DETAILED ACTION
Application 17/699178, “SECONDARY BATTERY”, was filed with the USPTO on 3/21/22 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 3/25/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 12/18/25.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US 2014/0154554), Guindy (USP 5902697) and Freyer (US 2019/0058190).
Supporting evidence is provided by Wikipedia:Capillary Action (Wikipedia’s page for “Capillary Action”, as published on March 22, 2019 via the Wayback Machine website).
Regarding claims 1-4, Kim teaches a secondary battery (Fig. 1; paragraph [0010]) comprising:
a case (item 120); an electrolyte solution (paragraph [0030]); an electrode assembly (item 110); and a porous member (item 130; paragraph [0043]),
wherein the case accommodates the electrolyte solution, the electrode assembly, and the porous member (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0028-0030]),
the case includes a top surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface, the bottom surface faces the top surface, the side surface connects the top surface to the bottom surface (Fig. 1 where large flat surfaces of case 120 are interpreted to be the top and bottom surfaces, and the angled edge parts provide left and right side surfaces),
the electrode assembly includes a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate, and a separator, the separator separates the positive electrode plate from the negative electrode plate (Fig. 1 item 110; paragraph [0030]),
a contour surface of the electrode assembly includes a first region wherein at least one of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate is exposed (the peripheral edge of the electrode assembly illustrated as a laminate in Fig. 1 is the first region) and a second region (the large rectangular top and bottom of the electrode assembly provide the second region, only the top is illustrated in Fig. 1),
at least one of the first region and the second region includes a third region, wherein the third region faces the bottom surface (the second region may include the third region, interpreted as the hidden large face of the electrode assembly 110),
the porous member includes a portion that extends along the contour surface in a direction connecting the bottom surface and the top surface (see Fig. 1, where a portion of the item 130 abuts the back surface [part of the contour surface] of the electrode assembly 110, such that the bottom surface and the top surface of the case are connected by the porous member and the back surface of the electrode assembly), and
the porous member covers at least part of the first region (see Fig. 1 where the porous member 130 covers the back surface of the electrode assembly, the back surface being a part of the peripheral edge of the electrode assembly, which is reads on the first region; it is noted that the porous member may be further included on other sides of the first region as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 and described in paragraph [0046]).
Kim illustrates a second region (i.e. marked by the item 110 at Fig. 1), but does not expressly state that at the second region neither the positive electrode plate nor the negative electrode plate is exposed. More specifically, Kim is silent as to whether the outermost layer of the electrode assembly 110 is an electrode or a separator; if the later, neither the positive nor the negative electrode plate would be exposed as they would be covered by the separator.
In the battery art, Guindy teaches that an electrochemical cell may be provided with an insulator member [i.e. a separator] on both outer surfaces of the cell (e.g. Fig. 6b, c8:1-3) for the benefit of providing electrical separation during abuse conditions (c6:48-52). Additionally, Guindy teaches that individual cells may be provided with thinned insulator members on both outer surfaces thereof for the benefit of simplifying manufacturing, compared to alternative structures with either a single or no insulator member per unit cell, with the result that an insulator is always present on the outer surface of a stacking of individual cells (c7:58-67).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide insulator members [separators] as the outermost layers of the electrochemical cell for the benefit of protecting from unwanted short circuiting and/or assembly practicality as taught by Guindy. In this case, at the second region of the contour surface of the second region is a region where neither the positive electrode plate nor the negative electrode plate would be exposed because they would be covered by the insulator member.
The claims further require the conditions (A)-(F) as described in claims 1-4. As to these, the Kim-Guindy embodiment further suggests wherein:
(B) 0.2<Sp1/Se1 (the contact area of between the porous member and the first region is approaches the value of the area of the first region, Sp1/Se1 approaches 1.0, for the embodiment when item 130 installed at more than one location as described in paragraph [0046] and Figs. 2-4);
(C) Sp2/Se1 < 0.1 (Sp2 approaches 0, meaning Sp2/Se1 also approaches 0, since the porous member is disposed only along the first region and not disposed adjacent the second region, which is covered by the insulator member [separator] in the combined embodiment);
(E) Sp4/Se3 < 0.1 (the third regionSp4 approaches 0, meaning Sp4/Se3 also approaches 0, since the porous member is disposed only along the first region and not disposed adjacent the third region, interpreted as the hidden large face of the electrode assembly 110, while Se3 is greater than 0 since the area of the third region is large, noting that the area Se 3 is covered by the insulator member [separator] in the combined embodiment).
Kim, in view of Guindy, does not expressly teach the conditions (A), (D), and (F) since the cited art is silent as to dimensions necessary to calculate the claimed parameters.
However, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Here, like applicant’s invention, the porous structure of Kim is of a relatively small contacting area compared to the area of the large area of the second region/third region [covered by insulating member/separator in the Kim-Guindy combined embodiment] (see Figs. 1-4) and is configured to store electrolyte and transfer the electrolyte to the electrode assembly to promote durability and stability of the device (paragraph [0018, 0049]), a similar advantage as achieved by applicant (applicant’s published paragraph [0022]).
Therefore, notwithstanding the lack of an express teaching of measurements which read on the claimed invention, it is nevertheless found to be unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Guindy because the same general conditions are suggested, and there is no evidence of record which demonstrates that the cited art would not possess or suggest the claimed parameter values, and this difference is associated with functional significance or criticality which would outweigh the prima facie case of obviousness based on similarity in terms of structure and function.
Regarding the 12/8/25 amendment to claim 1, Kim teaches, as the porous member, an electrolyte retaining structure 130 configured to retain electrolyte (paragraph [0048]), but does not appear to teach wherein the porous member includes a capillary, the porous member is configured to absorb the electrolyte solution by capillary action using the capillary, and the porous member includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a non-woven fabric, a sponge, and a foam.
In the battery art, Freyer teaches a battery comprising an electrolyte “storage body”/“reservoir” (Fig. 2 item 6 or 66) within the battery in order to hold excess electrolyte (paragraph [0015, 0036]) and supply the excess electrolyte to an adjacent electrode (paragraph [0073, 0067]). Freyer further teaches that such an electrolyte storage body may be formed from a body with pores for receiving electrolyte, such as a sponge or non-woven material (paragraph [0016, 0068]).
Freyer further teaches that it is generally undesirable for excess electrolyte to be freely movable within in a battery as freely moveable electrolyte may cause unwanted chemical side reactions and provides the electrolyte “storage body”/“reservoir” in order to address this issue (paragraph [0068]).
It would have been obvious to employ a sponge and/or nonwoven material as the electrolyte retaining structure [porous member] of Kim for the benefit of enabling the porous member to supply the adjacent battery components with electrolyte as needed, while restricting unneeded free movement of the electrolyte so as to decrease likelihood of unwanted chemical side reactions as taught by Freyer.
Moreover, a skilled artisan at the time of invention would have understood a “sponge”, in the context of the claimed porous member, to be a body containing small pores which serve as capillaries, enabling the sponge to efficiently draw up and hold liquids.** Therefore, the artisan would have interpreted the “sponge” of Freyer, which is expressly disclosed to be capable of storing liquid electrolyte, to be a porous member comprising capillaries capable of absorbing electrolyte solution by capillary action, and therefore readable on the claimed porous member structure.
**As supporting evidence, consider Wikipedia:Capillary Action, which describes a sponge as an example of a product which works by capillary action, and states “[t]he small pores of a sponge act as small capillaries, causing it to absorb a large amount of fluid” in the Examples section.
Regarding claim 6, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein at the first region, at least one of the positive electrode plate or the negative electrode plate directly contacts the porous member (see Figs. 1-4 where the porous member 130 abuts the peripheral portion of the electrode assembly, interpreted as the first region).
Regarding claim 7, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The Kim-Guindy embodiment further teaches wherein at the second region neither the positive electrode plate nor the negative electrode plate directly contacts the porous member (in the combined embodiment, the outer layer of the electrode assembly is an insulator/separator layer forming the second region; therefore, the porous member cannot directly contact either electrode plate at the second region).
Regarding claim 8, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The Kim-Guindy embodiment further teaches wherein at the second region the separator is between the case and each of the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (in the combined embodiment, the outer layer of the electrode assembly is an insulator/separator layer forming the second region; therefore, the outer separator is disposed between the case and the positive electrode or negative electrode).
Claims 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US 2014/0154554), Guindy (USP 5902697), Freyer (US 2019/0058190) and Liu (US 2018/0294509).
Regarding claim 5, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim and Freyer eacht teach a battery comprising a porous member configured to hold liquid electrolyte, with Freyer further teaching that the body may be a sponge, but neither reference explicitly states that the porosity of the porous member should be 50% or more.
In the battery art, Liu teaches a sponge structure which is configured to absorb and hold electrolyte and has mechanical resilience (abstract, paragraph [0021]) and possesses a porosity of 70 to 90% (abstract, paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to configure the porous member as a sponge having a porosity of 70-90% for the benefit of providing a structure capable of absorbing and holding electrolyte and/or having suitable mechanical properties, as taught by Liu. The claimed range of greater than 50% porosity is obvious because the prior art range lies within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/8/25 have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Kato (JP 2017084649 A) teaches a battery comprising a porous;
Yata (US 2004/0048152) electrode assembly comprising separators on outer surfaces thereof;
Kasahara (US 2022/0094020) insulating holder on periphery of an electrochemical cell
Bethke (US 2021/0159564) battery comprising a porous spacer which holds electrolyte allowing uniform lithium deposition;
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 JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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-Thompson can be reached on (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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723