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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1-5, 9-10, and 12. Claims 1-12 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The 112, 102, and 103 rejections of the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendment(s). However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
In response to applicant's argument that Sakaguchi is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor' s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both Sakaguchi and the instant application are related to energy storage devices in which electrodes are connected through a penetrating terminal and an external terminal connected to the penetrating terminal is further furnished on the exterior of the device to enable the use of the stored energy within the device. The instant disclosure describes the external terminals extending to other surfaces so that bonding strength between the terminal is increased and mechanical reliability is improved (e.g., published [0059]). Similarly, Sakaguchi present a means (external terminals, and location thereof) to enable the use of the stored energy from the electrodes that enables a suppression of a decrease in connection reliability. Thus, Sakaguchi is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, hence fairly relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. Regardless of the form of energy provided by the energy storage device (e.g., chemical, electric potential, etc.) one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the connection reliability the external terminals offer to the device.
Applicant’s arguments that Sakaguchi does not consider the problems solved by the instant application are not persuasive. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (US 2020/0395632), Ito (JP 2002352850, of record, machine translation previously provided), and Chen (US 2018/0138469), hereinafter Zhou, Ito II, and Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhou suggests an all solid state battery (see e.g., abstract) comprising: a battery body including a solid electrolyte material (e.g., 13) defining first and second surfaces of the battery body opposing each other in a first direction of the battery body, third and fourth surfaces of the battery body opposing each other in a second direction (“2nd D”) of the battery body, and fifth and sixth surfaces of the battery body opposing each other in a third direction (“3rd”) of the battery body, see e.g., Fig. 18A; a plurality of cathode layers (e.g., 11, 12, Fig. 18A) and a plurality of anode layers (e.g., 14, 15, Fig. 20A) alternatingly stacked in the third direction (up and down) with the solid electrolyte material therebetween, wherein the cathode layers and the anode layers are each spaced apart from the first, second, third, and fourth surfaces of the battery body (see e.g., Fig. 11B, 12B, 15B,16B, 17B); a cathode penetration electrode (labelled in annotated Fig. 18A) in the battery body and interconnecting the cathode layers (11, 12), the cathode penetration electrode having a first end penetrating one of the fifth or sixth surfaces (located along the 3rd D) of the battery body and a second end opposite the first end disposed within the battery body (see labels in Fig. 18A),
an anode penetration electrode (labelled in annotated Fig. 18A) penetrating in the battery body and interconnecting the anode layers (14, 15) and opposing the cathode penetration electrode in the second direction (“2nd D”), the anode penetration electrode having a first end penetrating one of the fifth or sixth surfaces of the battery body and a second end opposite the first end disposed within the battery body (see labels in annotated Fig. 18A); a cathode terminal connected to the cathode penetration electrode; and an anode terminal connected to the anode penetration electrode (see labels).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
1237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhou does not suggest an average margin of at least one of the cathode layers from an edge of the a least one of the cathode layers to the third surface in the second direction is within a range of 15% or more and 30% or less of an average width of the battery body in the second direction. However, 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), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), and MPEP § 2144.07. Ito II presents a solid state battery where based on the size of the cathode (2.5 mm) and electrolyte (3 mm), an average margin of at least one of the cathode layers from an edge of the a least one of the cathode layers to a surface in the second direction is within a range of 15% or more and 30% or less of an average width of the battery body in the second direction (e.g., 3 mm – 2.5 mm = 0.5 mm, and 0.5 mm/3 mm x100% = 17%, see e.g., [0026]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an average margin of at least one of the cathode layers from an edge of the a least one of the cathode layers to the third surface in the second direction is within a range of 15% or more and 30% or less of an average width of the battery body in the second direction since such values are taught in the art. Further, Chen suggests a value of an average margin (t1, Fig. 12A, [0072]) with respect to the size of the active material area is considered based on energy density; that is, as the margin increases, the area of non-active material is increased, thereby lowering volumetric energy density and capacity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify an average margin of at least one of the cathode layers from an edge of the a least one of the cathode layers to a surface of the battery body in the second direction within a range of 15% or more and 30% or less of an average width of the battery body in the second direction since such values are taught in the art, and there is an expectation of controlling volumetric energy density and capacity.
Regarding Claim 2, as set forth under the rejection of claim 1, Ito II was used to make obvious the average margin of the cathode layer. The same reasoning is applied for the average margin of the anode layer in the second direction. Ito II suggests a length between the edge of the anode layer to the surface is 0.5 cm (i.e., 3 mm – 2.5 mm = 0.5 mm); thus, an average margin of the anode layer from an edge of the anode layer to a surface in the second direction is within a range of 15% or more and 30% or less of an average width of the battery body in the second direction (0.5 mm/3 mm * 100% = 17%). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize an average margin of at least one of the anode layers from an edge of the a least one of the anode layers to the fourth surface in the second direction is within a range of 15% or more and 30% or less of an average width of the battery body in the second direction since such values are taught in the art. Further, Chen suggests a value of an average margin (t1, Fig. 12A, [0072]) with respect to the size of the active material area is considered based on energy density; that is, as the margin increases, the area of non-active material is increased, thereby lowering volumetric energy density and capacity. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify an average margin of at least one of the anode layers from an edge of the a least one of the anode layers to a surface in the second direction is within a range of 15% or more and 30% or less of an average width of the battery body in the second direction since such values are taught in the art, and there is an expectation of controlling volumetric energy density and capacity.
Regarding Claims 3-4, as set forth under the rejection of claims 1 and 2, Ito II was used to make obvious the average margin of the cathode layer. The same reasoning is applied for the margin of the cathode layer and anode layer in the first direction, particularly in view of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify an average margin of at least one of the anode layers (or cathode layers) from an edge of the a least one of the anode layers (or cathode layers) to a surface of the battery body in the first direction is within a range of 5% to 10% of an average width of the battery body in the first direction with the expectation of improving volumetric energy density and capacity by decreasing the non-active material of the battery body, as suggested by Chen.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhou suggests the cathode layer includes a cathode active material and a conductive material, and the anode layer includes an anode active material and the conductive material, such that transport of ions is expected, see e.g., [0128-0129].
Regarding Claim 6, Zhou suggests each of the cathode penetration electrode and the anode penetration electrode is disposed to penetrate the sixth surface of the battery body, see Fig. 18A.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhou suggest a height of the cathode penetration electrode in the third direction and a height of the anode penetration electrode in the third direction are different from each other. The heights of the penetration electrodes is a matter of design choice based on the number of battery units selected by one of ordinary skill, [0008].
Regarding Claim 8, Zhou suggests the cathode terminal is disposed on the sixth surface of the battery body, and the anode terminal is disposed on the sixth surface of the battery body to be spaced apart from the cathode terminal in the second direction (see e.g., Fig. 18A).
Regarding Claim 10, Zhou suggests the cathode penetration electrode is disposed in contact with an end of the cathode layer in the second direction, and the anode penetration electrode is disposed in contact with an end of the anode layer in the second direction (Fig. 18A).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Ito II, and Chen in view of Sakaguchi (JP2009177054, of record, machine translation previously provided), hereinafter Sakaguchi.
Regarding Claims 9, Zhou shows placement of the cathode terminal and anode terminal at the sixth surface (bottom most surface) of the battery body, but does not suggest remaining parts of the cathode terminal extending onto the first, second and fourth surfaces of the battery body, or the remaining parts of the anode terminal extending onto the first, second and third surfaces of the battery body. However, Sakaguchi shows a multilayer ceramic electronic component that utilizes internal penetration electrodes and external terminals that enable good electrical properties and suppress a decrease in connection reliability, see abstract. Specifically, Sakaguchi shows each of the electrode layers (50) connect to respective external terminals (54) via respective penetration electrodes (51), see e.g., Fig. 2; each external terminal (e.g., 54 on the left, and 54 on right in Fig. 1) is disposed on the sixth surface (e.g., top) of the body 53 and spaced apart from each other in the second direction, see also Fig. 2, such that one penetration electrode (54) is disposed to penetrate the sixth surface (top) of the body, and the other penetration electrode is disposed to penetrate the sixth surface (top) of the body, see e.g., Fig. 1. One external terminal (e.g., 54 on the left in Fig. 1) is disposed on the sixth surface (top) of the body 53, a remaining part of the terminal (e.g., 54 on left) is disposed to extend onto the first, second and fourth surfaces of the body, and a remaining part of the other terminal (54 on the right) is disposed to extend onto the first, second, and third surfaces of the body (see Fig. 2). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cathode penetrating electrode and an anode penetrating electrode with the external terminals placed as suggested by Sakaguchi (set forth above) with the expectation of electrically connecting the cathode layers and the anode layers, respectively, to the cathode and anode terminals and because there is an expectation of achieving good electrical properties and to suppress a decrease in connection reliability, as suggested by Sakaguchi.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, Ito II, and Chen in view of Sakaguchi (JP2009177054, of record, machine translation previously provided) and Sato (JP2016001602, of record, machine translation previously provided), hereinafter Sakaguchi and Sato.
Regarding Claims 11-12, Zhou shows the cathode penetration electrode penetrating the sixth surface of the battery body and the anode penetration electrode penetrating the sixth surface of the battery body. Thus, Zhou does not suggest the cathode penetration electrode penetrating the fifth surface of the battery body. However, the rearrangement of the penetration electrode and/or terminals is an obvious design choice. Sato suggest the arrangement of penetration electrodes such that one penetration electrode is disposed to penetrate the sixth surface of the battery body, while the other penetration electrode is disposed to penetrate the fifth surface of the battery body (e.g., upper surface, lower surface, see e.g., Fig. 1), thereby allowing multiple solid state batteries to be connected, which makes it possible to accommodate a variety of battery storage sections, [0009-0012]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the penetration electrodes such that the cathode penetration electrode penetrates the fifth surface while the anode penetration electrode penetrates the sixth surface to enable stacking/connection of multiple batteries, as suggested by Sato.
Zhou does not suggest the external terminal disposed on the sixth surface of the battery body includes a remaining part disposed to extend onto the first, second and fourth surfaces of the body, and the external terminal disposed on the fifth surface (e.g., as suggested with the modification of Zhou in view of Sato) includes a remaining part disposed to extend onto the first, second, and third surfaces of the body. However, Sakaguchi shows electrode layers (50) connect to respective external terminals (54) via respective penetration electrodes (51), see e.g., Fig. 2. Specifically, one penetration electrode (51, on left) is disposed to penetrate the sixth surface (top) of the body, thereby connecting to the external terminal (54, on left) on the sixth surface, and the penetration electrode (51, on right) disposed to penetrate the fifth surface (bottom) of the body, thereby connecting to the external terminal (54, on right) on the fifth surface. Further, the external terminal (e.g., 54 on the left in Fig. 1) is disposed on the sixth surface (top) of the body 53, and includes a remaining part disposed to extend onto the first, second and fourth surfaces of the body, while the other external terminal (54 on right in Fig. 1) includes a remaining part disposed to extend onto the first, second, and third surfaces of the body (see Fig. 2). Sakaguch suggests the structure includes excellent electrical characteristics and can suppress a decrease in connection reliability, [0008]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to utilize a cathode penetrating electrode and an anode penetrating electrode with the external terminals suggested by Zhou, Sato and Sakaguchi with the expectation of electrically connecting the cathode layers and the anode layers to the cathode and anode terminals, respectively, and because there is an expectation of achieving good electrical characteristics and to suppress a decrease in connection reliability, as suggested by Sakaguchi.
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 ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights