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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Additionally, as a grounds of rejection has been presented to the amended claims, no rejoinder of the withdrawn claims at this time. Additionally, it is noted withdrawn independent claims were not amended to match the scope of the amendment made to the amended independent claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-3 and 6-11, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu (US 20190386344 A1) in view of Li (CN 111313102 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Kasamatsu is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing an electrode assembly comprising a positive pole piece (13) and a negative pole piece (14, see [0017] and Abstract, “A nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery is disclosed including a flat electrode body in which an electrode group including a positive electrode plate, a negative electrode plate,”, here the electrode plates reading on claimed positive and negative pole pieces), where the positive pole piece (13) and the negative pole piece (14) are wound in a winding direction to form a winding structure comprising a bent region (see [0017] and Abstract, “Bent portions 12 , in which the electrode group 11 is bent, are disposed at both end portions in the major axis direction of the cross section.”) as depicted in Kasamatsu’s figure 1, depicted below, which depicts the winding and bent structure of the electrode body.
PNG
media_image1.png
145
245
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein the positive pole piece (13) and the negative pole piece (14) each comprise a plurality of bent portions in the bent region, as depicted in Kasamatsu’s figures 1 and 2, which depict a plurality of electrode groups 11, each of which comprise a positive pole piece and a negative pole piece, having a positive pole piece 13 (Paragraph 0017, “rolling a positive electrode plate 13”) being a first bent portion in an electrode group, and a negative pole piece 14 (Paragraph 0017, “and a negative electrode plate 14”) being a second bent portion in the electrode group. Additionally, Kasamatsu’s figure 2 depicts structure where the positive pole piece and negative pole piece are adjacent to each other.
Additionally, Kasamatsu’s figure 2 depicts structure wherein the first bent portion 13 is located adjacent to the second bent portion 14.
PNG
media_image2.png
186
250
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein the electrode assembly is provided with at least one first barrier, here a resin tape 16 (Paragraph 0018, “A resin tape 16 is attached to a portion, which is arranged nearest the rolling start position,”), with at least a part of the at least one first barrier being located between the first bent portion 13 and the second bent portion 14, as depicted in Kasamatsu’s figure 2, where the barrier 16 is located between the first bent portion 13 and the second bent portion 14. Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses that the at least one first barrier is configure to block at least a part of the ions deintercalated from the first bent portion from being intercalated into the second bent portion 14, through a disclosure that the material of their barrier layer does not allow lithium ions to pass through (Paragraph 0021, “The resin tape includes at least two layers composed of a base material layer that does not pass lithium ions in a nonaqueous electrolyte and an adhesive layer. When the base material layer that does not pass lithium ions is included, a charge-discharge reaction does not occur in the positive-negative electrode opposing portion in the α-portion. Consequently, local overcharge of the negative electrode is effectively prevented.”).
Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure where in a first direction, at least one end of the at least one first barrier extends outwardly beyond an end of the first bent portion and an end of the second bent portion, the first direction being perpendicular to the winding direction and extending parallel with a winding axis of the electrode assembly, Kasamatsu fails to disclose said structure. Therefore we look to Li, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of battery cells (Abstract, “The invention relates to a battery cell”). Li discloses a battery structure which comprises a first barrier 64 shown in their figures 6A and 6b (Paragraph 0077, “The insulating material 64 extends from the area i of the first portion 6101 to the first empty foil area j of the second portion 6102”) which extends beyond an end of the active material layers 613 and 614 indicating that this structure results in improved mechanical safety (Paragraph 0140, “As shown in Examples 6 and 7, providing insulating materials on the cell structure can further improve the mechanical safety at the tabs”). Here, where extending a barrier layer beyond an end of the active material layers of electrodes is taught to improve mechanical stability of the battery, it would therefore be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to extend the barrier layers of Kasamatsu beyond the active material layers of their battery, thereby resulting in structure where the barrier layers extend upwards in the first direction beyond ends of the bent portions, thereby reading upon and making obvious the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 1. Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses the electrode assembly wherein the first barrier is attached to the first bent portion, where the first bent portion is the positive electrode bent portion 13 (Paragraph 0018, “A resin tape 16 is attached to a portion, which is arranged nearest the rolling start position, (α-portion indicated by a broken line in FIG. 2) of the roll inner surface of a positive electrode mix layer 13 b in the bent portion 12”).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 2. Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein the first barrier (16, resin tape), comprises a first base layer and a first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0022, “The resin tape includes at least two layers composed of a base material layer that does not pass lithium ions in a nonaqueous electrolyte and an adhesive layer.”). Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein the first adhesive layer is disposed on a surface, facing the first bent portion, of the first base layer, by means of their disclosure where the adhesive layer is attached to both the base material layer and the positive electrode material layer (Paragraph 0022, “When the adhesive force of the resin tape to the positive electrode mix layer”).
Additionally, Kasamatsu in view of Li makes obvious structure wherein the first barrier covers the first bent portion in the bent region, as well as extending beyond in the first direction, as set forth above in regards to claim 1. Accordingly, where the first barrier comprises a base layer and adhesive layer, the portion of the base layer within the bent portion are mapped as being the first body portion, while the portions of the first barrier outside the bent portion are mapped as being the first supporting portion, which is connected to the first body portion through the first barrier being a single continuous member. Additionally, as discussed above, the first adhesive layer is configured to bond to both the base layer and the bent portion (Paragraph 0022, “The resin tape includes at least two layers composed of a base material layer that does not pass lithium ions in a nonaqueous electrolyte and an adhesive layer.”; Paragraph 0022, “When the adhesive force of the resin tape to the positive electrode mix layer”). Additionally, where the portion of the first barrier which protrudes from the first bent portion in the first direction is mapped as being the first supporting portion, the first supporting portion therefore protrudes from the first bent portion in the first direction.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 3. Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein at least a part of the surface of the first supporting portion is provided with the first adhesive layer, through their disclosure of the first barrier comprising both the base layer and adhesive layer (Paragraph 0020, “The resin tape includes at least two layers composed of a base material layer that does not pass lithium ions in a nonaqueous electrolyte and an adhesive layer.”), thereby resulting in structure wherein the first supporting portion is provided with the first adhesive layer. Additionally, the portion of the first supporting layer which is directly adjacent to the first bent portion faces the first bent portion, through facing upward, where the boundary of the first bent portion is located, as depicted in Kasamatsu’s figure 1, looking to the boundary of the bent portion 12, where the portions of the supporting layer that extend beyond the bent portion 12 face the bent portion at that boundary.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 6. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure wherein the electrode assembly is further provided with a second barrier, Kasamatsu discloses structure which comprises a second barrier, through their disclosure of their resin tape 16 being attached to an inner surface of the positive electrode layer 13 in their bent portion 12, as depicted in their figure 2, where their figure 1 depicts that there are a plurality of bent regions 12, where each bent portion 12 comprises a positive pole piece 13 being a first bent portion, negative pole piece 14 being a second bent portion, and a resin tape 16 being a barrier, where the barrier is located between he first bent portion and second bent portion, as depicted in Kasamatsu’s figure 2.
Here, where the figure 1 depicts a layered structure of bent regions 12, the first and second barriers are therefore spaced apart in the first direction, where the top of a first barrier is spaced apart along the first direction from the bottom part of the second barrier and vice-versa. Here, the requirement that the barriers be spaced apart along the first direction is interpreted as requiring that there be a distance between parts of the first barrier and second barrier in the first direction.
Additionally, the second barrier comprises an end which goes beyond the other end of the first bent portion and which is away from the at least one first barrier, as the second bent portion goes beyond the other end of the first bent portion, through the teaching of Li that it is beneficial for barrier portions to extend beyond bounds of active material layers.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu as (US 20190386344 A1) in view of Li (CN 11313102 A) applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Shao (US 20200106103 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 6. Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires structure wherein the at least first barrier includes two first barriers, Kasamatsu fails to disclose said structure, instead disclosing structure which comprises a single first barrier, as depicted in their figure 2. Therefore, we look to Shao, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (Paragraph 0064, “The lithium ion battery of the above-described embodiment further comprises an electrolyte. The electrolyte may be one or more of a gel electrolyte, a solid electrolyte, and an electrolytic solution. The electrolytic solution comprises a lithium salt and a nonaqueous solvent.”) comprising layered wound electrode structure (Paragraph 0060, “The lithium ion battery comprises the anode electrode of the present application, a cathode electrode, an separator, and an electrolyte, where the anode electrode, the cathode electrode, and the separator are layered structures, and can be applied to forming an electrode assembly with a wound or laminated structure,”).
Here, Shao discloses structure which comprises a wound battery comprising multiple loops of a full winding of the electrode body around the battery, depicted in their figure 10. Here, where capacity of a battery is based on the size of the complete electrode body, the winding structure of Shao’s wound battery therefore has a resulting higher capacity compared to an instance of said battery which is wound a single time. Therefore, based on this structure of Shao, which depicts multiple rounds of winding, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply said structure to the battery of Kasamatsu, thereby resulting in a battery in which the electrode body is wound multiple times.
Accordingly, this multiple winding would result in structure where each section within the first bent portion between the positive electrode and negative electrode has a respective first barrier, thereby resulting in structure where the at least one first barrier includes two first barriers.
Here, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein the first barrier is attached to two surfaces of the first bent portion, as depicted in Kasamatsu’s figure 2, wherein the resin tape 16 is attached to an upper side surface of the first bent portion, as well as a lower side surface of the first bent portion, the two surfaces delineated by a horizontal sectioning of the battery into an upper and lower side. Here, the first portion of the first barrier is arranged on a respective one side of the first barrier of the first bent portion (being disposed across both sides of the first bent portion), and the first barrier is attached to the first adhesive layer (Paragraph 0020, “The resin tape includes at least two layers composed of a base material layer that does not pass lithium ions in a nonaqueous electrolyte and an adhesive layer.”).
Additionally, via transitive connection through the first adhesive layers, the first supporting portions of each of the two first barriers are connected by the first adhesive layer.
Regarding Claim 8, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 7. Additionally, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious structure wherein, in the first direction, both ends of the first barriers go beyond the first bent portion, where Li teaches that a barrier layer extending beyond an active material layer provides benefits in regards to mechanical stability of a battery.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 8. Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein, in the first direction, both ends of the first barriers go beyond the second bent portion, where Li teaches that a barrier layer extending beyond an active material layer provides benefits in regards to mechanical stability of a battery.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu as (US 20190386344 A1) in view of Li (CN 111313102 A) applied to claim 10 above, in further view of Yu (US 20200274151 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 10. Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses structure wherein the electrode assembly further comprises a separator for separating the positive pole piece from the negative pole piece (Paragraph 0017, “rolling a positive electrode plate 13 and a negative electrode plate 14 with a separator 15 interposed therebetween”). Additionally, in regards to the limitation which requires that the in the first direction both ends of the separator going beyond the first bent portion and the second bent portion, modified Kasamatsu fails to make obvious said structure. Therefore we look to Yu, which is an analogous art to the instant application, being directed towards the art of battery electrode assemblies (Abstract, “Provided herein are nanostructures for lithium ion battery electrodes and methods of fabrication”). Here, Yu teaches that separators extending beyond outer edges of active material layers provides complete electronic insulation of the electrode from other battery components (Paragraph 0059, “In certain embodiments, the edges of the separator 406 extend beyond the outer edges of at least the negative electrode active layer 404 to provide the complete electronic insulation of the negative electrode from the other battery components.”). Based on this benefit to insulation and battery safety, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to have the separators extend beyond the ends of the active material layers, thereby resulting in structure where both ends of the separator go beyond the first bent portion and second bent portion in the first direction.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu as (US 20190386344 A1) in view of Li (CN 111313102 A) and Yu (US 20200274151 A1) applied to claim 11 above, in further view of Sato (US 20200168886 A1) and in further view of Yamada (US 20150243989 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 11. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the porosity of the first barrier is lower than that of the separator, Kasamatsu is silent in regards to the porosity of the first barrier, and additionally, only states that the separator is a microporous film (Paragraph 0027, “Regarding the separator, microporous films composed of polyolefins, for example, polyethylenes and polypropylenes, may be used.”). Additionally, Kasamatsu discloses that the separator is composed of polyolefins such as polyethylenes and polypropylenes (Paragraph 0027, “Regarding the separator, microporous films composed of polyolefins, for example, polyethylenes and polypropylenes, may be used.”), as well as disclosing that the base material layer of the first barrier is also composed of polyolefins such as polyethylenes and polypropylenes (Paragraph 0021, “Examples of a resin material usable for the base material layer include polyethylenes, polypropylenes,”).
Therefore, we look to Sato, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a secondary battery which comprises a positive electrode, a negative electrode, a separator, and an insulating tape adhered to at least one of the electrodes (Abstract, “A secondary battery includes an electrode body formed by layering a positive electrode and a negative electrode with a separator therebetween, an electrolyte, and insulating tape adhered to at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode.”). Here, Sato discloses that their insulating tape comprises a base layer, an adhesive layer, and a porous layer disposed between the base and adhesive layers (Paragraph 0036, “he insulating tape 40 includes a base layer 41 containing an insulating organic material, an adhesive layer 42 , and a porous layer 43 that is interposed between the base layer 41 and the adhesive layer 42 and that has pores 44 that an electrolytic solution is allowed to enter.”), further stating that the porosity of their porous layer 43 is preferably from 30 to 50 percent by volume (Paragraph 0046, “The porosity of the porous layer 43 is preferably 10% to 60% by volume, more preferably 30% to 50% by volume.”), stating that when the porosity falls within this range a rise in temperature that results from a short circuit can be suppressed while the strength of the insulating tape is maintained (Paragraph 0046, “When the porosity is within the range, a rise in temperature at the time a short circuit occurs can be sufficiently suppressed while the strength of the insulating tape 40 is maintained.”), thereby making obvious an insulating tape porosity of 30 to 50 percent.
Additionally, in regards to the porosity of the separator, we look to Yamada, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a battery which comprises a separator made from polypropylene or polyethylene (Paragraph 0150, “As materials for a resin separator, and a glass fiber separator, for example, polyolefin, such as polyethylene, and polypropylene,”). Here, Yamada further discloses that the porosity of their separator is preferably 45% or more and 75% or less (Paragraph 0152, “Further, when a porous material, such as a porous sheet, and a nonwoven fabric, is used for a separator, although the porosity of a separator is optional, it is ordinarily 20% or more, preferably 35% or more, and further preferably 45% or more; and ordinarily 90% or less, preferably 85% or less, and further preferably 75% or less.”). Here, Yamada further discloses that when the porosity falls below the above range, the film resistance becomes too large, causing deterioration of rate characteristics of the battery (Paragraph 0152, “When the porosity is less than the above range, the film resistance becomes large so that rate characteristics tend to deteriorate.”) and when the porosity exceeds the above range, the mechanical strength of the separator decreases (Paragraph 0152, “When the porosity is more than the above range, the mechanical strength of a separator decreases, and the insulation quality tends to decrease.”). Accordingly, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to optimize the porosity of the separator to achieve a minimum film resistance, while achieving a suitable mechanical strength, thereby making obvious a porosity at the upper end of the preferable range disclosed by Yamada, which is 75 percent.
Accordingly, where Sato makes obvious a porosity of the first barrier insulating tape of 30 to 50 percent, and Yamada makes obvious a separator porosity of 75 percent, Sato and Yamada together make obvious structure wherein the porosity of the first barrier is lower than that of the separator.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasamatsu as (US 20190386344 A1) in view of Li (CN 111313102 A) and Yu (US 20200274151 A1), further in view of Sato (US 20200168886 A1), further in view of Yamada (US 20150243989 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, in further view of Hartmann (US 20160226042 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious the invention of Claim 12. Additionally, in regards to the limitation of the instant claim which requires structure wherein the hardness of the first barrier is higher than that of the separator, Kasamatsu is silent in regards to the hardness values of the separator and first barrier.
Therefore, we look to Hartmann, which is an analogous art to the instant application, disclosing a casing structure for the protection of an electrochemical cell (Abstract, “This disclosure provides a casing for the thermal management and protection of an electrochemical cell.”) which comprises polyethers (Paragraph 0061, “polyethers (e.g., polyethylene glycol…”). Here, Hartmann discloses that their casing structure takes the form of a tape (Paragraph 0106, “A battery casing sleeve 510 in the embodiment depicted can be applied to the cell 515 as a film or tape wrapped around the cell 515 multiple times.”), disclosing that the hardness of the tape facilitates protection from impact and deformation (Paragraph 0105, “As previously discussed, impact resistance can protect the internal components of the cell 505 from damage. In the embodiment depicted, the sleeve 500 can have hardness and stiffness properties that enable such protection. Additionally, the hardness and stiffness properties can prevent deformation of empty sleeves from stacking during shipping.”). Accordingly, where Hartmann discloses the use of a polyethylene tape with high hardness as providing deformation and impact protection, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to apply this teaching to the invention of Kasamatsu, thereby presenting a high hardness barrier material. Additionally, where the hardness of the barrier material would present said benefits, said hardness would be present in a greater value than the hardness of other surrounding materials, as without such a relationship, the hard tape would not prevent deformation or impact damage beyond what the harder other materials are capable of preventing. Accordingly, through this teaching Hartmann makes obvious structure wherein the hardness of the first barrier is higher than that of the separator.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Kasamatsu makes obvious invention of Claim 13. Additionally, Kasamatsu in view of Yu makes obvious structure wherein, in the first direction, both ends of the separator go beyond the first barrier, as Yu discusses that the goal of extending the separators is to achieve complete electronic isolation between battery components (Paragraph 0059, “In certain embodiments, the edges of the separator 406 extend beyond the outer edges of at least the negative electrode active layer 404 to provide the complete electronic insulation of the negative electrode from the other battery components.”). Accordingly, if other battery components were to extend beyond the separators, the separators would not be able to achieve this goal. Based on this, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to extend the separators beyond all other components of the electrode assembly, thereby resulting in structure wherein in the first direction both ends of the separator go beyond the at least one first barrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN W ESTES whose telephone number is (571)272-4820. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:30.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 5712721453. 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.
/J.W.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725