the first layer on the exterior of first at least current collector 4, and the second layer on the exterior of at least second current collector 5 (see Fig. 1C). The following case law (MPEP § 2144.04) is pertinent to the instant discussion:
Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Constructing a formerly integral structure into various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice).
In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.)
In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Accordingly, in an alternative interpretation consistent with what the “current collectors” may include within the instant application (P40) and in view of the case law above, providing a first exterior body layer 7 (see Fig. 1C) as an integral part of the first belt current collector 4, and providing a second exterior body layer 7 (Fig. 1C) as an integral part of the second current collector 5 such that they exist as “structural reinforcing layers” of the respective current collectors 4, 5, and simultaneously also exist an exterior body thereof, is considered a matter of obvious engineering choice that would not modify the operation of the device.
In such a construct, the first belt current collector (i.e., metallic layer 4 + first exterior layer 7 (Fig. 1C, 9C) having the functionality of a “structural reinforcing layer” and exterior body component) would be such that the adjacent and overlapping portions of the first belt current collector 4/7 are capable of contacting directly; and the second belt current collector (i.e., metallic layer 5 + second exterior layer 7 having the functionality of a “structural reinforcing layer” and exterior body component) would be such that adjacent and overlapping portions of the second current collector 4/7 are capable of contact directly.
Regarding claim 2, Nishino fails to teach that the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) made from an insulating adhesive (“glue frame”) is a single element including a plurality of through-openings, each of the through openings connecting an upper surface and a lower surface of the glue frame 9 (or 9a, 9b), and wherein each of the electrochemical systems 10 is accommodated in one of the through-openings. Instead, Nishino utilizes a plurality of adhesive sections 9 (or 9a, 9b) versus a single element, with each of the electrochemical systems 10 accommodated in one of the through-openings (Figs. 8A-9D). The court has held that that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice”:
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a
fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which
differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means,
whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured
together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons,
“that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior
art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a one piece construction (“a single piece”) for the adhesive, insulating sections (“glue frame”) (9 or 9a, 9b) as a matter of obvious engineering choice based on the legal precedent cited above.
Regarding claim 4, Nishino teaches wherein each of the electrochemical systems 10 comprises:
a first active material layer 1 in contact with the first belt current collector 4;
a second active material layer 2 in contact with the second belt current collector 5; and a separator 2 disposed between the first active material layer 1 and the second active material layer 4 (P41-64, 77-80; Figs. 8A-9D).
Regarding claim 5, Nishino teaches the electrode assembly further comprising an electrolyte system impregnated in the first active material layer 4 and the second active material layer 5, wherein the electrolyte system is a solid electrolyte (P46, 51, 53-57).
Regarding claim 12, Nishino teaches wherein an amount of the electrochemical systems is odd (Figs.8A-9D illustrate three electrochemical systems 10), and further teaches that that the number of monopolar battery elements is not limited but may be within a range of 2 to 60, and preferably 2 to 20 (P63), wherein the odd-numbered values (e.g., 3, 5, 7, etc.) within the taught range are such that the amount of the electrochemical systems 10 is odd.
Regarding claim 13, Nishino teaches wherein an amount of the electrochemical systems 10 is even (P63 teaches that the number of monopolar battery elements is not limited but may be within a range of 2 to 60, and preferably 2 to 20). The even-numbered values (e.g., 2, 4, 6, etc.) within the taught range are such that the amount of the electrochemical systems 10 is even.
Regarding claim 14, Nishino teaches a “battery device” composed of the electrode assembly of claim 1 (Fig. 9B as outlined above) and a housing (Figs. 10A-10B) packaging the electrode assembly of Fig. 9B (P80-81; Figs. 10A-10B).
Regarding claim 16, Nishino teaches the housing (Figs. 10A-10B) includes an upper case and a lower case (illustrated – see Figs. 10A-10B).
12. The rejection of claims 6, 10-11, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) as applied to at least claims 1, 4, and 5 above, and further in view of El Baradai et al. (US 2020/0358124) is maintained.
Regarding claim 6, Nishino teaches wherein the glue frame 9 seals all electrochemical systems 10 such that the electrolyte system (taught electrolyte system is a solid electrolyte system - (P46, 51, 53-57) is only held within the respective electrochemical systems 10.
The claim recites that the electrolyte system only circulates within respective electrochemical systems, which would require that the electrolyte system is a liquid electrolyte (one of the options of claim 5 from which claim 6 depends), wherein the selection/substitution thereof is considered prima facie obvious given El Baradai teaches analogous art of a foldable, flexible electrode assembly and teaches that between the electrodes is either a solid electrolyte or a separator impregnated with liquid electrolyte (P5, 72) such that the selection/substitution thereof is considered routine in the art, and would provide the battery with a functionally equivalent, known option to electrically separate the electrodes while allowing ion transfer.
Regarding claim 10, Nishino fails to teaches wherein the first belt current collector 4 includes a lead extending from a lateral side of the first belt current collector 4, the second belt current collector 5 includes a lead extending from a lateral side of the second belt current collector 5, the leads as defined located at different sides of the electrochemical systems, respectively, and the lateral side of the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 are perpendicular to a bending direction of the electrochemical systems 10.
Such a technique and construct is taught by El Baradai in which a folded electrode assembly includes analogous, folded current collectors 21, 22 to which electric connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) are respectively connected in order to form an external portion extending beyond the edge of the outer cover in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112), wherein the electrical connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) are located at different sides (i.e. top and bottom sides- Fig. 10) of the electrochemical systems, respectively, and the lateral sides are perpendicular to a bending direction of the electrochemical systems (Figs. 1-2, 9-10; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the folded electrode assembly of Nishino such that the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 include a lead, respectively, located at top and bottom sides (i.e., “different sides”) of the electrochemical systems given El Baradai teaches such a technique and construct are known in the art and allow for an external portion to extend beyond the edge of the outer cover (i.e., housing) in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112).
It is also noted that determining an appropriate location to place a respective lead on a current collector for electrical extraction is routine experimentation largely dictated by design requirements of the final cell such that the specific placement thereof is also considered obvious matter of design choice (See case law in MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-C: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 11, Nishino fails to teaches wherein the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 include a lead extending from lateral sides of the first belt current collector and the second belt current collector respectively, wherein the two leads are located at a same side of the electrochemical systems, and the lateral sides are perpendicular to a bending direction of the electrochemical systems; however, such a technique and construct is taught by El Baradai in which a folded electrode assembly includes analogous, folded current collectors 21, 22 to which two electric connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) are respectively connected in order to form an external portion extending beyond the edge of the outer cover in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112), wherein the electrical connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) are located at a same side of the electrochemical systems (i.e. a left side thereof – see Fig. 10) (Figs. 1-2, 9-10; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the folded electrode assembly of Nishino such that the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 include a lead, respectively, located at a left side (i.e., “a same side”) of the electrochemical systems given El Baradai teaches such a technique and construct are known in the art and allow for an external portion to extend beyond the edge of the outer cover (i.e., housing) in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112).
It is also noted that determining an appropriate location to place a respective lead on a current collector for electrical extraction is routine experimentation largely dictated by design requirements of the final cell such that the specific placement thereof is also considered obvious matter of design choice (See case law in MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-C: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 18, Nishino fails to teaches wherein the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 include a respective lead extending from an end surface of the first belt current collector and the second belt current collector respectively such that the two leads are parallel to a bending direction of the electrochemical systems, and wherein the two leads are located at different sides of the electrochemical systems respectively; however, such a technique and construct is taught by El Baradai in which a folded electrode assembly includes analogous, folded current collectors 21, 22 to which two electric connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) are respectively connected in order to form an external portion extending beyond the edge of the outer cover in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112), wherein the electrical connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) extend from an end surface of the first belt current collector and the second belt current collector respectively such that the two leads are parallel to a bending direction of the electrochemical system, and wherein the two leads are located at different sides of the electrochemical systems respectively (i.e. top and bottom sides – see Fig. 10) (Figs. 1-2, 9-10; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the folded electrode assembly of Nishino such that the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 include a lead, respectively, located in the manner claimed given El Baradai teaches such a technique and construct are known in the art and allow for an external portion to extend beyond the edge of the outer cover (i.e., housing) in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112).
It is also noted that determining an appropriate location to place a respective lead on a current collector for electrical extraction is routine experimentation largely dictated by design requirements of the final cell such that the specific placement thereof is also considered obvious matter of design choice (See case law in MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-C: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Regarding claim 19, Nishino fails to teaches wherein the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 include a respective lead extending from an end surface of the first belt current collector and the second belt current collector respectively such that the two leads are parallel to a bending direction of the electrochemical systems, and wherein the two leads are located at different sides of the electrochemical systems respectively; however, such a technique and construct is taught by El Baradai in which a folded electrode assembly includes analogous, folded current collectors 21, 22 to which two electric connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) are respectively connected in order to form an external portion extending beyond the edge of the outer cover in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112), wherein the electrical connectors 121, 122 (“leads”) extend from an end surface of the first belt current collector and the second belt current collector respectively such that the two leads are parallel to a bending direction of the electrochemical system, and wherein the two leads are located at a same side of the electrochemical systems respectively (i.e. a left side – see Fig. 10) (Figs. 1-2, 9-10; entire disclosure relied upon).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the folded electrode assembly of Nishino such that the first belt current collector 4 and the second belt current collector 5 include a lead, respectively, located in the manner claimed given El Baradai teaches such a technique and construct are known in the art and allow for an external portion to extend beyond the edge of the outer cover (i.e., housing) in order for electrical activation and use of the battery (P86, 112).
It is also noted that determining an appropriate location to place a respective lead on a current collector for electrical extraction is routine experimentation largely dictated by design requirements of the final cell such that the specific placement thereof is also considered obvious matter of design choice (See case law in MPEP 2144.04, Section VI-C: In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
13. The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang (US 2020/0052000) is maintained.
Regarding claim 7, Nishino teaches wherein the insulating layer 9 (or 9a + 9b) (“glue frame”) is made from an insulating adhesive that may be a silicone adhesive (P77), wherein the insulating layer 9 (“glue frame”) may be two insulating layers (9a, 9b) that stick closely together (P77-78) (i.e., what would be two silicone adhesive layers), with insulating layer 9a (“one of the silicone layers”) being adhered to the first belt current collector 4, and insulating layer 9b (“another one of the silicone layers”) adhered to the second belt current collector 5.
Nishino fails to explicitly teach the construct in which the insulating layer 9 (or 9a, 9b) (“glue frame”) comprises a silicone layer and two modified silicone layers disposed on two sides of the silicone layer respectively, wherein one of the two modified silicone layers is adhered to the first belt current collector and another one of the two modified silicone layers is adhered to the second belt current collector.
Such a sealing, adhesive construct is a known construct in the field of sealing electrochemical systems as taught by Yang, Yang teaching a sealing construct comprising a silicone layer and two modified silicone layers on both sides of said silicon layer that improves the sealing effect, increases cohesion at the interfaces thereof, and blocks permeation of moisture (P39; Fig. 4B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the adhesive insulating construct of Nishino (9/ 9a, 9b) that of the sealing construct of Yang in which there is a silicone layer and two modified silicone layers on both sides of said silicon layer in order to provide the predictable, advantageous result of improving the sealing effect, increasing cohesion at the interface, and blocking permeation of moisture (P39; Fig. 4B).
14. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishino et al. (US 2014/0082931) as applied to at least claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Mehta et al. (US 2010/0075221).
Regarding claim 15, Nishino fails to teach wherein a fire retardant or a coolant is filled between the electrode assembly and the housing packaging (Figs. 10A-10B) the electrode assembly.
In the same field of endeavor, Mehta teaches analogous art of an electrode assembly and cell casing 101 (“housing”), wherein there is a layer of intumescent material 1101 interposed between the inside wall of cell casing 101 and the exterior surface of the electrode assembly (Fig. 11; P44), wherein the intumescent material 1101is selected for optimal fire retardant properties (P44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the layer of intumescent material 1101 having fire retardant properties (i.e., “a fire retardant”) filled between the electrode assembly and the housing (Figs. 10A-10B) of Nishino given the construct and technique are taught by Mehta, thereby providing the predictable result of preventing fire.
15. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasushi et al. (JP 2012-243395) as applied to at least claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Mehta et al. (US 2010/0075221).
Regarding claim 15, Yasushi fails to disclose wherein a fire retardant or a coolant is filled between the electrode assembly and the exterior body (“housing”) packaging the electrode assembly (P26).
In the same field of endeavor, Mehta teaches analogous art of an electrode assembly and cell casing 101 (“housing”), wherein there is a layer of intumescent material 1101 interposed between the inside wall of cell casing 101 and the exterior surface of the electrode assembly (Fig. 11; P44), wherein the intumescent material 1101is selected for optimal fire retardant properties (P44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the layer of intumescent material 1101 having fire retardant properties (i.e., “a fire retardant”) filled between the electrode assembly and the exterior body (“housing”) of Yasushi given the construct and technique are taught by Mehta, thereby providing the predictable result of preventing fire.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant's arguments filed 12/6/2024 with respect to the maintained prior art rejections have been fully considered. The updated rejections of record reflect the claim amendments made, wherein Applicant’s arguments are addressed below.
Response to the Arguments against Yasushi: Yasushi explicitly teaches that thermal fusion films are heated and fused to surround the outer periphery of the thin film battery unit 10 disposed in each opening portion (see P24: “the heat-sealing film 20… surrounds the outer periphery of the thin film battery element 10 of each layer. The thin film battery element single body 10 of each layer is sealed”). See also P28 describing same. Accordingly, after the heat-sealing step (not shown in the figures which are prior to fusion – see P17 which describes that Fig. 1 is before the heat-sealing film 20 is fused), the heat-sealing film 20 surrounds the outer periphery of the thin film element 10. The band-shaped insulator or heat-sealing film 20 is heated to fuse to seal the battery element alone (P9). The laminated body is heated with pressurization, and by this heating and pressurization, the single layer thin film battery element 10, the strip-shaped positive electrode current collector 1 and the strip-shaped negative electrode current collector 3 are fixed (P24). The heat-sealing film 20 melts and adheres to each other in each layer (P24). P24 of Yasushi is reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image11.png
210
917
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Figures. 1a-1b relied upon by Applicant are exploded views of the components that do not show the final heat sealing step described in the reference as detailed above (nor would it be possible for said elements to be capable of free-floating as shown in the Figures 1a-1b). The reference explicitly teaches all of the claimed limitations, including “a heat fusion film 20 (“glue frame”) adhering and being between sandwiched between the first belt current collector 1 and the second belt current collector 3 (P9, 17, 24, 28) to make each of the electrochemical systems be an independent module, wherein the electrochemical systems 10 are completely sealed by the heat fusion film 20 (“glue frame”), the first belt current collector 1, and the second belt current collector 3 (P9, 17, 24,28) in order to allow charge transfer to occur between two adjacent electrochemical systems 10 without electrochemical reaction occurring between two adjacent electrochemical systems…”
Applicant additionally argues the product-by-process limitation with respect the specific process steps by which the plurality of bending portions are formed as detailed in the claim. As noted in the current rejection of record (the claims previously noted as product-by-process claims), product-by-process claims are evaluated for the implicit or explicit structural characteristics provided to the final product. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, wherein if the product in the 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
In the instance case, it appears all of the structural characteristics achieved by the product-by-process language are met by Yasushi such that the claim is considered anticipated by Yasushi as there appears to be no differences provided by the product-by-process limitation. Alternatively, any differences (none currently known to the Examiner) provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the electrode assembly of Yasushi. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
Response to “Reason 1”: None of the limitations argued (i.e., “a pseudo-double-sided coated structure” or “double-sided coating structure”) appear in the claims. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with any limitation presented in the instant claims such that these arguments are entirely moot with resp