DETAILED ACTION
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.
The rejection of claim(s) 11-17 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0083311) in view of Zambanini et al. (US 2023/0002636- provisional application 62/945322 filed 12/9/19) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claim(s) 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2018/0083311) in view of Zambanini et al. (US 2023/0002636- provisional application 62/945322 filed 12/9/19) and further in view of Lee et al. (WO2021/071057) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim(s) 11, 13-15, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arao et al. (EP 1359631) in view of Greszler et al. (US 2021/0384527)
With regard to claims 11 and 13-14, Arao et al disclose a laminate for battery encasement having an Al film with an inner layer of polypropylene facing a battery surface and an outer layer corresponding to the claimed “outermost layer” on the opposite side of the Al film facing the outside of the battery formed from a material selected from a group including polyethylene terephthalate (PET). It would have been prima facie obvious to choose any of the disclosed outer layer materials, including PET for use with an inner polypropylene layer. See para [0053]-[0057], [0068]-[0071] and [0096] and claims 1, 3 and 6).
Arao et al. is silent with regard to (1) the use of a plurality of electrode units each including the aforementioned protective film thereon disposed in a common battery cell housing and (2) the relative melting points of the inner and outer (outermost) layers. However, the reference discloses that the flexible encasement described above allows the battery cells to be “readily formed into a shape that fits the shape of the electronic device” (see para [0006]).
Greszler et al. discloses multiple pouch batteries disposed and fitted into a common housing structure (see Figures 3, 5 and para [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pouch-type batteries taught by Arao et al. in a housing structure as suggested by Greszler et al. in order to provide a battery module with greater power and structural protection for the individual cells in the unit.
With regard to the relative melting points of PET and polypropylene (PP), these are the same materials as disclosed and claimed by Applicant for use in the higher melting point outermost layer and lower melting point inner layers. Therefore, Arao et al. is expected to necessarily meet the claim limitations because the same materials would be expected to have the same properties.
With regard to claim 12, the PET layer by Arao et al. would necessarily have a higher hardness than that of the polypropylene layer. The present invention uses the same materials for forming the lower hardness inner layer as Arao et al. The same materials are expected to have the same properties.
With regard to claim 15, Arao et al. discloses examples having protective layer thicknesses within the claimed range (see examples 1-2).
With regard to claims 16-18, Arao et al. doesn’t explicitly disclose openings in the Al laminate packaging surrounding the battery cell. However, it does teach that an electrolyte is added to the casing. Thus, it would have been obvious to add one or more openings to the cell packaging in order to allow for provision of an electrolyte therein prior art sealing. Determination of the number of opening would have been an obvious matter of design choice.
With regard to the placement of the openings “toward a bottom of the battery cell housing”, it would have have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide openings for provision of an electrolyte and electrode tabs on any side of the battery cell housing depending on the particular orientation of the housing within an electronic device or component.
With regard to claim 19, see abstract.
Claim 20 is met for the foregoing reasons.
With regard to claim 21, the aforementioned batteries would be expected to be capable of functioning as energy storage in EV applications by virtue of the fact that they are substantially the same in structure and composition as the claimed battery cell.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 11-21 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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
Prosecution Insights