DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) filed January 28th, 2025 is acknowledged and the previous objection is withdrawn.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendment(s) to the claim(s) filed January 28th, 2025 is acknowledged and the previous rejection is withdrawn in part (i.e., withdrawn with respect to canceled claims 6 and 15).
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As discussed in MPEP 2164.08, “The propriety of a rejection based upon the scope of a claim relative to the scope of the enablement concerns (1) how broad the claim is with respect to the disclosure and (2) whether one skilled in the art could make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.”
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 17, “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer” is recited in Lines 6-7 (with regards to claim 1), and “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer” is recited in Lines 3-4 (with regards to claims 8 and 17). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to make and use the entire scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
As discussed in MPEP 2164.01(a), Undue Experimentation Factors include:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
(B) The nature of the invention;
(C) The state of the prior art;
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) The existence of working examples; and
With regards to (A), and as to the breadth of the claim, “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer” (with regards to claim 1), and “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer” (with regards to claims 8 and 17), requires said water permeability is at least measured at a given temperature and pressure, such that said water permeability would vary based on the measurement conditions, such as based on a change in temperature.
With regards to (B), and as to the nature of the invention, the product as claimed is directed to an electrochemical apparatus comprising a barrier with a water permeability, etc.
With regards to (C), and as to the state of the prior art, the prior art Sasaki (See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below) suggests that the measurement of water-vapor transmission rate per 1 m2, is based on an isobaric pressure method with a temperature of 40°C, etc. However, the instant application makes no mention of the specific temperature with regards to said measurement regarding water permeability, and does not specifically state that the same measurement standard of ISO 15106-5 2008 was indeed utilized.
With regards to (D), and as to the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, as discussed above in (C), and provided that prior art of record pertains to those having ordinary skill in the art, the prior art Sasaki (See 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below) provides guidance or suggestion the measurement of water-vapor transmission rate per 1 m2, whereby the measurement conditions are based on an isobaric pressure method with a temperature of 40°C, etc. (i.e., such as measurement standard of ISO 15106-5 2008 as discussed above in (C)). However, the instant application makes no mention of the specific temperature with regards to said measurement regarding water permeability.
With regards to (E), and as to the level of predictability, the instant specification nor drawings describe to one having ordinary skill in the art the conditions as to how to arrive at said water permeability, whereby the closest recitation of said conditions is in [0083] that broadly recites “constant temperature and humidity environment was created at one side A of the apparatus”. However, the skilled artisan would expect a more specific temperature, etc., to be reported since temperature, etc., would clearly effect said water permeability, such that one of ordinary skill in the art is not provided with enough direction and/or data as to arrive at how said water permeability is measured and/or derived.
Therefore, the instant specification does not provide sufficient evidence pertaining to the level of predictability as to how “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by a mass spectrometer” (with regards to claim 1), and “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer” (with regards to claims 8 and 17).
With regards to (F), and as to the amount of direction provided by the inventor, as discussed above in (E), the instant specification nor drawings describe to one having ordinary skill in the art the conditions as to how to arrive at said water permeability, whereby the closest recitation of said conditions is in [0083] that broadly recites “constant temperature and humidity environment was created at one side A of the apparatus”. However, the skilled artisan would expect a more specific temperature, etc., to be reported since temperature, etc., would clearly effect said water permeability, such that one of ordinary skill in the art is not provided with enough direction and/or data as to arrive at water permeability.
With regards to (G), and as to existing of working examples, the instant specification nor drawings describe to one having ordinary skill in the art the conditions as to how to arrive at said water permeability, whereby the closest recitation of said conditions is in [0083] that broadly recites “constant temperature and humidity environment was created at one side A of the apparatus”. However, the skilled artisan would expect a more specific temperature, etc., to be reported since temperature, etc., would clearly effect said water permeability, such that one of ordinary skill in the art is not provided with enough direction and/or data as to arrive at said water permeability.
Weighing all these experimentation factors, it is the Examiner’s position that the claim(s) lack enablement, such that there is insufficient evidence to support the limitation(s) “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by a mass spectrometer” (with regards to claim 1), and “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by a mass spectrometer” (with regards to claims 8 and 17), whereby one having ordinary skill would not be able to arrive at the claimed water permeability(s) in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention without undue experimentation.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18 do not cure the deficiencies of at least claims 1 and 10 from which they depend and therefore are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 17, “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer” is recited in Lines 6-7 (with regards to claim 1), and “a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer” is recited in Lines 3-4 (with regards to claims 8 and 17), however it is unclear as to what temperature the water permeability of the barrier is measured, whereby the instant specification nor drawings describe to one having ordinary skill in the art the conditions for arriving at said water permeability, and whereby the closest recitation of said conditions is in [0083] that broadly recites “constant temperature and humidity environment was created at one side A of the apparatus”, such that the skilled artisan would expect a more specific temperature, etc., to be reported since temperature, etc., would clearly effect permeability, thereby failing to point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-14, 16 and 18 do not cure the deficiencies of at least claims 1 and 10 from which they depend and therefore are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1-3, 7-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2016/0020481 A1 as cited in IDS), , and further in view of Sasaki et al. (U.S. PGPub US 2022/0069390 A1 with Foreign Application Priority Date of January 23rd, 2019).
Regarding claim 1-3 and 10-12, He et al. discloses an electrochemical apparatus, comprising:
a barrier (i.e., at least bipolar plate ref. 4 as shown in Annotated Fig. 1, etc., and as disclosed in [0031], such that said bipolar plate is at least a barrier lacking any further structural and/or chemical distinction thereof, also see Abstract, [0004]-[0006], [0018], [0020]-[0023], [0028], [0030], [0041], [0046], [0049]),
wherein the barrier is hermetically connected to an outer package (i.e., at least the bipolar battery comprise: a case ref. 1, consisting of a first half case ref. 2 and a second half case ref. 3; at least one bipolar plate ref. 4, with periphery sealed and sandwiched between the first half case ref. 2 and the second half case ref. 3; and at least two electrical cores located at opposite two sides of the bipolar plate respectively, etc., as disclosed in [0023] and at least shown in Fig. 1, whereby as disclosed [0032] on the periphery of the case ref. 1, insulating and sealing pieces may be arranged among the bipolar plate ref. 4, etc., such that the first half case and/or second half case is at least an outer package that is connected to the bipolar plate (i.e., at least barrier) via insulating and/or sealing pieces so as to be sealed, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof as to said hermetically connected and/or outer package, also see [0025], [0032]-[0034], [0037], [0043]-[0044], [0049]),
standalone chambers are formed at two sides of the barrier respectively (i.e., at least standalone chambers (i.e., at least chambers of said first half of case ref. 2 and second half of case ref. 3) are formed at two sides of the bipolar plate ref. 4 as shown in Annotated Fig. 1, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said chambers, also see [0023]-[0026], [0030]-[0033], [0039]),
each chamber encapsulates an electrode assembly, the electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode plate, a separator, a positive electrode plate, a positive tab, a negative tab, and an electrolyte (see [0031] such that the electrical core ref. 5a comprises a first positive lead ref. 6a and a first negative lead ref. 7a, and the second electrical core ref. 5b comprises a second positive lead ref. 6b and a second negative lead ref. 7b, etc., whereby as disclosed in [0036] the first electrical core ref. 5a and the second electrical core ref. 5b respectively comprise at least one unit cell, and each unit cell comprises positive collector ref. 8, positive electrode active material ref. 10, diaphragm ref. 12, negative collector ref. 9 and negative electrode active material ref. 11 arranged in a stack-up way, etc., such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said electrical core(s) are at least electrode assembly(s), positive/negative collector(s) and/or electrode active material(s) are at least positive/negative electrode plate(s), a diagram is at least a separator so as to isolate positive and negative and only allow the passage of lithium ions (see [0020]), and first/second positive/negative lead(s) are least positive/negative tab(s), lacking any further distinction thereof as to said negative electrode plate, separator, positive electrode plate, positive tab, and/or negative tab.
Since He et al. discloses in [0024] and as shown in Fig. 1 encapsulation may be adopted only on the peripheries of bipolar plate ref. 4 and case ref. 1 to make for assembly and maintenance, etc., and further discloses in [0056] electrolyte may be injected from the unbound part (for example, the left periphery and right periphery in Fig. 1 may be bound and one of the left periphery and right periphery in Fig. 1 may be connected, while the periphery on the other side is not bound in order to inject electrolyte), whereby after the electrolyte is injected, rests and then is encapsulated and a battery is formed, if gas is generated, it may be vented from this side, such that lastly, the unbound part is bound with first sealant ref. 14 to complete encapsulation, this at least provides each chamber encapsulates an electrode assembly and an electrolyte, etc., lacking any further distinction thereof, also see [0025], [0032]-[0034], [0037], [0043]-[0044], [0049]).
He et al. further discloses in [0030] an appropriate layout may be adopted to connect first electrical core ref. 5a and second electrical core ref. 5b in series through bipolar plate ref. 4, etc., and further discloses in [0031] the first positive lead ref. 6a is connected to the positive collector of the bipolar plate ref. 4 adjacent to the first half case ref. 2, etc., and the second negative lead ref. 7b is connected to the negative collector of the bipolar plate ref. 4 adjacent to the second half case ref. 3, etc., (also see [0005], [0020], [0022], [0028]-[0030], [0040], [0043], [0054]), this at least provides electrode assemblies in adjacent chambers are connected in series by tabs (e.g., leads refs. 6a and 7b are at least tabs as shown in Fig. 1), lacking any further distinction thereof as to said tabs and/or series connection.
He et al. further discloses the barrier comprises an ion insulating layer (i.e., at least bipolar plate ref. 4 as discussed above, whereby as disclosed in [0046] bipolar plate ref. 4 may be made of an appropriate material such as: Cu-Al, aluminum foil, etc., which at least comprises an ion insulating layer, such that with regards to claims 2-3 and 11-12, the ion insulating layer is made of at least a metal material from the group and the metal material at least comprises at least one of Al, Cu, etc., from the group).
Furthermore, since He et al. discloses a barrier that at least comprises a metal material layer (i.e., Al, Cu, etc., as discussed above), this is an identical or substantially identical product as that claimed, such that properties and/or function such as ion insulating are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.).
Although He et al. does not explicitly disclose a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer, since He et al. discloses the barrier (i.e., as discussed above), which is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed, properties and/or functions such as a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.).
However, He et al. does not explicitly disclose a barrier having a thickness of from 6 µm to 100 µm. Furthermore, He et al. does not explicitly disclose 0.01≤T/W≤0.05, wherein T is a sealing thickness and W is a sealing width of a seal between the barrier and the outer package, the sealing thickness T is thickness of a sealing material on one side of the barrier in a sealing zone; and the sealing width W is width of the sealing material in the sealing zone; the sealing zone is a zone at which the barrier and the outer package are sealed together.
Sasaki et al. teaches an exterior material for all-solid-state battery, method for manufacturing same, and all-solid-state battery (Title). Sasaki et al. further teaches in [0198] peripheral portions (four sides) of two exterior materials (having a rectangular shape in plan view with a length of 300 mm and a width of 150 mm) including a laminate in which a base material layer, an adhesive agent layer, a barrier layer and a heat-sealable resin layer (the thickness of a resin film is described in Table 1) are laminated in this order were heat-sealed at a width of 3 mm, etc., whereby as taught in Table 1:Line 1 a thickness of the heat-sealable resin layer (i.e., thickness of resin film) is for example, 35 µm, etc.
Sasaki et al. further teaches in [0106] when the barrier layer ref. 3 is a metal foil (i.e., at least commensurate in scope with He et al.), the barrier ref. 3 may perform a function as a barrier layer suppressing at least ingress of moisture, and has a thickness of, for example, about 25 to 35 µm, which is a range of thicknesses that is within the claimed range of a thickness of the barrier ranges from 6 µm to 100 µm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.)
Since Sasaki et al. teaches a laminate in which a base material layer, an adhesive agent layer, a barrier layer and a heat-sealable resin layer are laminated in this order, this at least provides a seal between the barrier and the outer package such that said base material layer is at least an outer package material, and said heat-sealable resin layer is at least a seal, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said heat-sealable resin (i.e., at least seal) is between the barrier and the outer package as shown in Annotated Fig. 2 so that the heat-sealable resin layers ref. 4 at the flange portion are heat-sealed to each other, thereby providing an all-solid-state battery including an exterior material, etc., as taught in [0037] and shown in Annotated Fig. 2, and lacking any further distinction thereof as to said outer package material and/or seal (also see [0031], [0136]-[0152] with regards to the heat-sealable resin layer ref. 4, Figs. 4-7).
Sasaki et al. further teaches a sealing zone (see Annotated Fig. 2), whereby as taught in [0037] the heat-sealable resin layers ref. 4 at the flange portion are heat-sealed to each other, thereby providing an all-solid-state battery including an exterior material, etc., as taught in [0037] such that said sealing zone is at least a zone at which the barrier and the outer package are sealed together so that the heat-sealable resin layers are heat-sealed to each other, lacking any further distinction thereof as to said sealing zone.
Furthermore, since Sasaki et al. teaches a laminate in which a base material layer, an adhesive agent layer, a barrier layer and a heat-sealable resin layer are laminated in this order and heat-sealed at a width of 3 mm (i.e., 3000 µm), this at least provides W is a sealing width of a seal between the barrier and the outer package, such that said sealing width W is at least a width of the sealing material in the sealing zone (See Annotated Fig. 2) so as to be heat-sealed at a width of 3 mm, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof as to said sealing width.
Furthermore, since Sasaki et al. teaches the thickness of the heat-sealable resin layer is 35 µm (i.e., at least T is a sealing thickness, such that said sealing thickness T is thickness of a sealing material on one side of the barrier in a sealing zone such as a side that allows the heat-sealable resin layers to be heat-sealed to each other as discussed above) and further teaches heat-sealing at a width of 3 mm (i.e., 3000 µm, whereby W is a sealing width as discussed above), this at least provides 35 µm /3000 µm = 0.011, which is a value within the claimed range of 0.01≤T/W≤0.05, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Sasaki et al. further teaches in [0018] according to the present disclosure, it is possible to provide an exterior material for an all-solid-state battery which is applied to an all-solid-state battery including a solid electrolyte containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the exterior material having a barrier layer in which deterioration is effectively suppressed even when the all-solid-state battery is constrained in a high-pressure state, etc.
Therefore, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified He that discloses the electrochemical apparatus to further include a barrier thickness of about 25 to 35 µm, a sealing thickness (i.e., at least heat-sealable resin layer thickness) is 35 µm, a sealing width (i.e., at least heat-sealing width) of 3 mm, sealing zone, and T/W = 0.011 as discussed above, etc., as taught by Sasaki et al. so as to provide an exterior material for an all-solid-state battery which is applied to an all-solid-state battery including a solid electrolyte containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the exterior material having a barrier layer in which deterioration is effectively suppressed even when the all-solid-state battery is constrained in a high-pressure state.
Furthermore, although Sasaki et al. teaches said sealing thickness, sealing width, sealing zone, etc., in solid electrolyte batteries, the skilled artisan would appreciate the applicability of said sealing thickness, sealing width, sealing zone, etc., in other batteries such as lithium batteries with liquid electrolytes.
With regards to claims 10-12, since the combined teachings of He et al. and Sasaki et al. disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is at least an electronic device, and He et al. further discloses in [0007] a vehicle comprising the bipolar battery, whereby the bipolar battery is used to provide power for the vehicle, etc., this at least provides an electronic apparatus comprising said electrochemical apparatus. Furthermore, with regards to claims 10-12, since the combined teachings of He et al. and Sasaki et al. disclose said electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claims 1-3 and 10-12 is the preamble reciting an electronic device comprising said electrochemical apparatus, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Furthermore, although He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. does not explicitly disclose a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the barrier (i.e., as discussed above), as well as thickness of said barrier within the claimed range, which is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed, properties and/or functions such as a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.).
PNG
media_image1.png
830
1266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (He)
PNG
media_image2.png
490
1036
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (Sasaki)
Regarding claims 7 and 16, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above in claim 1. Furthermore, since He et al. disclose the bipolar plate ref. 4 as discussed above in claim 1 (i.e., at least barrier comprising an ion insulating layer), this at least provides the ion insulating layer (i.e., at least as discussed above in claim 1) is a single-layer or multi-layer structure, lacking any further distinction thereof.
With regards to claim 16, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is at least an electronic device, and He et al. further discloses in [0007] a vehicle comprising the bipolar battery, whereby the bipolar battery is used to provide power for the vehicle, etc., this at least provides an electronic apparatus comprising said electrochemical apparatus. Furthermore, with regards to claim 16, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose said electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claims 7 and 16 is the preamble reciting an electronic device comprising said electrochemical apparatus, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the electrochemical apparatus including the barrier comprising the ion-insulating layer as discussed above in claim 1.
However, He et al. does not explicitly disclose the barrier has at least one of the following characteristics:
(a) a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm as measured by a mass spectrometer;
(b) a thickness of the barrier ranges from 10 µm to 40 µm; and
(c) a material of the ion insulating layer has a melting point higher than or equal to 165°C.
Although He et al. does not explicitly disclose a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer, and is further silent as to a material of the ion insulating layer has a melting point higher than or equal to 165°C, since He et al. discloses the barrier comprising the ion-insulating layer (i.e., as discussed above in claim 1), which is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed, properties and/or functions such as a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-4 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer and/or a material of the ion insulating layer has a melting point higher than or equal to 165°C (i.e., at least (a) and (c) from the group), are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.). In the alternative, and as further cited by the examiner in the interest of compact prosecution, since Sasaki et al. further teaches in [0106] when the barrier layer ref. 3 is a metal foil (i.e., at least commensurate in scope with He et al.), the barrier ref. 3 may perform a function as a barrier layer suppressing at least ingress of moisture, and has a thickness of, for example, about 25 to 35 µm, which is a range of thicknesses within the claimed range of a thickness of the barrier ranges from 10 µm to 40 µm, thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05, I.).
Sasaki further teaches in [0018] according to the present disclosure, it is possible to provide an exterior material for an all-solid-state battery which is applied to an all-solid-state battery including a solid electrolyte containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the exterior material having a barrier layer in which deterioration is effectively suppressed even when the all-solid-state battery is constrained in a high-pressure state, etc.
Therefore, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified He et al. that discloses the electrochemical apparatus to further include the barrier thickness, etc., as taught by Sasaki et al. so as to provide an exterior material for an all-solid-state battery which is applied to an all-solid-state battery including a solid electrolyte containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the exterior material having a barrier layer in which deterioration is effectively suppressed even when the all-solid-state battery is constrained in a high-pressure state.
Furthermore, although Sasaki et al. teaches said barrier, etc., in solid electrolyte batteries, the skilled artisan would appreciate the applicability of said barrier, etc., in other batteries such as lithium batteries with liquid electrolytes.
Furthermore, although He et al. in view of Sasaki does not explicitly discloses a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer, since He et al. in view of Sasaki disclose the barrier (i.e., as discussed above), as well as thickness of said barrier within the claimed range, which is identical and/or substantially identical to the product as claimed, properties and/or functions such as a water permeability of the barrier is less than or equal to 10-3 g/(day·m2·Pa)/3 mm, as measured by mass spectrometer are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.).
With regards to claim 17, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is at least an electronic device, and He et al. further discloses in [0007] a vehicle comprising the bipolar battery, whereby the bipolar battery is used to provide power for the vehicle, etc., this at least provides an electronic apparatus comprising said electrochemical apparatus. Furthermore, with regards to claim 17, since He et al. in view of Sasaki disclose said electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claims 8 and 17 is the preamble reciting an electronic device comprising said electrochemical apparatus, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, He et al. in view of Sasaki disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above in claim 1. Since He et al. discloses in [0023] the bipolar battery comprise: a case ref. 1, consisting of a first half case ref. 2 and a second half case ref. 3; at least one bipolar plate ref. 4, with periphery sealed and sandwiched between the first half case ref. 2 and the second half case ref. 3; and at least two electrical cores located at opposite two sides of the bipolar plate respectively, and further discloses in [0026] at least the locations where the first half case ref. 2 and the second half case ref. 3 contact bipolar plate ref. 4 may be made of flexible packing material, etc., and further discloses in [0036] each unit cell is arranged in a stacked-up way, etc., this at least provides a structure of the electrode assembly comprises a laminated structure, such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that said electrical core formed by stacking is at least a laminated structure, lacking any further distinction thereof.
In the alternative, and as put forth by the examiner, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above in claim 1, whereby Sasaki et al. further teaches in [0036] as shown in the schematic diagrams of Figs. 1 to 3, the all-solid-state battery ref. 70 according to the present disclosure is one in which a battery element including at least a unit cell ref. 50 including a positive active material layer ref. 31, a negative active material layer ref. 21, and a solid electrolyte layer ref. 40 laminated between the positive active material layer ref. 31 and the negative active material layer ref. 21 is housed in a packaging formed from the exterior material for an all-solid-state battery ref. 10, etc., which at least provides a structure of the electrode assembly comprises a laminated structure, such that a structure is at least a unit cell of a battery element including laminated structure such as a solid electrolyte layer laminated between the positive active material layer and the negative active material layer, etc., and lacking any further distinction thereof.
Sasaki et al. further teaches in [0018] according to the present disclosure, it is possible to provide an exterior material for an all-solid-state battery which is applied to an all-solid-state battery including a solid electrolyte containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the exterior material having a barrier layer in which deterioration is effectively suppressed even when the all-solid-state battery is constrained in a high-pressure state, etc.
Therefore, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. are analogous in the field of batteries, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified He et al. that discloses the electrochemical apparatus to further include a structure of the electrode assembly comprises a laminated structure as taught by Sasaki et al. so as to provide an all-solid-state battery including a solid electrolyte containing a sulfide solid electrolyte material, the exterior material having a barrier layer in which deterioration is effectively suppressed even when the all-solid-state battery is constrained in a high-pressure state.
With regards to claim 18, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is at least an electronic device, and He et al. further discloses in [0007] a vehicle comprising the bipolar battery, whereby the bipolar battery is used to provide power for the vehicle, etc., this at least provides an electronic apparatus comprising said electrochemical apparatus. Furthermore, with regards to claim 18, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose said electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claims 9 and 18 is the preamble reciting an electronic device comprising said electrochemical apparatus, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. and Sasaki et al. as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, or in the alternative, as evidenced by Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook – Processing, Materials, and Applications (2nd Edition, 2017 Elsevier), hereinafter Applied Plastics.
Regarding claim 4 and 13, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. discloses the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above in claim 1.
He et al. further discloses in [0032] on the periphery of the case ref. 1, insulating and sealing pieces may be arranged among the bipolar plate ref. 4 (i.e., at least barrier as discussed above in claim 1), the first half case ref. 2, the second half case ref. 3, etc., whereby the insulating and sealing pieces may be made of one of PP with high melt strength, PE, polyurethane, etc., as disclosed in [0033] a first sealant ref. 14 is adopted to realized sealing insulation between the bipolar plate ref. 4 and the first half case ref. 2 and between the bipolar plate ref. 4 and the second half case ref. 3, etc., (also see Figs. 1-5), which at least provides the barrier (i.e., at least bipolar plate comprising aluminum, copper foil, etc., that at least provides an ion insulating layer as discussed above in claim 1) further comprises an encapsulating layer (i.e., at least first sealant ref. 14 as in Figs. 1 and 5), and further provides the encapsulating layer is disposed at a circumferential edge around a surface of the ion insulating layer (i.e., at least at outer side such as a circumferential edge around a surface of the aluminum foil ref. 41 as shown in Fig. 5), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that insulating and sealing pieces arranged on the periphery of the case is at least an encapsulating layer disposed at a circumferential edge (i.e., at least a periphery), lacking any further distinction thereof.
He et al. further discloses in [0033] the insulating and sealing pieces may be made of one of PP with high melt strength, PE, polyurethane, etc., which at least provides the encapsulating layer comprises at least polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, etc., from the group.
Since He et al. discloses the encapsulating layer comprises at least polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, etc., as discussed above, which is an identical product and/or material as that claimed, properties such as the encapsulating layer has a melting point ranging from 120°C to 160°C are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.).
In the alternative, and as put forth by the examiner, since He et al. discloses the encapsulating layer comprises at least, for example, polyethylene, this at least provides the encapsulating layer has a melting point ranging from 120 to 138°C (as evidenced by Applied Plastics), which is a melting point range that is within the claimed range from 120°C to 160°C, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
Since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. (or in the alternative in view of Applied Plastics) disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is at least an electronic device, and He et al. further discloses in [0007] a vehicle comprising the bipolar battery, whereby the bipolar battery is used to provide power for the vehicle, etc., this at least provides an electronic apparatus comprising said electrochemical apparatus. Furthermore, with regards to claims 13, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. (or in the alternative in view of Applied Plastics) disclose said electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claim 4 and 13 is the preamble reciting an electronic device comprising said electrochemical apparatus, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. discloses the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above in claims 4 and 13.
He et al. further discloses in [0032] on the periphery of the case ref. 1, insulating and sealing pieces may be arranged among the bipolar plate ref. 4 (i.e., at least barrier as discussed above in claim 1), the first half case ref. 2, the second half case ref. 3, etc., whereby the insulating and sealing pieces may be made of one of PP with high melt strength, PE, polyurethane, etc., as disclosed in [0033] a first sealant ref. 14 is adopted to realized sealing insulation between the bipolar plate ref. 4 and the first half case ref. 2 and between the bipolar plate ref. 4 and the second half case ref. 3, etc., (also see Figs. 1-5), which at least provides the barrier (i.e., at least bipolar plate comprising aluminum, copper foil, etc., that at least provides an ion insulating layer as discussed above in claim 1) further comprises an encapsulating layer (i.e., at least first sealant ref. 14 as in Figs. 1 and 5), and further provides the encapsulating layer is disposed at a circumferential edge around a surface of the ion insulating layer (i.e., at least at outer side such as a circumferential edge around a surface of the aluminum foil ref. 41 as shown in Fig. 5), such that the skilled artisan would appreciate that insulating and sealing pieces arranged on the periphery of the case is at least an encapsulating layer disposed at a circumferential edge (i.e., at least a periphery), lacking any further distinction thereof.
He et al. further discloses in [0033] the insulating and sealing pieces may be made of one of PP with high melt strength, PE, polyurethane, etc., which at least provides the encapsulating layer comprises at least polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, etc., from the group.
Since He et al. discloses the encapsulating layer comprises at least polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, etc., as discussed above, which is an identical product and/or material as that claimed, properties such as the encapsulating layer has a melting point ranging from 120°C to 160°C are presumed inherent (MPEP 2112.01, I., II.).
In the alternative, and as put forth by the examiner, since He et al. discloses the encapsulating layer comprises at least, for example, polyethylene, this at least provides the encapsulating layer has a melting point ranging from 120 to 138°C (as evidenced by Applied Plastics), which is a melting point range that is within the claimed range from 120°C to 160°C, thus a prima facie case of anticipation exists (MPEP 2131.03, I.).
With regards to claim 14, since He et al. in view of Sasaki (or in the alternative in view of Applied Plastics) disclose the electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is at least an electronic device, and He et al. further discloses in [0007] a vehicle comprising the bipolar battery, whereby the bipolar battery is used to provide power for the vehicle, etc., this at least provides an electronic apparatus comprising said electrochemical apparatus. Furthermore, with regards to claim 14, since He et al. in view of Sasaki et al. (or in the alternative in view of Applied Plastics) disclose said electrochemical apparatus as discussed above, which is an identical and/or substantially identical product to that claimed, and the only difference between claims 5 and 14 is the preamble reciting an electronic device comprising said electrochemical apparatus, the examiner asserts that there is no patentable significance between the claims, such that the preamble does not further limit the claim (MPEP 2111.02).
Response to Arguments
Claims 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Applicants argue Page 1 Par. 6-7, “…The sample is placed between a controlled humidity environment and a vacuum chamber, with the mass spectrometer analyzing the water vapor that permeates through the sample, providing a measure of its permeability. As such, temperature is not a factor in the calculation. As explained at paragraph [0083], a constant temperature and humidity environment was created at one side A of the apparatus, and a probe of a water vapor mass spectrometer was disposed at the other side B, gas exchange between the two sides could be completed through only the film….”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby the skilled artisan would appreciate that temperature does indeed effect the water permeability property of said barrier, and is indeed a factor so as to be performed at a constant temperature as put forth in [0083] of the instant application and discussed by Applicant. For example, the examiner asserts that although Applicant states that temperature is not a factor in the calculation, this does not exclude temperature as particularly important for determining the water permeability of said barrier, whereby the skilled artisan would appreciate that since said measurement is performed at a constant temperature this implies that said water permeability values are indeed dependent on temperature, and as such the property value(s) and/or range of value(s) of water permeability reported are simply an isotherm, lacking any further details as to said measurement. Furthermore, lacking any specific details as to said temperature and/or humidity conditions, the skilled artisan would expect that altering the temperature (e.g., changing the isotherm) would result in a change in the water permeability, which is also evidenced by the prior art Sasaki (see current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record), which suggests that the measurement of water-vapor transmission rate per 1 m2, is based on an isobaric pressure method with a temperature of 40°C, etc., however, the instant application makes no mention of the specific temperature with regards to said measurement regarding water permeability, and does not specifically state that the same measurement standard of ISO 15106-5 2008 was indeed utilized nor does it cite the specific temperature.
Therefore, lacking further experimental details, the current 35 U.S.C. 112(a-b) rejections of record are maintained for claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-18.
Claims 1-3, 6-12 and 15-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicants further argue Page 2 Par. 5, “Claim 1 is amended to further recite each chamber encapsulates, an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode plate, a separator, a positive electrode plate, a positive tab, a negative tab, and an electrolyte; electrode assemblies in adjacent chambers are connected in series, and the barrier comprises an ion insulating layer. The combination of He and Sasaki fails to teach or suggest this structure.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees, whereby as put forth in the current 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of record, He discloses each chamber encapsulates, an electrode assembly comprising a negative electrode plate, a separator, a positive electrode plate, a positive tab, a negative tab, and an electrolyte; electrode assemblies in adjacent chambers are connected in series, and the barrier comprises an ion insulating layer (see Annotated Fig. 1, etc., above in the current rejection of record).
Therefore, in light of the amendments to the claims, a new grounds of 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is made for claims 1-3, 7-12, and 16-18 in view of He and Sasaki. See the current rejection of record for the claims that depend therefrom.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki et al. (U.S. Patent 6,632,538 B1) discloses a sheet for cell and cell device (Title), whereby as disclosed in C6:L4-7 if the metal foil layer is a 9 µm thick aluminum foil, the metal foil layer has a water vapor permeability of 0.01 g/m2·24 hr or below at 40°C and 90% RH, etc.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA PATRICK MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-2742. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tong Guo can be reached on (571) 272-3066. 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.
/JOSHUA P MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights