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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1), and further in view of Aronov (US 20180175355 A1). Kazuyoshi and Aronov are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of batteries with the use of adhesives.
Regarding claim 1, Kazuyoshi teaches a battery pack, comprising “a first power generating element 100 and a second power generating element 200” (see e.g., [0004], [0022]-[0024], fig. 1) which corresponds with the claimed plurality of battery cells, wherein two adjacent battery cells in the plurality of battery cells are connected to each other by an adhesive partially applied between the positive electrode current collector of one single battery element and the negative electrode current collector of another single battery element (see e.g., [0252]) which corresponds to the claimed conductive adhesive layer wherein the conductive adhesive layer is provided with two main surfaces which are opposite, one main surface in the two main surfaces being connected to the cathode collector of one battery cell in the two adjacent battery cells, and the other main surface being connected to the anode collector of the other battery cell in the two adjacent battery cells, and each battery cell comprises a cathode collector and an anode collector 110, 150, 210, and 250 (see e.g., [0025]-[0028], [0039]-[0042], [0047]-[0048], fig. 1), active material layers 120, 140, 220, and 240 (see e.g., [0025]-[0030], [0042]-[0048], fig. 1) which correspond to the claimed cathode layer and anode layer, a first and second solid electrolyte layer 130 and 230 which corresponds to the claimed separators (see e.g., [0025]-[0026], [0028]-[0029], fig. 1), and the layers are stacked in a thickness direction (see e.g., [0008], fig. 1); and the plurality of battery cells are sequentially stacked in the thickness direction to form the battery pack (see e.g., [0008], fig. 1), and the battery pack provides good electrical connection between power elements (see e.g., [0074]) and forms a stabilized series arrangement (see e.g., [0252]) which corresponds with the claimed current channel in the thickness direction when charged or discharged.
Although Kazuyoshi teaches an adhesive layer that provides connection between the battery cells, Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach that the adhesive is conductive or has conductive particles. However, Aronov teaches an adhesive conductive coating provided with conductive particles (see e.g., [0065]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by using the conductive adhesive with conductive particles disclosed by Aronov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the reliability in connection between power generating elements (see e.g., [0005]), as suggested by Kazuyoshi.
Regarding claim 5, Kazuyoshi teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach that the conductive adhesive layer comprises a resin material and conductive particles. However, Aronov teaches an adhesive conductive coating provided with a mixture of conductive particles and polymeric binder such as acrylic resins (see e.g., [0065]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by using the conductive adhesive with a mixture of conductive particles and resin disclosed by Aronov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the reliability in connection between power generating elements (see e.g., [0005]), as suggested by Kazuyoshi.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1) and Aronov (US 20180175355 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatta (US 20070128513 A1). Kazuyoshi and Hatta are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of lithium ion secondary batteries.
Regarding claim 2, Kazuyoshi and Aronov teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Kazuyoshi also teaches a battery pack wherein two ends in the thickness direction of the battery pack are provided with the cathode collector “250” and the anode collector “150” (see e.g., [0047], fig. 1) which are opposite to each other, wherein the cathode collector is provided with a first end face away from the conductive adhesive layer, the anode collector is provided with a second end face away from the conductive adhesive layer.
Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach that the battery pack is provided with a battery pack side face enclosed between the first end face and the second end face wherein a packaging layer is laid on the battery pack side face. However, Hatta teaches a packaging layer around a battery pack (see e.g., abstract, [0016]-[0017], [0081]-[0082]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery pack disclosed by Kazuyoshi by using a packaging material around the side of the battery disclosed by Hatta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a battery that is lightweight, thin, and optimizes space (see e.g., [0003]), as suggested by Hatta.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1) and Aronov (US 20180175355 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shaffer (US 20180069222 A1). Kazuyoshi and Shaffer are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of bipolar secondary batteries.
Regarding claim 3, Kazuyoshi and Aronov teach the elements of claim 1 as described above. Kazuyoshi does not teach that the cathode collector and the anode collector of each battery cell are provided with non-conductive substrates. However, Shaffer teaches a non-conductive substrate plate such as high density polyethylene and low density polyethylene for the cathode and anode (see e.g., [0032]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by providing the cathode and anode collectors with a non-conductive substrate plate with polymeric materials such as high density polyethylene or low density polyethylene disclosed by Shaffer such that the cathode collector is provided with a plurality of first conductive paths at intervals in the horizontal direction of the substrate, and the anode collector is provided with a plurality of second conductive paths at intervals in the horizontal direction of the substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide structural support for the cathode and anode (see e.g., [0032]), as suggested by Shaffer.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1) and Aronov (US 20180175355 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takami (US 20080241689 A1). Kazuyoshi and Takami are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of lithium ion secondary batteries and battery packs.
Regarding claim 4, Kazuyoshi and Aronov teach the elements of claim 1 as described above. Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach that the area of the anode collector and the area of the cathode collector of each battery cell are greater than 0.25 m-2. However, Takami teaches anode and cathode current collectors that have an area ranging from 0.31 m2 to 0.38 m2 (see e.g., table 1, [0173]), which are greater than 0.25 m2. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cathode and anode current collectors’ area disclosed by Kazuyoshi by making them greater than 0.25 m2 as disclosed by Takami. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the reliability of connection between power generation elements (see e.g., [0005]), as suggested by Kazuyoshi).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1) and Aronov (US 20180175355 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toyoda (EP 2903055 A1). Kazuyoshi and Toyoda are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of lithium ion secondary batteries with particular details to solid electrolyte separators.
Regarding claim 6, Kazuyoshi teaches the elements of claim 1 as described above. Kazuyoshi also teaches that the manufacturing process includes a pressing process to increase density and improve bond strength (see e.g., [0218], [0229], [0233], [0237], [0251]-[0252]). Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach that the separator comprises: a body layer, the body layer being provided with two surfaces which are opposite; and adhesive layers separately arranged on the two surfaces of the body layer, predetermined adhesion force being provided between one adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the cathode layer and between the other adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the anode layer. However, Toyoda teaches a separator comprising: a body layer, the body layer being provided with two surfaces which are opposite; and adhesive layers separately arranged on the two surfaces of the body layer, predetermined adhesion force being provided between one adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the cathode layer and between the other adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the anode layer (see e.g., 1-10 “Production of Secondary Battery, 3.2.6 “Method for Producing Maleimide-Maleic Acid Copolymer” Process A, and “Evaluation Method Peel Strength”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by making a separator with adhesion on both sides and a predetermined adhesion force disclosed by Toyoda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have excellent anti-heatshrink abilities, blocking resistance, and the ability to adhere to an electrode with high adhesive strength (see e.g., “Solution to Problem”), as suggested by Toyoda.
Regarding claim 7, Kazuyoshi, Aronov and Toyoda teaches the elements of claim 6. Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach a predetermined adhesion force greater than 80 N/m. However, Toyoda teaches a separator with an adhesive layer in which the peel strength is 100 N/m and more (see e.g., “Evaluation Method Peel Strength”), which directly corresponds to the claimed predetermined adhesion force greater than 80 N/m. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by making a separator with an adhesion force greater than 100 N/m as disclosed by Toyoda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have excellent anti-heatshrink abilities, blocking resistance, and the ability to adhere to an electrode with high adhesive strength (see e.g., “Solution to Problem”), as suggested by Toyoda.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1), and in further view of Shindo (US 20170237116 A1). Kazuyoshi and Shindo are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of lithium secondary batteries.
Regarding claim 8, cathode collector and an anode collector 110, 150, 210, and 250 (see e.g., [0025]-[0028], [0039]-[0042], [0047]-[0048], fig. 1), active material layers 120, 140, 220, and 240 (see e.g., [0025]-[0030], [0042]-[0048], fig. 1) which correspond to the claimed cathode layer and anode layer, a first and second solid electrolyte layer 130 and 230 which corresponds to the claimed separators (see e.g., [0025]-[0026], [0028]-[0029], fig. 1), and the layers are stacked in a thickness direction (see e.g., [0008], fig. 1); wherein the cathode collector is provided with a first surface and a second surface which are opposite to each other; the anode collector is provided with a third surface and a fourth surface which are opposite to each other, the fourth surface being face to the second surface; the cathode layer is arranged on the second surface; the anode layer is arranged on the fourth surface; the separator is fixed between the cathode layer and the anode layer.
While it is the examiners assumption that the battery cell is able to form a current channel in the thickness direction when charged or discharged, Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach this. However, Shindo teaches that electric current flows in the thickness direction of a cell (see e.g., [0007]). Shindo and Kazuyoshi have batteries with similar horizontal cell structures. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi such that electric current flows in the thickness direction of the cell as described by Shindo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve reliability in connection between power generating elements (see e.g., [0005]), as suggested by Kazuyoshi.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1) and Shindo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shaffer (US 20180069222 A1). Kazuyoshi and Shaffer are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of bipolar secondary batteries.
Regarding claim 9, Kazuyoshi and Shindo teach the elements of claim 8 as described above. Kazuyoshi does not teach that the cathode collector and the anode collector of each battery cell are provided with non-conductive substrates. However, Shaffer teaches a non-conductive substrate plate such as high density polyethylene and low density polyethylene for the cathode and anode (see e.g., [0032]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by providing the cathode and anode collectors with a non-conductive substrate plate with polymeric materials such as high density polyethylene or low density polyethylene disclosed by Shaffer such that each substrate is provided with a horizontal direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the each substrate, and the cathode collector is provided with a plurality of first conductive paths at intervals in the horizontal direction of the substrate, the first conductive paths extending from the first surface to the second surface in the thickness direction; and the anode collector is provided with a plurality of second conductive paths at intervals in the horizontal direction of the substrate, the second conductive paths extending from the fourth surface to the third surface in the thickness direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide structural support for the cathode and anode (see e.g., [0032]), as suggested by Shaffer.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1) and Shaffer (US 20180069222 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Aronov (US 20180175355 A1). Kazuyoshi and Aronov are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of batteries with the use of adhesives.
Regarding claim 10, Kazuyoshi and Shaffer teach the elements of claim 9 as described above. Kazuyoshi also teaches that the plurality of battery cells are connected to each other by an adhesive partially applied between the positive electrode current collector of one single battery element and the negative electrode current collector of another single battery element (see e.g., [0252]) which corresponds with the claimed adhesive layer disposed on the first surface of the cathode collector, and a second adhesion layer disposed on the third surface of the anode collector. Although Kazuyoshi teaches an adhesive layer that provides connection between the battery cells, Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach that the adhesive is conductive or has conductive particles. However, Aronov teaches an adhesive conductive coating provided with conductive particles (see e.g., [0065]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by using the conductive adhesive with conductive particles disclosed by Aronov. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enhance the reliability in connection between power generating elements (see e.g., [0005]), as suggested by Kazuyoshi.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuyoshi (US2017309966A1) and Aronov (US 20180175355 A1) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Toyoda (EP 2903055 A1). Kazuyoshi and Toyoda are equivalent analogous art because both are in the art of lithium ion secondary batteries with particular details to solid electrolyte separators.
Regarding claim 11, Kazuyoshi and Aronov teach the elements of claim 10 as described above. Kazuyoshi does not specifically teach that the separator comprises a body layer, the body layer being provided with two surfaces which are opposite; and adhesive layers separately arranged on the two surfaces of the body layer, predetermined adhesion force being provided between one adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the cathode layer and between the other adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the anode layer.
However, Toyoda teaches a separator comprising: a body layer, the body layer being provided with two surfaces which are opposite; and adhesive layers separately arranged on the two surfaces of the body layer, predetermined adhesion force being provided between one adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the cathode layer and between the other adhesive layer in the adhesive layers and the anode layer (see e.g., 1-10 “Production of Secondary Battery, 3.2.6 “Method for Producing Maleimide-Maleic Acid Copolymer” Process A, and “Evaluation Method Peel Strength”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery disclosed by Kazuyoshi by making a separator with adhesion on both sides and a predetermined adhesion force disclosed by Toyoda. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have excellent anti-heatshrink abilities, blocking resistance, and the ability to adhere to an electrode with high adhesive strength (see e.g., “Solution to Problem”), as suggested by Toyoda.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached on (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728