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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 September 2025 has been entered.
Applicant cancelled claim 60, amended claims 47-48, 57, 64, and 67-70, and added new claims 71-73. Claims 47-53, 55-59, and 62-73 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
In view of the amendments, all of the rejections to the claims are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
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 47-53, 55-56, and 67-73 is/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 47, and 67 are directed to the embodiments of, e.g., Figs. 5A or 6A, wherein the separator includes a first layer 552 (652), a second layer 554 (654), and a separator seal 555 (657). Claims 47 and 67 require a separator seal coupled to the first layer but not the second layer; however, the figures show the separator seal 555 (652) is coupled to the first layer 552 and the second layer 554 (i.e., 552 is coupled to the second layer 554 at a surface facing electrode 510), thereby making the features of claims 47 and 67 new matter. The dependent claims (48-53, 55-56, and 68-73) are rejected for the same reason. In view of the foregoing, examiner interprets claims 47 and 67 as, a separator seal coupled to the first layer and disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the first layer and coupled to a surface of the second layer facing the anode/first electrode.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
425
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similarly, claim 57 recites “an impermeable portion disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the first layer of the separator but not the second layer of the separator”. However, the figures show the impermeable portion (555) is disposed proximate to (i.e., close, near, etc.) an outer perimeter of the second layer of the separator, thereby making the features of claim 57 (thus dependent claims 58-59, and 62-66) new matter. Examiner interprets claim 57 such that a first layer includes a first surface in contact with the anode and a second surface, perpendicular to the first surface, defining an outside perimeter of the first layer, and a second layer comprising a first surface in contact with the cathode and a second surface, perpendicular to the first surface of the second layer, defining an outside perimeter of the second layer, the first layer includes an impermeable portion contacting the second surface of the first layer, and the impermeable portion does not contact the second surface of the second layer.
Claim 73 describes an edge coating member proximate to an outside perimeter of the anode; this feature is shown and described in view of Fig. 11A. Since claim 73 depends from claim 47, the features of claim 47 (i.e., separator comprises a first layer and a second layer, a separator seal coupled to the first layer but not the second layer) must also be considered with the features of claim 73. However, the specification and figures that include the edge coating member (i.e., features of claim 73) do not also disclose the separator comprises a first layer and second layer, as set forth in claim 47, let alone a separator seal coupled to the first layer but not the second layer, recited in claim 47. Thus, the features of claim 73 (which included the features of claim 47 having a separator with a first layer and a second layer, etc.) are considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 47, 50, 57, 62, 65, and 67 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Saka (JP 2016-149202, machine translation provided), hereinafter Saka. Please see the 112 rejection for the interpretation of claims 47, 57, and 67.
Regarding Claims 47 and 50, Saka suggests an electrochemical cell, comprising: an anode (64) disposed on an anode current collector (62); a cathode (54) disposed on a cathode current collector (52); a separator (70) disposed between the anode and the cathode (see Figs.) includes pores (i.e., microporous), the separator (40) comprising: a first layer (74), in contact with the anode (64); and a second layer (72) disposed on the first layer (74), the second layer (72) in contact with the cathode (54), the separator (40) configured to allow movement of electroactive species between the anode and the cathode (i.e., at 74a); and a separator seal (e.g., 74b, 74c) coupled to the first layer and disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the first layer (74) and coupled to a surface of the second layer (72) of the separator (70) facing the anode, the separator seal (74b, 74c) configured to block movement of electroactive species (i.e., Li ion are trapped, thereby inhibiting lithium metal deposition, and result in high battery performance, see e.g., [0007, 0010-0011, 0013, 0016, 0021, 0025-0029], etc.).
Regarding Claims 57 and 65, the features of claim 57 which are identical to claim 47 are interpreted the same as set forth under the rejection of claim 47. Saka suggests an electrochemical cell, comprising: an anode disposed on an anode current collector; a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector; and a separator disposed between the anode and the cathode includes pores (i.e., microporous), the separator comprising: a first layer including a first surface in contact with the anode and a second surface, perpendicular to the first surface of the first layer, defining an outside perimeter of the first layer; and a second layer, disposed on the first layer, comprising a first surface in contact with the cathode and a second surface, perpendicular to the first surface of the second layer, defining an outside perimeter of the second layer, the first layer includes a permeable portion (74a) configured to allow movement of electroactive species therethrough, and an impermeable portion (i.e., 74b, 74c) contacting the second surface of the first layer, the impermeable portion (i.e., 74b, 74c) does not contact the second surface of the second layer, and the impermeable portion (i.e., 74b, 74c) configured to prevent movement of electroactive species therethrough (i.e., Li ion are trapped, see rejection of claim 47).
Regarding Claim 62, Saka suggests substantially all of the second layer (72) is permeable (see e.g., [0029]), Li trapping sections 74b, 74c are only present at the ends of the first layer 74, otherwise the separator (74a, 72) allows smooth movement of cations).
Regarding Claim 67, the features of claim 67 which are identical to claim 47 are interpreted the same as set forth under the rejection of claim 47. Saka suggests an electrochemical cell, comprising: a first electrode (e.g., anode in claim 47); a second electrode (e.g., cathode in claim 67); a separator disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the separator comprising: a first layer, in contact with the first electrode (e.g., anode); and a second layer disposed on the first layer, the second layer in contact with the second electrode (e.g., cathode), the separator configured to allow movement of electroactive species (e.g., at 74a) between the first electrode and the second electrode; a separator seal (74b, 74c) coupled to the first layer and disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the first layer of the separator and coupled to a surface of the second layer facing the first electrode, the separator seal configured to block movement of electroactive species (e.g., 74b, 74c traps Li ions); and a pouch (case 30), wherein the first electrode, the second electrode, the separator, and the separator seal are disposed in the pouch (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 47, 50-51, 55, 57, 64-67, and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Anami (JP 2016-110886, machine translation attached), hereinafter Anami. Please see the 112 rejection for the interpretation of claims 47, 57, and 67.
Regarding Claims 47, 50, and 67, Anami suggests an electrochemical cell (1), comprising: an anode/first electrode (42) disposed on an anode current collector (41); a cathode/second electrode (32) disposed on a cathode current collector (31); a separator (5), including pores, disposed between the anode/first electrode and the cathode/second electrode (see Figs. 4), the separator (5) comprising: a first layer (52), in contact with the anode/first electrode (42); and a second layer (53) disposed on the first layer (52), the second layer (53) in contact with the cathode/second electrode (32), the separator (5) configured to allow movement of electroactive species between the anode and the cathode (i.e., via portion 52); and a separator seal (e.g., 51) coupled and disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the first layer (52) and coupled to a surface of the second layer (53) of the separator (5) facing the anode (42), the separator seal (51) configured to block movement of electroactive species (i.e., seal 51 includes a heat treatment which closes the pores of the separator, making it more difficult to transmit metal ions and more difficult for metal dendrites to penetrate therethrough, thereby suppressing the formation of lithium metal dendrites and micro short circuits), see e.g., [0017-0023, 0031-0032, 0037, 0039-0041, 0043-0044, 0070-0072, etc.] and Figs. Further, Anami suggests the first electrode, the second electrode, the separator and the separator seal are disposed in a pouch, see e.g., Fig.1.
Regarding Claim 55, Anami suggests the separator seal 51 is formed by a heat treatment (see rejection of claim 47), thereby suggesting the separator seal is thermally bonded to the separator (52, 53).
Regarding Claims 57 and 65, features identical to claim 47 are interpreted the same as set forth above under the rejection of claim 47. Anami suggests an electrochemical cell, comprising: an anode disposed on an anode current collector; a cathode disposed on a cathode current collector; and a separator including pores () disposed between the anode and the cathode, the separator comprising: a first layer (52) comprising a first surface in contact with the anode (42) and a second surface, perpendicular to the first surface of the first layer, defining an outside perimeter of the first layer (52), and a second layer (53) disposed on the first layer (52), the second layer (52) comprising a first surface in contact with the cathode (32), and a second surface, perpendicular to the first surface of the second layer, defining an outside perimeter of the second layer (53), the first layer (52) including a permeable portion (52) configured to allow movement of electroactive species therethrough and an impermeable portion (51) on the second surface of the first layer, the impermeable portion is not on the second surface of the second layer (53), the impermeable portion configured to prevent movement of electroactive species therethrough (see explanation under the rejection of claim 47).
Regarding Claims 51, Anami suggests a heat treatment to block/close the pores of the separator thereby forming seal 51, making it more difficult to transmit metal ions and more difficult for metal dendrites to penetrate therethrough, thereby suppressing the formation of lithium metal dendrites and micro short circuits. The heat treatment of Anami suggests filling/closing of the pores of the separator at section 51 with melted separator material.
Regarding Claim 59, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “UV-cured”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, examiner understands the “UV-cured” process implies a polymer; thus, if the prior art suggests the impermeable portion includes a polymer, the claim recitation is met. In this case, Anami suggests the impermeable portion (51) includes a polymer ([0022]), thereby satisfying the suggested structure of the claim.
Regarding Clams 64, Anami suggests portion 51 is formed by heat treatment, thereby suggesting an outside edge of the first layer (52) is melted to form the impermeable portion 51, see rejection of claim 47.
Regarding Clams 66, and 70, Anami suggests the impermeable portion of the separator includes a material disposed in the pores to prevent the movement of electroactive species therethrough (i.e., heating fills/closes the pores with melted separator material, [0022-0023]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 48, 58, and 68-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as anticipated by over Saka or, in the alternative, 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka in view of Kusama (JP 2000-285896, machine translation provided), hereinafter Kusama.
Regarding Claims 48, 58, and 68-69, Saka suggest the separator has a length greater than a length of the cathode (or anode) and the separator has a width greater than a width of the cathode (or anode), such that a portion of the second layer of the separator does not contact the cathode (or anode), see Figs. 3-4. Further, the extension of the separator such that the length and width thereof is greater than that of the cathode (or anode) is obvious from the standpoint of preventing short circuiting between the electrodes, see Kusama (see e.g., para. [0005, 0049]).
Claim(s) 48, 58, and 68-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Kusama (JP 2000-285896), hereinafter Kusama.
Regarding Claims 48, 58, and 68-69, Anami suggests the separator has a length greater than a length of the cathode (or anode), such that a portion of the second layer of the separator does not contact the cathode (or anode), see Figs. 3-4. Anami does not explicitly show the separator has a width greater than a width of the cathode (or anode). However, the extension of the separator such that the length and width thereof is greater than that of the cathode (or anode) is obvious from the standpoint of preventing short circuiting between the electrodes, see Kusama (see e.g., para. [0005, 0049]).
Claim(s) 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka in view of Watanabe (US 20220223872), hereinafter Watanabe
Regarding Claim 49, Saka’s separator (70) limits lithium diffusion at the edges thereof by way of a separator seal (sections 74b, 74c), which include zeolite particles, that trap lithium ions; the suppression of lithium diffusion at the edges of the separator suppresses lithium metal deposition on the negative electrode and enables high battery performance. Saka does not suggest the separator seal includes at least one of a tape, an adhesive, or an electrostatic coating. However, Watanabe suggests insulating resin tape layers 24, 25 at the edges of the separator which have no ionic conductivity (permeability to ions), thereby preventing the precipitation of lithium, hence occurrence of short circuit between the electrodes. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the separator seal sections (74b, 74c) include insulating resin tape layers with the expectation of suppressing lithium metal deposition, enabling high battery performance and preventing short circuiting between the electrodes (see e.g., MPEP 2143, I., B.).
Claim(s) 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami.
Regarding Claim 72, Anami does not suggest a third layer with the second layer disposed between the first layer and the third layer, or a second separator seal coupled to the third layer. However, as set forth under the rejection of claim 47, Anami suggests the separator includes a first layer comprising a first separator seal facing the anode and a second layer facing the cathode. Anami appreciates the second layer from the standpoint of making the separator less susceptible to thermal shrinkage, [0046], while the first layer with the separator seal (51) is appreciated from the standpoint of preventing lithium ions from passing through the separator, preventing lithium deposition, and preventing dendrites from penetrating the separator, thereby reducing the occurrence of micro-short circuits ([0031-0033, 0037, 0041]). Anami appreciates a seal (51) facing the positive electrode (Fig. 2-3, 5) to prevent lithium dendrite formation, penetration of dendrites through the separator, hence a suppressed occurrence of micro short circuits, and a seal (51, 151) facing the negative electrode (Figs. 4, 5) to prevent lithium dendrite formation, and penetration from the negative electrode to the positive electrode, hence a suppressed occurrence of micro short circuits. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to place a first layer comprising a first separator seal on a second layer (53) facing the anode, and another layer (e.g., “third layer”) including a second separator seal on the second layer facing the cathode with the expectation of to prevent lithium dendrite formation, penetration of dendrites through the separator, hence a suppressed occurrence of micro short circuits.
Claim(s) 51-52, 66, and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Hosokawa (JP2005190785, machine translation attached), hereinafter Hosokawa.
Regarding Claims 51, 66 and 70, Anami suggests a heat treatment to block/close the pores of the separator thereby forming seal 51, making it more difficult to transmit metal ions and more difficult for metal dendrites to penetrate therethrough, thereby suppressing the formation of lithium metal dendrites and micro short circuits. The heat treatment of Anami suggests filling/closing of the pores of the separator at section 51 with melted separator material. Further, Hosokawa suggests another method (besides heat) for sealing/filling the pores of the separator at the edges (periphery) thereof, to prevent lithium dendrites from being generated, is by impregnating the pores of the separator with a resin, thereby blocking the pores, see e.g., [0008, 0011, 0013-0014, 0016]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the separator of Anami includes a material disposed in the pores of portions of the separator (i.e., at seal 51), with the expectation of preventing lithium dendrites from being generated.
Regarding Claim 52, as detailed above, Anami and Hosokawa suggest filling the pores of the separator to form the aforementioned seal; Hosokawa also suggests forming the seal using a coating material (resin, or resin tape) that coats a portion of the separator, in order to prevent lithium dendrites from forming, see e.g., [0013-0014]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art seal 51 of the separator of Anami includes a coating material (resin, or resin tape) that coats a portion of the separator, with the expectation of preventing lithium dendrites from being generated.
Claim(s) 52-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Watanabe (US 2022/0223872), hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding Claims 52-53, Anami suggests a heat treatment to block/close the pores of the separator thereby forming seal 51 at the edges of the separator, making it more difficult to transmit metal ions and more difficult for metal dendrites to penetrate therethrough, thereby suppressing the formation of lithium metal dendrites and micro short circuits. Anami does not suggest a coating material that coats a portion of the separator. However, Watanabe suggests a coating material (i.e., 24, 25, which is an insulating resin tape having no ionic conductivity (permeability to ions) and includes polyimide, PET, polyolefin) that coats a portion of the separator (i.e., at the edges of the separator, see e.g., Fig. 5) to prevent lithium dendrites from forming and suppressing short circuits, see e.g., [0136-0149]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the edge of the separator of Anami (i.e., 51) is a coating material (resin tape) that coats a portion of the separator, with the expectation of preventing lithium dendrites from being generated and micro shorts, see MPEP 2143, I., (B).
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka in view of Nagai (US 20090197175, of record), hereinafter Nagai.
Regarding Claim 58, Saka suggest the separator has a length greater than a length of the anode, and the separator has a width greater than a width of the anode, such that a portion of a surface of the separator adjacent to the anode does not contact the anode, see e.g., Fig. 3-4. Moreover, the slight extension of the separator beyond the anode, such that a portion of a separator adjacent the anode does not contact the anode would be obvious from the stand point of preventing a short between the anode and cathode. Further, Nagai suggests a laminated battery (i.e., anode/separator/cathode) where the separator (51) extends beyond the length and width of the anode; the extended area (51b) is modified to function as the lithium ion restricting section which limits the movement of lithium ions therethrough, preventing the deposition of lithium metal on the negative electrode, hence enhancing safety. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the separator of Saka has a length and width greater than the anode, such that a portion of the portion of a surface of the separator adjacent the anode does not contact the anode, with the expectation of limiting movement of the lithium ions therethrough, thereby preventing the deposition of lithium metal, hence enhancing safety.
Claim(s) 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Motegi et al. (US 6,692,866) and Nagai (US 20090197175, of record), hereinafter Motegi and Nagai.
Regarding Claim 58, Anami suggests the separator has a length greater than a length of the anode, such that a portion of a surface of the separator (5) adjacent to the anode (42) does not contact the anode, see e.g., Fig. 4; Anami does not explicitly show that the separator has a width greater than a width of the anode. However, Motegi suggests, besides wound electrodes, laminated electrodes are known and preferred over wound electrodes because the influence of the volume change on the battery is low, and it is easy to accurately connect the tabs mounted on the electrode, see e.g., col. 1. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the electrodes of Anami are planar and laminated provided the influence of volume change on the battery is low and the accurate connection of the tabs on the electrode is easy. Further, Nagai suggests a laminated battery (i.e., anode/separator/cathode) where the separator (51) extends beyond the length and width of the anode; the extended area (51b) around the perimeter of the separator is modified to function as the lithium ion restricting section which limits the movement of lithium ions therethrough, preventing the deposition of lithium metal on the negative electrode, hence enhancing safety. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the separator of Anami (as modified by Motegi) includes a length and width greater than the anode, with the expectation of limiting movement of the lithium ions therethrough, thereby preventing the deposition of lithium metal, hence enhancing safety.
Claim(s) 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka in view of Motegi et al. (US 6,692,866), hereinafter Motegi.
Regarding Claim 71, Saka does not suggest a length of the anode is about equal to a length of the separator, and the cathode has a length less than the length of the anode such that the first layer of the separator facing the anode is covered by the anode, and an outside perimeter of the second layer of the separator facing the cathode is not covered by the cathode. However, Motegi suggests a laminated battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator therebetween, wherein it is possible to perform accurate positioning of the electrodes, thereby preventing short circuiting, when a length (i.e., La, Ln) of the anode (4) is about equal to a length (i.e., Ls, Lt) of the separator (5, i.e., La=Ls and Ln=Lt, see e.g., Fig. 2), and the cathode (3) has a length (i.e., Lm, Lc) less than the length (La, Ln) of the anode (4) such that the separator (5) facing the anode (4) is covered by the anode, and an outside perimeter (i.e., Ld) of the separator facing the cathode is not covered by the cathode (i.e., Ld does not cover Lm, Lc, see e.g., Fig. 2. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a length of the anode is about equal to a length of the separator, and the cathode has a length less than the length of the anode such that the first layer of the separator facing the anode is covered by the anode, and an outside perimeter of the second layer of the separator facing the cathode is not covered by the cathode, with the expectation of accurately positioning the electrodes, thereby preventing short circuiting.
Claim(s) 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Motegi et al. (US 6,692,866), hereinafter Motegi.
Regarding Claim 71, Anami suggests a length of the anode is about equal to a length of the separator (i.e., the lengths are considered “close”, see e.g., MPEP 2144.05), and the cathode has a length less than the length of the anode such that the first layer of the separator facing the anode is covered by the anode, and an outside perimeter of the second layer of the separator facing the cathode is not covered by the cathode. Further, Motegi suggests a laminated battery including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator therebetween, wherein it is possible to perform accurate positioning of the electrodes, thereby preventing short circuiting, when a length (i.e., La, Ln) of the anode (4) is about equal to a length (i.e., Ls, Lt) of the separator (5, i.e., La=Ls and Ln=Lt, see e.g., Fig. 2), and the cathode (3) has a length (i.e., Lm, Lc) less than the length (La, Ln) of the anode (4) such that the separator (5) facing the anode (4) is covered by the anode, and an outside perimeter (i.e., Ld) of the separator facing the cathode is not covered by the cathode (i.e., Ld does not cover Lm, Lc, see e.g., Fig. 2. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a length of the anode is about equal to a length of the separator, and the cathode has a length less than the length of the anode such that the first layer of the separator facing the anode is covered by the anode, and an outside perimeter of the second layer of the separator facing the cathode is not covered by the cathode, with the expectation of accurately positioning the electrodes, thereby preventing short circuiting.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka in view of Kaneko (JP 2008140551, of record), hereinafter Kaneko.
Regarding Claim 56, Saka does not suggest a solid state electrolyte in the anode and/or cathode. However, Kaneko suggests the inclusion of a solid state electrolyte in the anode/cathode (i.e., lithium salt, [0027, 0030]); the salt functions as a carrier of ions between the electrodes during charging/discharging, [0034]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a solid state electrolyte in the anode/cathode with the expectation of supporting ion transport during battery charging/discharging.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Kaneko (JP 2008140551, of record), hereinafter Kaneko.
Regarding Claim 56, Anami does not suggest a solid state electrolyte in the anode and/or cathode. However, Kaneko suggests the inclusion of a solid state electrolyte in the anode/cathode (i.e., lithium salt, [0027, 0030]); the salt functions as a carrier of ions between the electrodes during charging/discharging, [0034]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a solid state electrolyte in the anode/cathode with the expectation of supporting ion transport during battery charging/discharging.
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Hennige (US 2007/0099072), hereinafter Hennige.
Regarding Claim 63, Anami does not suggest whether the second layer has a higher melting temperature than the melting temperature of the first layer. However, Hennige suggest a multilayer separator comprising a porous carrier and a porous shutdown layer on the surface of the carrier and facing the electrode; the shutdown layer has a lower melting point (predetermined) than the carrier, which is melted to prevent further ion flux, thereby avoiding substantial melting or flames of the materials surrounding the batteries, thereby imparting safety, see e.g., [0014, 0038]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a lower melting point for the first layer compared to the second layer, with the expectation providing a shutdown function to the battery, without substantially melting the materials surrounding the batteries (e.g., housing, cables), thereby imparting improved safety, as suggested by Hennige.
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saka in view of Hennige (US 2007/0099072), hereinafter Hennige.
Regarding Claim 63, Saka does not suggest whether the second layer has a higher melting temperature than the melting temperature of the first layer. However, Hennige suggest a multilayer separator comprising a porous carrier and a porous shutdown layer on the surface of the carrier and facing the electrode; the shutdown layer has a lower melting point (predetermined) than the carrier, which is melted to prevent further ion flux, thereby avoiding substantial melting or flames of the materials surrounding the batteries, thereby imparting safety, see e.g., [0014, 0038]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to select a lower melting point for the first layer compared to the second layer, with the expectation providing a shutdown function to the battery, without substantially melting the materials surrounding the batteries (e.g., housing, cables), thereby imparting improved safety, as suggested by Hennige.
Claim(s) 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anami in view of Gonga (US 20190267597), hereinafter Gonga.
Regarding Claim 73, Anami does not suggest an edge coating member disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the anode. However, Gonga suggests an edge coating member (24, see also 18) disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the anode which can eliminate marginal precipitation of dendrites on or around the peripheral end faces of the negative electrode plate 14, resulting in more certain restriction of dendrites from precipitating on the peripheral end faces of the negative electrode plate, see e.g., [0061]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include an edge coating member disposed proximate to an outside perimeter of the anode to eliminate dendrite formation on or around the peripheral end faces of the negative electrode, thereby resulting in a more certain restriction of the dendrites from forming and reaching the cathode, and a more certain prevention of micro-short circuits, as suggested by Gonga.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729