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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2000-195477. Regarding claims 1 and 7, the reference is directed to a lithium ion battery manufacturing device and method. The battery comprises a separator, two electrodes, and two current collectors (5, 6) that are stacked, wherein the battery has a circular frame member (7) that fixes an outer edge of the separator, and which is placed between the current collectors (abstract, Fig. 2) and that seals the active layers and the separator. The manufacturing device comprises a holder (cooler 8) that sandwiches the lithium ion battery from both sides of the stacking direction, and a sealing device (heating jig 9) that has a frame shaped heater, which heat-seals an outer edge of the battery by heating the frame member placed at the outer edge of the battery (abstract, Fig. 3). Regarding claims 3 and 9, the holder is configured to hold the battery while being in contact with an entire inner surface of the outer edge of the battery (Fig. 3). Thus, the instant claims are anticipated.
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 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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-195477.
The reference further teaches that the battery is formed as a rectangular plate that has the outer edges of the current collectors fixed to the frame member so as to cover the active material layers (Fig. 1). The heater is pressed on the outer edge of the battery and heats the frame member. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the frame member holds the separator by sandwiching the outer edge of the separator from both sides along the stacking direction, as recited in claims 2 and 8.
However, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because the claimed structure represents a mere change in shape from what is shown in the reference, that would have been obvious absent some indication of criticality (MPEP 2144.07). To be more specific, the reference shows the edge of the separator as being flush with the frame member. It would have involved only routine skill in the art to provide a separator with extended edges that is held by the frame member on both the upper and lower surfaces of the separator, and as such this configuration is not considered to distinguish over the reference.
Claims 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2000-195477 in view of JP 63-128547.
JP ‘477 is applied to claims 1 and 7 for the reasons stated above. However, the reference does not expressly teach that the device further comprises a radiator in contact with four sides of the outer edge of the battery and that is operable to simultaneously promote heat dissipation from the four sides, as recited in claims 4 and 10.
JP ‘547 is directed to a sealing method of a thin-type cell. The device comprises a radiator (4b) that is in contact with four sides of the outer edge of the lithium battery, to cool the battery after the edge has been hot pressed (abstract, Fig. 1).
Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. KSR v. Teleflex, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Further, JP ‘547 teaches at the end of page 2 of the translation that the edge cooling by pressurizing caused no external short circuit and without wrinkles or peeling of the bonding surface. Therefore, the skilled artisan would be further motivated to incorporate the radiator of JP ‘547 into the device of JP ‘447.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5 and 11 recite that the radiator is a rectangular frame-shaped member and is divided into two U-shaped members. While JP ‘547, applied above, teaches that the radiator is a frame shaped member, there would be no apparent reason that the shape could or should be modified to form two U-shaped members. The frame member is applied in a vertical direction as one unit in the method of JP ‘547.
Claims 6 and 12 recite that the device further comprises a conveying device that is operable to convey the battery and the radiator, while the radiator is in contact with the four sides of the outer edge of the battery. The above applied references, notably JP ‘547, do not teach or fairly suggest this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan Crepeau whose telephone number is (571) 272-1299. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Nicole Buie-Hatcher, can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 272-1700. Documents may be faxed to the central fax server at (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Jonathan Crepeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
February 19, 2026