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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 5-8, 11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), and further in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding Claim 1, Nemoto discloses in Fig. 3 an electrochemical cell package ([0018]) comprising:
an insulating substrate (1) having a first surface, a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface, and a recessed portion which opens in the first surface and in which an electrochemical cell (3a, 4, 3b) is accommodated ([0019], [0013]);
a frame portion (8) surrounding the recessed portion on the first surface ([0022]);
a wiring conductor (2, 5, 8, 9) comprising a first electrode (2) located on a bottom surface of the recessed portion, a second electrode (5) located on the first surface between the frame portion (8) and the recessed portion, a first external electrode (9) located on the second surface and electrically connected to the first electrode (2), and a second external electrode (10) located on the second surface and electrically connected to the second electrode (5) ([0020]); and
a lid (13) closing the frame portion (8) ([0019], [0022]).
Specifically, Nemoto discloses wherein the electrochemical cell is a capacitor ([0018]) and consequently does not disclose wherein such is a battery.
Sato teaches in Fig. 1 an electrochemical cell package (1), wherein the electrochemical cell may be a capacitor or a battery ([0002], [0006], [0013]).
Specifically, Sato teaches wherein the electrochemical cell may be formed as a capacitor or a battery depending on what materials are used in the electrodes and the electrolyte ([0018]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the electrochemical cell of Nemoto to be a battery, as taught by Sato, as such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such could successfully be done.
Modified Nemoto further discloses a heat insulating sheet (6 of Nemoto) disposed on the second electrode (2 of Nemoto) and extending over an opening of the recessed portion above the first surface (Fig. 1, [0029], [0031] of Nemoto).
Specifically, modified Nemoto discloses wherein the heat insulating sheet (6 of Nemoto) protects the battery (3a, 4, 3b) from heat during welding ([0028] of Nemoto).
However, modified Nemoto does not disclose wherein the heat insulating sheet is a conductive sheet and consequently does not disclose wherein such is electrically connected to the second electrode.
Though, modified Nemoto discloses wherein the material of the heat insulating sheet (6 of Nemoto) is not particularly limited ([0023] of Nemoto).
Li teaches a heat insulating sheet for use in a battery package that effectively prevents heat from diffusing, wherein the heat insulating sheet is a conductive sheet ([0009], [0021]).
Specifically, Li teaches wherein the heat insulating sheet is suitable for being disposed on an electrode ([0009], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the heat insulating sheet taught by Li as the heat insulating sheet of modified Nemoto, such that the heat insulating sheet is a conductive sheet, as the heat insulating sheet of modified Nemoto is not particularly limited and such is a known heat insulating sheet in the art suitable for being disposed on an electrode that effectively prevents heat from diffusing and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully protect the battery of modified Nemoto from heat during welding, as desired by modified Nemoto.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) and the second electrode (5 of Nemoto) are connected along the entirety of the second electrode (5 of Nemoto) ([0017] of Sato) and therefore are connected at a plurality of locations.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the lid (13 of Nemoto) is made of metal and is welded to the frame portion (8 of Nemoto) ([0022], [0027]-[0028], [0031] of Nemoto).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses a spacer (13b of Nemoto) located between the lid (13 of Nemoto) and the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) and being in contact with the lid (13 of Nemoto) and the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) (Fig. 3, [0031] of Nemoto).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the lid (13 of Nemoto) comprises a protruding portion (13a of Nemoto) in contact with the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) (Fig. 1, [0031] of Nemoto).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the protruding portion (13a of Nemoto) presses the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) from above by vertical inversion (Fig. 3, [0031] of Nemoto).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Nemoto discloses a battery module ([0002], [0006], [0012] of Sato) comprising:
the battery package set forth above; and
the battery (3a, 4, 3b of Nemoto) accommodated in the recessed portion of the battery package and comprising a lower surface electrode (3a of Nemoto) electrically connected to the first electrode (2 of Nemoto) and an upper surface electrode (3b of Nemoto, corresponding to 9 of Sato) electrically connected to the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) (Fig. 3 of Nemoto, [0010] of Li).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein a height of a first region located on an upper side of the battery (3a, 4, 3b of Nemoto) of an entire region of the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) is higher than a second region located on the first surface (Fig. 3 of Nemoto).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, modified Nemoto does not disclose an insulating member located between a side surface of the battery and an inner side surface of the recessed portion.
Sato further teaches in Figs. 1 and 3 wherein an insulating member (12) is located between a side surface of the battery (8, 9, 10) and an inner side surface of the recessed portion (2a) in order to prevent the occurrence of internal short circuits even if deformation due to thermal expansion occurs ([0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an insulating member located between a side surface of the battery of modified Nemoto and an inner side surface of the recessed portion of modified Nemoto, as further taught by Sato, in order to prevent the occurrence of internal short circuits even if deformation due to thermal expansion occurs.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (US PGPub 2008/0206635 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) is fixed to the first surface at a position sandwiching the recessed portion in plan view (Fig. 3 of Nemoto).
However, modified Nemoto discloses wherein the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) is fixed to the first surface at a single position (e.g. see left side of the battery package) and therefore does not disclose wherein the conductive sheet is fixed to the first surface at positions sandwiching the recessed portion in plan view.
Watanabe teaches in Figs. 1-2 a battery package comprising a substrate (11) having a first surface, a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface, and a recessed portion which opens in the first surface in which a battery (13, 14, 15) is accommodated, wherein a second electrode (21) is fixed to the first surface at positions sandwiching the recessed portion in plan view ([0003], [0020], [0027]).
Specifically, Watanabe teaches wherein the first surface of the substrate (11) is level (Figs. 1-2, e.g. wherein a height of the substrate 11 on the left side is the same as a height of the substrate 11 on the right side).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the insulating substrate of modified Nemoto to be level, as taught by Watanabe, such that the second electrode of modified Nemoto and the conductive sheet of modified Nemoto are fixed to the first surface at positions sandwiching the recessed portion of modified Nemoto in plan view, wherein such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a insulating substrate suitable for use in a battery package, as desired by modified Nemoto.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Mano et al. (US PGPub 2014/0177135 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the frame portion (8 of Nemoto) comprise a frame body located on the first surface, and the conductive sheet (6 of Nemoto) is located on an inner side ode of the frame body (Fig. 3 of Nemoto).
Specifically, modified Nemoto discloses wherein the frame portion (8 of Nemoto) is made of Kovar ([0022] of Nemoto).
Consequently, modified Nemoto does not disclose wherein the frame body is an insulating frame body.
However, modified Nemoto discloses wherein other materials may be used as long as they have a thermal expansion coefficient close to that of the insulating substrate (1 of Nemoto) ([0022] of Nemoto).
Mano teaches in Fig. 3 a battery package ([0070]) comprising an insulating substrate (111), a frame portion (113), and a lid (112) closing the frame portion (113), ([0069], [0073], [0098]).
Specifically, Mano teaches wherein the frame portion (113) is formed of Kovar ([0080]).
However, Mano teaches wherein the material of the frame portion (113) is not particularly limited so long as it maintains close contact with both the insulating substrate (111) and the lid (112), and for example may be an insulating material such as the same material of the insulating substrate (111) ([0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the frame portion of modified Nemoto to be made of the same material as the insulating substrate of modified Nemoto, as taught by Mano, such that the frame body of modified Nemoto is an insulating frame body, as such is known configuration in the art that would maintain close contact with both the insulating substrate of modified Nemoto and the lid of modified Nemoto, wherein such as the same thermal expansion coefficient of the insulating substrate and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the frame portion desired by modified Nemoto.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kobuse (US PGPub 2007/0273329 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the first external electrode (9 of Nemoto) and the second external electrode (10 of Nemoto) are located on the second surface (Fig. 3 of Nemoto).
However, modified Nemoto does not disclose wherein the insulating substrate has a second recessed portion which opens in the second surface and in which an electronic component is accommodated.
Kobuse teaches in Figs. 2-3 a battery packaging (201) comprising a recessed portion (205) which opens in an outer surface and in which an electronic component (5) is accommodated in order to monitor a state of the battery ([0001], [0051]-[0054]).
Specifically, Kobuse teaches in Figs. 2-3 wherein the outer surface is a surface of the battery packaging (201) comprising external electrodes (2a, 2b) ([0051]-[0054]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a second recessed portion in the insulating substrate of modified Nemoto, wherein the second recessed portion opens in the second surface of modified Nemoto and in which an electronic component is accommodated, as taught by Kobuse, in order to monitor a state of the battery of modified Nemoto.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Nemoto discloses a battery module ([0002], [0006], [0012] of Sato) comprising:
the battery package set forth above; and
the battery (3a, 4, 3b of Nemoto) accommodated in the recessed portion of the battery package and comprising a lower surface electrode (3a of Nemoto) electrically connected to the first electrode (2 of Nemoto) and an upper surface electrode (3b of Nemoto, corresponding to 9 of Sato) electrically connected to the conductive sheet (7a of Sato) (Fig. 3 of Nemoto and Fig. 1 of Sato); and
the electronic component (4 of Kobuse) accommodated in the second recessed portion (205 of Kobuse) (Figs. 2-3, [0051]-[0054] of Kubose).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), and Kobuse (US PGPub 2007/0273329 A1), as applied to Claim 12 above, and further in view of Miura et al. (US PGPub 2018/0246169 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the electronic component (5 of Kubose) is configured to monitor the battery ([0054] of Kubose).
However, modified Nemoto does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic component is a power supply IC configured to control the battery.
Miura teaches an electronic component (23) that monitors a battery, wherein the electronic component (23) comprises a power supply IC (1) in order to obtain measurements ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a power supply IC in the electronic component of modified Nemoto, as taught by Miura, in order to obtain measurements, so as to monitor the battery of modified Nemoto, as desired by modified Nemoto.
The Examiner notes that the limitation “configured to control the battery” is intended use and therefore is not given patentable weight aside from the structure required to perform such function.
Thus, because modified Nemoto discloses wherein the electronic component is a power supply IC (1 of Miura) ([0018] of Miura), such reads on the limitation “configured to control the battery”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Onodera et al. (JP 2006-303381 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, modified Nemoto does not disclose wherein the lower surface electrode of the battery and the first electrode are joined with a conductive joining material; and the upper surface electrode of the battery and the conductive sheet are joined with a conductive joining material.
Onodera teaches in Fig. 1 a battery module comprising a battery (9, 10, 8) accommodated in a battery package (2, 3) and comprising a lower surface electrode (9) electrically connected to a first electrode (7) and an upper surface electrode (8) electrically connected to a second electrode (6) ([0001], [0014]).
Specifically, Onodera teaches wherein the lower surface electrode (9) of the battery (9, 10, 8) and the first electrode (7) are joined with a conductive joining material (13); and the upper surface electrode (8) of the battery (9, 10, 8) and the second electrode (6) are joined with a conductive joining material (12) in order to fix the lower surface electrode (9) and the second upper surface electrode (8) ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to utilize a conductive joining material on the lower surface electrode and the upper surface electrode of the battery of modified Nemoto, such that the lower surface electrode of the battery and the first electrode of modified Nemoto are joined with a conductive joining material and the upper surface electrode of the battery and the conductive sheet of modified Nemoto are joined with a conductive joining material, as taught by Onodera, in order to fix the lower surface electrode and the upper surface electrode.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Nanno et al. (US PGPub 2005/0019663 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Nemoto further discloses wherein the battery may be a thin-film type all-solid-state battery in which a negative electrode layer (3b of Nemoto), a separator layer (4 of Nemoto), and a positive electrode layer (3a of Nemoto) are layered ([0027] of Nemoto and [0006], [0020] of Sato, e.g. gel electrolyte).
However, modified Nemoto does not disclose wherein the negative electrode layer, the electrolyte layer, and a positive electrode layer are layered on a metal plate.
Nanno teaches that in an all-solid-state battery, an electrolyte layer (23) serves as a separator layer (Fig. 2, [0029], [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the battery of modified Nemoto to be a thin-film type all-solid-state battery, as disclosed by modified Nemoto, in which a negative electrode layer, an electrolyte layer, and a positive electrode layer are layered, as taught by Nanno, as such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the battery desired by modified Nemoto.
Sato further teaches wherein the negative electrode layer (9), the electrolyte layer (10), and a positive electrode layer (8) may be layered on a metal plate (6a, aluminum) in order to suppress corrosion of the second electrode (6b) due to charging and discharging ([0016]-[0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to layer the negative electrode layer, the electrolyte layer, and a positive electrode layer of modified Nemoto on a metal plate, as further taught by Sato, in order to suppress corrosion of the second electrode of modified Nemoto due to charging and discharging.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. However, modified Nemoto does not idslcose wherein the battery is a coin cell.
Nanno teaches wherein coin cells have been used as main power sources or backup batteries for portable devices in various fields ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the battery of modified Nemoto to be a coin cell, as taught by Nanno, as such is a known configuration in the art suitable for use in various fields.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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: The invention of Claim 9 is directed to the battery package set forth above, further comprising a seal pattern located on the second surface, made of a solderable conductive material, and surrounding peripheries of the first external electrode and the second external electrode.
The closest prior art is considered to be Nemoto et al. (JP 2007-207920 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) in view of Sato et al. (JP 2015-103474 A, cited on the IDS dated February 1, 2023, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action) and Li et al. (CN 105742566 A, see also the EPO machine generated English translation provided with this Office Action), as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Nemoto discloses all of the limitations as set forth above.
However, modified Nemoto does not disclose a seal pattern located on the second surface, made of a solderable conductive material, and surrounding peripheries of the first external electrode and the second external electrode.
The Examiner notes that the instant specification discloses wherein the claimed seal pattern seals the first external electrode and the second external electrode while simultaneously joining the first external electrode and the second external electrode with electrodes of the mounting substrate with solder, thereby achieving high efficiency and productivity without needing another sealing material. Furthermore, an electric leakage, a short circuit between adjacently mounted electronic components, or the like due to moisture or the like at the time of cleaning after mounting the battery module can be prevented by sealing the first external electrode and the second external electrode (Fig. 9, [0029]-[0030]).
It would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a seal pattern on the second surface of modified Nemoto, made of a solderable conductive material, and surrounding peripheries of the first external electrode and the second external electrode of modified Nemoto, as called for in the claimed invention, as such a configuration was neither disclosed nor suggested by the prior art and therefore the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to do so nor would have reasonable expectation that doing so would successfully achieve high efficiency and productivity without needing another sealing material, thereby preventing an electric leakage, a short circuit between adjacently mounted electronic components, or the like due to moisture or the like at the time of cleaning, as realized by the claimed invention.
In light of the above, the closest prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claim limitation “a seal pattern located on the second surface, made of a solderable conductive material, and surrounding peripheries of the first external electrode and the second external electrode” in combination with all of the other limitations taken as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Examiner, Art Unit 1725