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 Status
Claims 1, 3-5 are amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi et al. (JP2005255225A) hereinafter "Satoshi" in view of Kushida et al. (US 20230275221 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Satoshi teaches a storage case ([0007] packaging; [0024]) of an electrode roll of a secondary battery ([0008]; [0013]-[0020] the electrode plate is used in a secondary battery; [0003]; [0011]) having a hollow core ([0007]; [0020] tube shaped core) and an electrode body wound around the core ([0013]-[0020] electrode plate wound around a core), the storage case comprising: a case that covers the electrode roll, wherein the storage case has a structure in which a space in which the electrode body is housed is sealed by the case and protrusions of the core, the protrusions protruding in an axial direction of the core from end surfaces of the electrode body at both ends of the core ([0007]; [0008] “the opening is heat-sealed to form a cuff so that only the metal winding core can pass through”; the metal winding core 31 protrudes in an axial direction and the case 19 is sealed around the core protrusions sealing the space in which the electrode plate roll 2 resides; [0010]; Fig. 4 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
280
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Satoshi teaches an electrode plate roll case ([0006]). Satoshi teaches wherein an electrode roll comprises a current collector with an active material coating comprising at least a positive or negative electrode material and binder ([0013]-[0015]).
Satoshi does not teach where a sulfide-based solid electrolyte is incorporated into the electrode body.
However, Kushida teaches an all-solid-state battery comprising an electrode sheet manufactured by a roll-to-roll method ([0340]; [0348]) where the electrode sheet contains an active material, a binder, and a sulfide-solid electrolyte (Claim 7; [0374]-[0376]; [0102]-[0103]).
Satoshi teaches a storage case for an electrode roll comprising at least a positive or negative electrode material and binder ([0013]-[0015]). All-solid-state batteries utilizing electrode sheets containing an active material, a binder, and a sulfide-solid electrolyte and manufactured in a roll-to-roll process are known in the art (Kushida Claim 7; [0374]-[0376]; [0102]-[0103]). Further it is known in the art that all -solid-state batteries have improved safety (Kushida [0003]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the electrode roll taught by Satoshi by including a sulfide solid electrolyte in the active material coating layer as taught by Kushida to manufacture an electrode for an all-solid-state battery.
Regarding claim 3, modified Satoshi teaches the storage case of an electrode roll according to claim 1.
Modified Satoshi does not explicitly teach wherein the space in which the electrode body is housed has a positive pressure (for the purposed of examination positive pressure is considered any pressure such that the pressure within the case is greater, by any amount, than the environment that surrounds that case) in a state where the space is sealed by the case and the protrusions.
However, Satoshi teaches that the electrode tape roll packaging is sealed by filling the packaging with inert gas containing no moisture and the opening is heat sealed ([0008]; [0027]). Satoshi teaches that complete gas replacement with inert gas containing no moisture prevents deterioration due to moisture absorption ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have filled the case taught by Satoshi with inert gas such that the space in which the electrode body is housed has a positive pressure (a pressure such that the pressure within the case is greater, by any amount, than the environment that surrounds that case).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to fill the case taught by Satoshi with inert gas such that the space in which the electrode body is housed has a positive pressure to ensure residual moisture contamination is prevented and subsequent deterioration ([0027]).
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (JP2005255225A) in view of Kushida et al. (US 20230275221 A1), as applied above, in further view of Satoshi2 (JP 2005067722 A).
Regarding claim 4, modified Satoshi teaches the storage case of an electrode roll according to claim 1. Satoshi teaches wherein the case is made of a laminate material including a heat-sealable resin and a metal foil ([0026]).
Modified Satoshi does not teach wherein the case includes a first case that covers one side of the electrode roll and a second case that covers the other side of the electrode roll, and the first case and the second case overlap each other with a sealing portion sandwiched therebetween.
However, Satoshi2 teaches a storage case of an electrode tape roll ([0012]) wherein the case includes a first case that covers one side of the electrode roll (Fig. 5 annotated below, element 8; [0015]) and a second case that covers the other side of the electrode roll (Fig. 5 annotated below, element 5; [0015]), and the first case and the second case overlap each other with a sealing portion sandwiched therebetween (Fig. 5 annotated below and Fig. 6; elements 5 and 8 are attached to the electrode roll via cushion material 7and 4 which are considered sealing portions; [0015]-[0016]). Satoshi2 teaches that a pair of flanges (first and second case) are both larger than the outer shape of the electrode plate tape roll and as such are grounded to suspend and support the electrode tape roll thereby preventing damage ([0017]; [0029]; [0051]).
PNG
media_image2.png
258
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
483
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode roll storage case taught by Satoshi by including a first case that covers one side of the electrode roll and a second case that covers the other side of the electrode roll, and the first case and the second case overlap each other with a sealing portion sandwiched therebetween as taught by Satoshi2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the electrode roll storage case taught by Satoshi by including a first case that covers one side of the electrode roll and a second case that covers the other side of the electrode roll, and the first case and the second case overlap each other with a sealing portion sandwiched therebetween as taught by Satoshi2 to suspend and support the electrode tape roll thereby preventing damage ([0017]; [0029]; [0051]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Satoshi in view of Satoshi2 teaches the storage case of an electrode roll according to claim 4.
Satoshi2 further teaches wherein the sealing portion includes a first sealing portion provided with the first case and a second sealing portion provided with the second case and in contact with the first sealing portion (Fig. 5 annotated above and Fig. 6; elements 5 and 8 are attached to the electrode roll via cushion material 7and 4 which are considered sealing portions in indirect contact via the electrode roll; [0012]; [0015]-[0016]). Satoshi2 teaches that the cushion elements 7 and 4 is provided between the electrode roll and the flange elements ([0012]; [0027]).
Satoshi2 does not teach wherein a portion where the first sealing portion and the second sealing portion are in contact with each other and which is in contact with the protrusion is softer than other portions of the sealing portion.
However, the examiner notes that claim 5 does not provide any values for the “softer” limitation, such that even normal variations in softness within the sealing member, due to manufacturing or compression during assembly, would satisfy the claims.
Therefore the storage case taught by modified Satoshi in view of Satoshi2 meets the limitations of claim 5.
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728