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 § 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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shih (US 2014/0087227 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, Shih discloses an apparatus comprising: a first cell 22a having a first chemical composition and a second cell 22b having a second chemical composition, wherein each cell has respective cathode, anode, electrolyte, and separator wherein the cells have non-uniform current distribution has a result (paragraph 59). It should be noted that separators are inherent features of a battery cell as they are necessary.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, Shih discloses an apparatus comprising: a first cell 22a having a first chemical composition and a second cell 22b having a second chemical composition, wherein each cell has respective cathode, anode, electrolyte, and separator (paragraph 59); wherein the electrodes have different thicknesses (paragraph 48). It should be noted that separators are inherent features of a battery cell as they are necessary.
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Shih discloses an apparatus comprising: a first cell 22a having a first chemical composition and a second cell 22b having a second chemical composition, wherein each cell has respective cathode, anode, electrolyte, and separator (paragraph 59); wherein the electrodes have different loading (paragraph 42). It should be noted that separators are inherent features of a battery cell as they are necessary.
Regarding claim 9, Shih discloses that the capacity of one cell is 10-20 less than the other (paragraph 60).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Shih discloses lithium-ion batteries for space systems (paragraphs 2 and 3).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Shih discloses an apparatus comprising: a first cell 22a having a first chemical composition and a second cell 22b having a second chemical composition, wherein each cell has respective cathode, anode, electrolyte, and separator wherein the cells have non-uniform current distribution has a result (paragraph 59). It should be noted that separators are inherent features of a battery cell as they are necessary.
Regarding claims 18-20, Shih discloses an apparatus comprising: a first cell 22a having a first chemical composition and a second cell 22b having a second chemical composition (paragraph 59). Shih discloses a third cell, fourth cell, and so on (paragraph 123). It should be noted that separators are inherent features of a battery cell as they are necessary.
Claims 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2022/0416330 A1).
Li discloses an apparatus comprising a first cell and second cell with separators having different porosities (paragraphs 18 and 19), wherein the cells comprise cathode, anode, separator, and electrolyte (paragraph 75).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Modjtahedi (US 2023/0352741 A1).
Shih discloses that the cathode is at least about 50 microns (paragraph 48) but that the anode is 0.1 to 20 microns (paragraph 88). Changes in size/proportion are not grounds for patentability, however. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Modjtahedi—in an invention for batteries stack—discloses anodes in the range 10-70 microns for optimal pore/size ratio (paragraph 107). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to size the anode of Shih to 50 microns since the cathode of Shih is this size and Modjtahedi discloses anodes of this size given that size/proportion are not grounds for patentability.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shih as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2021/0043922 A1).
Shih discloses that the capacity of one cell is 10-20 less than the other (paragraph 60) but not the actual amount of loading. Huang—in an invention for solid state battery packs—discloses that the anode layer can have a loading range of 6.5-10 mg/cm2 (paragraph 28) and the cathode a range of 12-23 mg/cm2 (paragraph 29). Huang discloses that the batteries are composed to achieve higher specific capacity, stable cycle life, and enhanced stability (paragraph 24) and these values are used to achieve the targets (paragraph 54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use the loading values available in Huang to optimize the batteries of Shih.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2024/0372212 A1).
Li discloses separators with different properties but not the claimed thicknesses. Chen—in an invention for a battery stack with a plurality of separators—discloses that the first and second separators can each range from 1 to 200 microns (paragraph 32). Chen discloses that separators with different properties can be tuned to the differences between the cathodes and anodes to optimize results (paragraph 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to size the separators of Li to the known ranges taught in Chen to optimize results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IMRAN AKRAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3241. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-4p.
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 571-272-1453. 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.
/IMRAN AKRAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725