DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-02-24, the following has occurred: Claims 1 and 5 have been amended; Claims 7 and 8 have been added.
Claims 1-8 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 2009/0035648 to Kimura) in view of Nagai (US 2015/0207147 to Nagai et al.), in further view of Shaffer (US 2018/0069222 to Shaffer, II et al.).
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Kimura teaches:
a power storage device comprising stacked cells, each including a cathode 32, anode 37, and separator 41 impregnated with liquid electrolyte, all provided in an accommodation chamber sealed by insulating resin 45 (Fig. 1, ¶ 0033, 0037)
the cells stacked in series (¶ 0032)
a side surface of the cell stack covered with a covering layer 28 of conventional polymer (¶ 0040)
PNG
media_image1.png
396
588
media_image1.png
Greyscale
each of the current collectors connected in series to terminal collectors 26/27 (¶ 0039) and to cooling tabs 46/47 (¶ 0043), all of the collectors being made of highly thermally conductive materials such as copper or aluminum, known to have conductivities in excess of 100 W/(m·K) (¶ 0035, 0045)
wherein the cooling tabs are hooked up to a cooling unit to cool the tabs (Fig. 3, ¶ 0046)
Kimura does not teach:
oxalate in the electrolyte (claim 1) of the claimed formula (claim 2)
Nagai, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a lithium battery, teaches the use of such oxalate compounds in the electrolyte to inhibit SEI formation (¶0075-0078). It would have been obvious to use such a compound in the battery of Kimura with the motivation to improve cycling. Use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way, and applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Kimura teaches:
a “lamination film” 28 that can be aluminum coated with PET to prevent moisture from intruding, but wherein the lamination film is optional (¶ 0040)
Kimura does not teach:
the covering portion provided with a permeable wall portion that allows carbon dioxide gas generated in the accommodation chamber to permeate to an outside of the cell stack
Shaffer, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a bipolar cell stack, teaches that the outer housing can comprise a variety of conventional materials known in the art, include LDPE, which is permeable to gases within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and wherein “low density polyethylene” just is conventionally understood to be defined by densities lower than 930 kg/m3 (¶ 0032). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use LDPE instead of the PET-aluminum laminate used in Kimura, since Shaffer teaches that LDPE was a suitable equivalent for a bipolar housing material, and serves the purpose of preventing moisture from intruding, as described in Kimura.
Regarding Claim 5, Kimura does not teach:
LDPE making up a part of the covering portion
Shaffer, however, from the same field of invention, regarding a bipolar cell stack, teaches that the outer housing can comprise a variety of conventional materials known in the art, include LDPE, which is permeable to gases within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and wherein “low density polyethylene” just is conventionally understood to be defined by densities lower than 930 kg/m3 (¶ 0032). Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results has been found to be obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). It would have been obvious to use LDPE instead of the PET used in Kimura, since Shaffer teaches they are substitutable equivalents.
Regarding Claim 6, Kimura teaches:
the outer covering circumferentially surrounding the cell stack (Figs.)
Regarding Claim 7, Kimura teaches:
sheet member 46 is formed of electrically conductive material like aluminum or copper (¶ 0045)
Regarding Claim 8, Kimura teaches:
wherein the terminals 26/27 are thermally connected to the cooling tabs 45/47 and so can be so said to be “provided in the cooling unit” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that phrase, and wherein the device is charged and discharged through the terminals (¶ 0042)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 2009/0035648 to Kimura) in view of Nagai (US 2015/0207147 to Nagai et al.) and Shaffer (US 2018/0069222 to Shaffer, II et al.), in further view of Gu (Gu et al. “Synthesis of MgCO2O4-coated Li4Ti5O12 composite anodes using co-precipitation method for lithium-ion batteries.” Journal of Solid State Electrochemistry (2019) 23:31797-3207).
Regarding Claim 3, Kimura does not teach:
the claimed loadings
The loadings appear to overlap the conventional range known in the art. Gu, for example, teaches a loading of 25 mg/cm2 for lithium titanate (p. 3198, column 2), an exemplary anode material in Kimura (¶ 0058).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (US 2009/0035648 to Kimura) in view of Nagai (US 2015/0207147 to Nagai et al.) and Shaffer (US 2018/0069222 to Shaffer, II et al.), in further view of Chung (US 2011/0189577 to Chung et al.).
Regarding Claim 4, Kimura does not teach:
explicitly bonding the separator to the electrodes
Chung, however, regarding a cell stack, teaches doing so (abstract). It would have been obvious to bond the separator to form a better seal between the electrodes and the insulating seals surrounding the sides of the cells.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Kimura teaches a laminated film with PET and aluminum, and that even if Schaffer teaches LDPE as a substitute for PET, it would still produce a film with an aluminum middle layer that is not permeable to CO2. In response the Office clarifies that it would have been obvious to use a housing layer of just LPDE, as taught be Schaffer, rather than requiring a laminate with aluminum. First, the Office points to Kimura’s teaching that the housing is explicitly indicated to be optional. Second, its function is to keep out moisture. Third, Schaffer teaches use of non-conductive materials, like polymers films comprising such plastics as low density polyethylene as insulating barriers to keep electrolyte in and moisture out. It would have been obvious to use a simple polymer barrier, such as LPDE, in place of the optional laminate disclosed in Kimura, with the motivation to save on cost while still keeping moisture out.
The Office points out that PET, taught by Kimura, is also generally permeable to CO2. Kimura teaches that the laminate is itself sealed at edges (Fig. 1), leaving edge seals where only the PET and the seal (usually fused/melted laminate) stand between the outside environment and the inside of the casing. This would, presumably, also be permeable to CO2 within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Finally, the Office points to Kim (US 2012/0015226), directed towards pouch cells, typically housed in aluminum-laminates as suggested by Kimura. But in Kim, the housing is comprised of only two resin layers, including polyethylene and PET, among others, which are known to be permeable to CO2 (see ¶ 0041-0044). Kim therefore provides further evidence that polymer-only outer layers were a conventional substitute for aluminum-containing laminates in the art.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723