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 § 112
The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-14-5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the effective component" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that the claim does not define the term “effective component” until later in the claim-see line 16. Amendment of the claim (1) to recite “wherein the effective component is the positive electrode current collector and meets:” in place of “the effective component meets:” and (2) deletion of line 16 would overcome this ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inagaki et al. (US 2008/0166637) as evidenced by Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. “ASM Material Data Sheet” and Thyssenkrupp Materials “Density of Aluminum” is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-9, 11-15, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (US 2009/0047575) as evidenced by Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. “ASM Material Data Sheet” and Thyssenkrupp Materials “Density of Aluminum”.
Abe et al. discloses a battery container having a cell therein including a negative electrode current collector (14a, 14), a negative electrode active material layer, a separator (13), a positive electrode active material layer, and a negative electrode current collector (11) – see Figure 1 and 4. The reference teaches the use of an aluminum positive electrode current collector having a lower melting point than that of the copper negative electrode current collector (see para [0035]-[0036]). The positive electrode active material contains LiMn2O4 and the negative electrode active material layer contains hard carbon [0102]-[0103]. Both of these materials intrinsically have melting points that are higher than that of Al.
Abe et al. discloses examples wherein the Al positive current collector layer has a rectangular shape with dimensions 9.5 cm x 4.5 cm and a thickness of 15 micron (see para [0103] and Table 1). The density of Al is known to be 2710 kg/m3 and the specific heat capacity is 896 J/kgK, as evidenced by Claim 1 recites an equation requiring an A value of d2pCp x (1.35L/W) of between 3 and 850. Thus, the value of A calculated from a thickness value of 15 micron as taught by Abe falls within the claimed range of 3-850 (i.e., (0.000015 m) x (2710kg/m3) x (896 J/kg°C) x (1.35 x 0.095m)/0.045m = 99.95. It is also noted that Abe et al. teaches a broader thickness range of 1-26 microns for the positive current collector. Thus, the full thickness range would yield A values that fall within the claimed range.
The reference does not specifically disclose the claimed length of 500-2500 mm. However, the reference teaches a that the battery can be used in EV applications. Thus, determination of an optimal length of the battery would have been an obvious matter of design choice since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the size of the rectangular battery in order to achieve higher charge capacity.
Abe et al. fails to disclose “a first direction” that corresponds to the length of the effective component and is “parallel to the direction in which the current in the effective component is output.” Instead, Abe shows an embodiment wherein the length direction of the “effective component” is perpendicular to the output current direction (i.e., the direction of the current exiting the positive and negative electrode tabs – figure nos. 58 and 59 in Figure 2).
However, Abe is not limited to the configuration exemplified in Figure 2 as described in para [0062]. The reference teaches that various configurations of the electrode tabs exiting the rectangular current collector structure are suitable and specifically names an example wherein tabs extend from all sides of the structure. In this embodiment, the rectangular current collector would have at least one short side with a positive electrode tab exiting the stack. This tab would be parallel to the direction of the long side of the rectangular current collector layer.
Claims 2, 5, 7, and 10 are met for the foregoing reasons.
With regard to claim 6, the ratio of the first direction (L, “width”) to the second direction (W, “height”) is 120/70 or 1.7. It would have been reasonable to expect a similar ratio would be suitable for longer first and second directions as well.
With regard to claim 8, the positive electrode material layer (i.e., active material layer) comprises a lithium iron phosphate. The negative electrode sheet comprises a negative electrode active material wherein the negative electrode active material comprises lithium titanate , and graphite or carbon as a conductive agent (see para [0056], [0058], [0082] and [0137].
With regard to claim 9 and 20, Inagaki discloses that the battery is a rectangular battery, as shown in Figure 6 (see para [0031] and [0186].
With regard to claims 11, see Figure 4 and “casing” layers 10 and 12; para [0191]-[0195]).
With regard to claim 12, Inagaki discloses an encapsulation film (see layer 11 in Fig 4 and para [0180]).
With regard to claim 13, see Fig 7 and para [0191]-[0195].
With regard to claims 14-15, Inagaki discloses a vehicle comprising a battery pack as detailed above (see Figs 9-11 and para [0207]).
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over either Inagaki et al. (US 2008/0166637) OR Abe et al. (US 2009/0047575), as evidenced by Aerospace Specification Metals Inc. “ASM Material Data Sheet” and Thyssenkrupp Materials “Density of Aluminum”, in view of Tang et al. US 2018/0342758 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Abe et al. only discloses a battery size of 95mm x 45mm. However, Abe is not limited to this example. The reference more broadly discloses lithium ion batteries for EV applications without any particular limit to size. Change of size would have been an obvious design choice in view of the configuration and space available in a particular EV application. One of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in increasing the size above the exemplified 95mmx45mm size in view of the art recognized larger size capacities of EV batteries.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
tor, and thus the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9am-3pm ET.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785