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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Min discloses a secondary battery (pouch type secondary battery; see entire disclosure and especially P41) comprising: an electrode assembly in which electrodes and separators are stacked (radical units 110 each including first and second electrodes 111 and 113 and first and second separators 112 and 114 in Figs. 3-4, 7-8 and 14; see entire disclosure and especially P34, 42, 52),
the electrode assembly having a first width in a first direction parallel to a top surface of the electrode assembly (the first width is drawn to the width of the anode and cathode of the electrode assembly shown below in the annotated figure; the Examiner notes the “top surface” is not defined by the claim and, therefore, could be any surface of the electrode assembly and can change depending upon how one sets/holds the battery cell; as seen in Fig. 14, the first electrode 111 is at the “top” of the plurality of radical units, therefore the “top surface” of the electrode assembly can be drawn to the surface of this “top” first electrode 111); and
a battery case comprising an accommodation space accommodating the electrode assembly therein (accommodating part; see Figs. 3-4 and 7-8; see entire disclosure and especially P34-35), and
the accommodation space having a second width in the first direction (as seen in Figs. 3-4 and 7-8, there is a space between the outermost edge of the radical units and the innermost edge of the accommodating part; therefore, the Examiner has provided an interpretation below).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Min Fig. 4
However, Min is silent to the difference the first width and the second width.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ota teaches a pouch type battery cell wherein a pouch includes an anode, cathode, and separator (P61). Ota teaches a sealing region of the pouch can be from 1 µm to 400 µm from the outermost edge of the anode and cathode (P100).
Ota teaches their pouch is non-flammable and can reduce the possibility of fire ignition of flammable electrolyte during possible welding processes in battery manufacturing, which at times generates sparks (P97, 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ota and substituted the pouch of Min with the pouch of Ota, given Ota teaches their pouch is non-flammable and can reduce the possibility of fire ignition of flammable electrolyte during possible welding processes in battery manufacturing, which at times generates sparks, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Given the pouch of Ota is now the pouch of modified Min, modified Min meets the limitation wherein a difference between the first width (width of anode and cathode) and second width (width between two inner sides/edges of the sealing portion which delimit the space of the accommodating part) is less than 2.5 mm (between 1 µm and 400 µm)).
Regarding claim 2, Min is silent to the specific materials of their electrodes.
Ota further teaches an anode can comprise a carbon-based material or a titanium-based oxide (P69). Ota teaches the anode can be porous to increase the surface area and enhance the rate of lithium intercalation in the resulting electrodes (P71). Ota teaches a cathode can comprise a thermally stable, transition-metal-doped lithium transition metal phosphate having the olivine structure (P75).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Ota and substituted the anodes and cathodes of Min to each be the anode and cathode described by Ota, respectively, given Ota teaches their anode can be porous to increase the surface area and enhance the rate of lithium intercalation in the resulting electrodes, Ota teaches their cathode can be made of a thermally stable material, and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Given the each of the anodes and cathodes of modified Min are made of the anode and cathode of Ota, the top surface (see the rejection of claim 1) of the electrode assembly has an area of 15,000 mm2 to 100,000 mm2, as Ota teaches the dimensions of their anode and cathode is 30,300 mm2 (202 mm x 150 mm; see Fig. 4A and P140).
Regarding claim 3, Ota discloses wherein the difference between the first width and the second width is 1.7 mm or less (a sealing region of the pouch can be from 1 µm to 400 µm from the outermost edge of the anode and cathode, P100).
Regarding claim 4, Ota’s pouch’s accommodation space comprises a plurality of punch edges, which connect a plurality of outer walls surrounding a periphery of the accommodation space to a bottom part of the accommodation space, respectively (see edges of accommodation portion in Figs. 4A, 5, 7A, and 12-13).
However, Ota’s punch edges are at a 90° angle (see Figs. 4A, 5, 7A, and 12-13) and none of the punch edges are rounded, therefore, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the accommodation space comprises a plurality of punch edges, which connect a plurality of outer walls surrounding a periphery of the accommodation space to a bottom part of the accommodation space, respectively, and at least one of the punch edges is rounded.
Min discloses a process of forming an accommodating part in a pouch may use a deep drawing method (P5). Min discloses an edge of the accommodating part (4 in Fig. 2) is rounded to prevent a concentration load from breaking the edge in the process (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed event to have chosen the method of forming the accommodating space in the pouch of Ota, which has been brought into modified Min, to be a deep drawing method and to also form the edges of the accommodating space to be rounded, given Min teaches this method is a known method for forming an accommodating part in a pouch, and Min further teaches that rounded edges can prevent a concentration load from breaking the edge in the process. Further, the combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
This provides modified Min able to meet the limitation wherein the accommodation space comprises a plurality of punch edges, which connect a plurality of outer walls surrounding a periphery of the accommodation space to a bottom part of the accommodation space, respectively, and at least one of the punch edges is rounded.
Regarding claim 5, modified Min includes a difference between the first width (width of anode and cathode) and second width (width between two inner sides/edges of the sealing region which delimit the space of the accommodating part) can be about 1 µm to about 400 mm. Therefore, a first end of at least one of the electrodes of the electrode assembly (anode and/or cathode) would be disposed such that a distance from the first end to an edge vertical line (defined as set forth in claim 5 and also seen as V2’ in Applicant’s Fig. 7) would be 0.75 mm or less (as the maximum distance between the electrodes and edge of the accommodation space would be 400 µm, therefore, the edge vertical line, which extends through the space between the electrodes and edge of the accommodating space, would be at a closer distance to the first end than 400 µm).
Regarding claim 7, modified Min includes a difference between the first width (width of anode and cathode) and second width (width between two inner sides/edges of the sealing region which delimit the space of the accommodating part) can be about 1 µm to about 400 mm. Therefore, a first end of at least one of the electrodes of the electrode assembly (anode and/or cathode) would be disposed such that a distance from the first end to an edge vertical line (defined as set forth in claim 5 and also seen as V2’ in Applicant’s Fig. 7) would be 0.5 mm or less (as the maximum distance between the electrodes and edge of the accommodation space would be 400 µm, therefore, the edge vertical line, which extends through the space between the electrodes and edge of the accommodating space, would be at a closer distance to the first end than 400 µm).
Regarding claim 8, given the pouch of Ota, which is now the pouch of modified Min, is 3-dimensional and accommodates an electrode assembly, there would be thickness edges each connecting two adjacent ones of the outer walls to each other, and wherein each thickness edge is connected to two adjacent ones of the punch edges to form a respective corner of the accommodating space (the thickness edge would be the part of the ‘corner’ of the accommodating space that would extend upward from the punch edges and cover/face the corner edges of the electrode assembly).
Regarding claim 9, modified Min meets the limitation wherein at least one of the corners is rounded, and the at least one of the corners has a curvature radius equal to or greater than a curvature radius of at least one of the adjacent ones of the punch edges or the respective thickness edge, given modified Min includes the pouch of Ota which is formed by the deep drawing formation method disclosed by Min (see the rejection of claim 4; as seen in Fig. 1 of Min, the process Min teaches for forming the pouch provides also a rounded thickness edge that extends up from the rounded punch edge corner piece, therefore, in utilizing the process and rounded punch edge corner pieces of Min, the pouch of Ota inside modified Min would have rounded corners; following this, as seen in Fig. 1 of Min, it appears the corners provided by the process of Min has a curvature radius equal to the curvature radius of at least one of the adjacent ones of the punch edges or the respective thickness edge, therefore, in utilizing the process and rounded punch edge corner pieces of Min, Ota’s pouch inside modified Min would include this curvature radius as well).
Regarding claim 10, modified Min meets the limitation wherein the second width is defined as a distance between lower ends of first and second opposite outer walls of the accommodation space (the Examiner notes “lower” is not defined by the claim, therefore, any end could be the “lower end”; for this purpose, the “lower end” is being drawn to the end wherein the bottommost separator 114 sits in Fig. 14 of Min; Ota further teaches that the sealing region of their pouch (which is now the pouch of modified Min) can have a width from 10 µm to 600 µm, P98; therefore, a distance between the edge of the anode and cathode and the outer edge of the sealing region would be, 11 µm to 1 mm (1 µm + 10 µm; 400 µm + 600 µm); when the second width is be defined as a distance between lower ends of first and second opposite outer walls of the accommodation space, the difference between the first width and the second width is less than at least 1 mm given the sealing region extends farther from the outer walls of the accommodation space; less than 1 mm meets the claimed range of claim 1, therefore, the second width can be defined as required by claim 10).
Regarding claim 13, modified Min meets the limitation wherein the battery case comprises: a first case and a second case of which at least one comprises the accommodation space; and a folding part integrally connecting the first case to the second case (the pouch of Ota (which is now the pouch of modified Min) comprises: a first case and a second case of which at least one comprises the accommodation space (see in Fig. 12 wherein there is a first case housing the anode assembly 1201 and a second case housing the cathode assembly 1202 in Fig. 12; both comprises a portion of the accommodation space); and a folding part integrally connecting the first case to the second case (middle line 10 in Fig. 12 shows a line where the two cases of the pouch attach; the pouch is folded on middle line to connect the two cases and close the accommodating case; see entire disclosure and especially P186, 192, 204); therefore, given the pouch of Ota is now the pouch of modified Min, the accommodation space formed by the first and second case of the pouch would host the plurality of radical units inside).
Regarding claim 36, Min discloses wherein the secondary battery is in the form of a pouch-type secondary battery (see entire disclosure and especially P1, 41).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Neudecker et al (US 20150044527 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein each punch edge has a curvature radius that extends across 1/20 to 1/6 of a depth of the accommodation space.
In a similar field of endeavor, Neudecker teaches any increase in the dimensions of a finished battery will reduce battery energy density unless an electrode core increases in size proportionally (P4).
Given Neudecker states any increase in dimension can reduce battery energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size of a finished battery is a result-effective variable dependent upon the desired battery energy density one wishes for their finished battery to have. The greater the curvature radius of the punch edges of modified Min, the greater the size of the accommodation space and the greater the size of the overall secondary battery.
Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, the size of the secondary battery of modified Min, including curvature radius of each punch edge, based upon the desired energy density one wishes for their finished battery. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Zagars et al (US 20200014025 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Ota teaches wherein, in their pouch (which is the pouch of modified Min), the accommodation space further comprises a die edge connected to one of a plurality of outer walls of the accommodation space surrounding a periphery of the accommodation space (In Fig. 12 an embodiment is shown wherein two pieces of a pouch; each piece has a recessed portion that form the accommodating space when the two pieces are put together; the die edge can be drawn to the edge at the “top” of the depth of the accommodating space of one of the two pieces of the pouch).
However, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the die edge connects one of the plurality of outer walls to a degassing part of the battery case.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zagars discloses a pouch electrochemical cell (P43, 52, 120). Zagars teaches after initial cycling of the electrochemical cell, a pouch material of the cell can be punctured in order to release any gases formed during initial cycling (P76). Zagars teaches after degassing of the electrochemical cell, the pouch is resealed along an edge using a heat sealer (therefore, implying one edge is opened and is a degassing part of the battery case).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Zagars and provided a degassing part to the sealing region of the battery cell of modified Min, for example an edge of the sealing region of Ota, given Zagars teaches this can release any gases formed during initial cycling and allow the battery to be resealed after degassing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) as applied to claim 11, further in view of Neudecker et al (US 20150044527 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the die edge has a curvature radius that extends across 1/20 to 1/6 of a depth of the accommodation space.
In a similar field of endeavor, Neudecker teaches any increase in the dimensions of a finished battery will reduce battery energy density unless an electrode core increases in size proportionally (P4).
Given Neudecker states any increase in dimension can reduce battery energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size of a finished battery is a result-effective variable dependent upon the desired battery energy density one wishes for their finished battery to have. The greater the curvature radius of the die edge of modified Min, the greater the size of the accommodation space and the greater the size of the overall secondary battery.
Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, the size of the secondary battery of modified Min, including curvature radius of the die edge, based upon the desired energy density one wishes for their finished battery. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) as applied to claim 13, further in view of Kim et al (EP3561898A1, using the provided document).
Regarding claim 14, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the folding part comprises a groove that is recessed inward towards the electrode assembly.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches a pouch type secondary battery that has a close contact portion (153 in Figs. 1 and 4B; P35; as seen in the figures, the close contact portion is a folded part of a pouch casing of the battery). Kim teaches the close contact portion is able to come into close contact with a flat cooling plate so the battery is able to be cooled (P35-36).
Kim teaches a concave portion (154 in Fig. 4B, P37) can be formed at a position on the close contact portion such that an electrode assembly, inside the battery, and a casing, forming the pouch including the close contact portion and concave portion, are in closer contact with each other at the concave portion than other areas of the close contact portion (P37). Kim teaches the formation of the concave portion is more effective for cooling the pouch battery cell as heat transfer from the electrode assembly and the casing material is more efficient (P37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kim and provided to the folding part of modified Min a groove that is recessed inward towards the electrode assembly, such as the concave portion of Kim, given Kim teaches this can improve heat transfer between an electrode assembly and a casing, which would in turn, increase the heat transfer between the electrode assembly and a cooling plate the secondary battery sits upon, therefore, allowing the battery to be cooled efficiently.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) in view of Kim et al (EP3561898A1, using the provided document) as applied to claim 14, further in view of Neudecker et al (US 20150044527 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kim shows (see the annotated Fig. below) when the concave portion is added to the casing of the battery cell and the casing is folded to be sealed, a pair of protrusions are formed protruding outward away from the electrode assembly with the groove located between the pair of protrusions. Therefore, the pair of protrusions would also be present in modified Min.
PNG
media_image2.png
428
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim 4B
However, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein a distance between an innermost portion of the groove and an outermost portion of each of the protrusions is 0.8 mm or less.
In a similar field of endeavor, Neudecker teaches any increase in the dimensions of a finished battery will reduce battery energy density unless an electrode core increases in size proportionally (P4).
Given Neudecker states any increase in dimension can reduce battery energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the size of a finished battery is a result-effective variable dependent upon the desired battery energy density one wishes for their finished battery to have. The distance between the innermost portion of the groove and an outermost portion of the each protrusion is part of the sizing of the secondary battery of modified Min as it defines the amount of space the protrusions take up/increase the size of the casing. Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, the size of the secondary battery of modified Min, including the distance between an innermost portion of the groove and an outermost portion of each of the protrusions, based upon the desired energy density one wishes for their finished battery. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 16-18 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 respectively, further in view of Jeung et al (US 20070154790 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Min discloses wherein a peripheral portion of one of the separators of the electrode assembly protrudes outward from an adjacent one of the electrodes (see separators 112 and 114 in Fig. 14).
However, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the peripheral portions are folded relative to a first end of the adjacent one of the electrodes in a direction away from a bottom part of the accommodation space.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jeung teaches an electrode assembly wherein separators between cathodes and anodes are formed to have a height greater than that of the cathodes and anodes (P32; see Fig. 1). Jeung teaches the electrode assembly can be pressed in one direction such that the separators are bent and cover the cathodes and anodes (P32; see Fig. 2). Jeung teaches the separators are then heat treated to fix the bent shaping and an insulative coating is formed at the bent ends of the separators in order to minimize thermal damage and short circuits of the electrodes (P11, 33-34; see Figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Jeung and folded the peripheral portions of the separators of modified Min relative to a first end of the adjacent one of the electrodes, performed a heat treatment to the folded peripheral portions, then applied an insulative coating to the folded and treated peripheral portions, given Jeung teaches this can minimize thermal damage and short circuits of the electrodes.
While modified Ota Min does not meet the limitation that the peripheral portions are folded in a direction away from a bottom part of the accommodation space, this is merely a change in the form/shape of the folded peripheral portions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the form/shape of the folded peripheral portions as claimed, in order to, for example, allow the electrode assembly to be in close contact with the bottom part of the accommodation space in the instance that the bottom part of the accommodation space is laid on a cooling plate, thereby allowing the electrode assembly more efficient heat transfer with the cooling plate through the bottom part of the accommodation space, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 17-18, modified Min meets the limitation wherein the first case and the second case each comprises a respective portion of the accommodation space (see the pouch of Ota (which is now the pouch of modified Min) in Fig. 12 wherein there is a first case housing the anode assembly 1201 and a second case housing the cathode assembly 1202 in Fig. 12; both comprises a portion of the accommodation space).
However, modified Min does not meet the limitation a peripheral portion of a first one of the separators accommodated in the accommodation space of the first case is folded relative to a first end of a first adjacent one of the electrodes toward the second case, a peripheral portion of a second one of the separators accommodated in the accommodation space of the second case is folded relative to a first end of a second adjacent one of the electrodes toward the first case, and wherein a peripheral portion of a third one of the separators adjacent to the first or second one of the separators is folded in a same direction as the first or second one of the separators.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jeung teaches an electrode assembly wherein separators between cathodes and anodes are formed to have a height greater than that of the cathodes and anodes (P32; see Fig. 1). Jeung teaches the electrode assembly can be pressed in one direction such that the separators are bent and cover the cathodes and anodes (P32; see Fig. 2). Jeung teaches the separators are then heat treated to fix the bent shaping and an insulative coating is formed at the bent ends of the separators in order to minimize thermal damage and short circuits of the electrodes (P11, 33-34; see Figs. 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Jeung within modified Min and folded a peripheral portion of a first one of the separators, a peripheral portion of a second one of the separators, and a peripheral portion of a third one of the separators, then applied an insulative coating to the folded peripheral portions, and treated peripheral portions, given Jeung teaches this can minimize thermal damage and short circuits of the electrodes.
While modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the peripheral portion of the first one of the separators is folded toward the second case, the peripheral portion of the second one of the separators is folded toward the first case, and the peripheral portion of the third one of the separators is folded in the same direction as either the first or second one of the separators, this is merely a change in the form/shape of the separators of modified Min. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have changed the form/shape of the separators as claimed in order to, for example, provide the separator’s peripheral portions facing the inside of the accommodating portion such that both large, flat sides of the electrode assembly could be in close contact with a cooling plate on either side without a folded portion of the separator pushing upward and away, because the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 37, modified Min meets the limitation wherein the peripheral portion of one of the one of the separators is in contact with an inner surface of an outer wall surrounding a periphery of the accommodation space (the Examiner notes that the “contact” is not defined in the claim, therefore, the “contact” can be defined as any contact, thermal, physical, electrical and indirect or direct; in Fig. 14 of Min, it can be seen that the lowermost piece of the stack of radical units is separator 114; in Figs. 7-8, it can be seen that a radical unit sits directly on the bottom of the lowermost section of the pouch; therefore, that lowermost separator 114 of Fig. 14 is in direct physical and thermal contact with an inner surface of an outer wall that surrounds a periphery of the accommodation space).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kotik et al (US 20210283671 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the accommodation space has a depth in a direction perpendicular to the top surface of the electrode assembly of 6.5 or more.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kotik teaches a pouch cell housing made up of case halves (110a, 110b in Figs. 5 and 9) wherein an electrode assembly (200 in Fig. 9) sits between the case halves (P55).
Kotik teaches in order to form pouch cells having a greater power storage capacity, it is desirable to form pouch cells having a greater overall depth (P3).
From the teaching of Kotik, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the depth of a pouch (where the electrode assembly sits, therefore, the accommodation space) in a battery is a result-effective variable dependent upon the desired power storage capacity one wishes for their finished battery to have. Therefore, it is up to one of ordinary skill in the art to decide, through routine experimentation, the depth of the accommodation space of the secondary battery of modified Min, based upon the desired power storage capacity they wish for their finished battery. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 13 respectively, further in view of Sasaki (WO 2020067131 A1, using the provided machine English translation).
Regarding claim 20, modified Min meets the limitation wherein the battery case (pouch of Ota) comprises a pouch film (pouch can include a three-layer structure, Ota P103), and the pouch film comprises: a sealant layer made of a first polymer, the sealant layer being an innermost layer of the pouch film (“The inner layer can include a polypropylene (PP) polymer film, which can be corrosion-resistive to acids or other electrolyte and insoluble in electrolyte solvents”, Ota P103); a surface protection layer made of a second polymer, the surface protection layer being an the outermost layer of the pouch film (“the outer layer can include a nylon-based polymer film”, Ota P103); and a moisture barrier layer stacked between the surface protection layer and the sealant layer, wherein the moisture barrier layer is an aluminum alloy film (“The intermediate layer of the pouch 140 includes metal layers (foils, substrates, films, etc.) comprising aluminum…and their alloys”, Ota P105).
However, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the moisture barrier layer has a thickness of 50 µm to 80 µm and a grain size of 10 µm to 13 µm, and the sealant layer has a thickness of 60 µm to 100 µm.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sasaki discloses a packaging material for a pouch type (P163) energy storage device (Title) wherein the material comprises:
a sealant layer (“heat-fusible resin layer”; P31) made of a first polymer (P85) and formed as an innermost layer (P31);
a surface protection layer (“substrate layer”; P31 or “base material layer”; P70) made of a second polymer (P72) and formed as an outermost layer (P31; P71); and
a moisture barrier layer (“barrier layer”; P31) provided between (P31) the surface protection layer and the sealant layer (P31),
the moisture barrier layer being formed of a metal including an alloy no. AA80XX series aluminum alloy (“annealed aluminum”; “A8021”; “A8079”; P77), wherein a thickness of the moisture barrier layer is between about 10 microns and about 100 microns (P77, 79), and a thickness of the sealant layer is less than 100 microns (P86). Sasaki teaches the aluminum alloy has a grain size of 20 microns or less (P78).
Sasaki discloses that the packaging material has the function of preventing vapor, oxygen, light, and the like into the package (P77) with improved strength (P77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Sasaki and employed the packaging material of Sasaki as the pouch film of modified Min (pouch film of Ota), given Sasaki teaches their packaging material prevents vapor, oxygen, and the like into the package, their packaging material has improved strength, and the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
The moisture barrier layer has a thickness of 20 µm to 80 µm (Sasaki P79) which overlaps the claimed range of 50 µm to 80 µm, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
The moisture barrier layer has a grain size of 20 µm or less (Sasaki P78) which overlaps the claimed range of 10 µm to 13 µm, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
The sealant layer has a thickness 100 µm and less (Sasaki P86), which overlaps the claimed range of 60 µm to 100 µm, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05)
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al (US 20160372783 A1) in view of Ota et al (US 20170025646 A1) in view of Sasaki (WO 2020067131 A1, using the provided machine English translation) as applied to claim 20, further in view of Lee et al (US 20070264535 A1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Min does not meet the limitation wherein the pouch film further comprises an elongation assistance layer made of a third polymer and stacked between the surface protection layer and the moisture barrier layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee teaches a battery pouch made of materials giving it high strength (Abstract, P25).
Lee teaches a battery case is made of a stacking structure including an outer coating layer made of oriented nylon film (100a in Fig. 6), a barrier layer made of aluminum alloy (100b in Fig. 6), an inner sealant layer made of cast polypropylene (100c in Fig. 6), and an outermost layer made of polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) and/or polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (100d in Fig. 6, P12, 67).
Lee teaches the outermost layer made of PEN and/or PET is coated on the outer surface of the outer coating layer (P27). Lee teaches when PET is selectively applied to the outer surface of the outer coating layer, the PET layer preferably has a thickness of 5 to 30 µm (P33). Lee teaches when the thickness of the PET layer is too small, the increase of the strength due to the addition of the PET layer is not expected, and when the thickness of the PET layer is too large, on the other hand, the thickness of the laminate sheet is increased (P33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Lee and provided to the pouch film of modified Min an outermost layer made of PEN and/or PET, given Lee teaches a pouch can have a four-layer structure as described above and utilizing the outermost layer increases the strength of a pouch.
With this modification, the layers of the pouch film of modified Min (from the rejections of both claims 20 and 24) are as follows:
Surface protection layer – layer of PEN and/or PET (Lee)
Elongation assistance layer – substrate layer made of a second polymer (Sasaki)
Moisture barrier layer – aluminum alloy (Sasaki)
Sealant layer made of first polymer – heat-fusible resin layer (Sasaki)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Byram whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE BYRAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1729