DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/176290, “LITHIUM-ION CELL, BATTERY AND POWER DEVICE”, was filed with the USPTO on 2/28/23, is a CIP of a PCT application filed on 8/11/21, and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 8/31/20.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 2/8/23.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 12-14, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ide (US 2016/0181650).
Regarding claim 1, Ide teaches a lithium-ion cell (Figs. 1-3; paragraph [0035]), a side face of an end portion of a cell body of the lithium-ion cell having a thin area (Fig. 2 item 2a) relative to a middle portion of the cell body (Fig. 2 item 2b), wherein the lithium-ion cell further comprises an adhesive tape (item 40; paragraphs [0048, 0078]; paragraph [0008] clarify that the tapes of the invention are adhesive tapes) attached to the thin area (see Fig. 2).
Ide characterizes the item 40 a “tape” (paragraph [0008, 0078]), an “adhesive sheet” (paragraph [0089]), or a “tape-like resin member” (paragraph [0048]), rather than an “adhesive paper” as claimed.
However, applicant’s specification does not provide a controlling definition of “adhesive paper”. Since no definition is given, the plain meaning has been applied, which is considered to include conventional definitions of paper. The first definition of Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines “paper” as [emphasis added]:
a(1): a felted sheet of usually vegetable fibers laid down on a fine screen from a water suspension;
a(2): a similar sheet of other material (such as plastic);
b: a piece of paper.
Therefore, the item 40 of Ide, characterized as being a tape or a sheet having adhesive properties, would be understood to be an adhesive paper or at least an obvious variant thereof due to functional equivalence in the context of the claimed invention, thus claim 1 is found to be obvious over Ide.
Regarding claim 2, Ide remains as applied to claim 1. Ide further teaches wherein when the adhesive paper is attached to the thin area (see Fig. 2 where item 40a is disposed on part 2a).
Ide does not explicitly teach that a height difference between an outer plane of a substrate layer of the adhesive paper and a side face of the middle portion of the cell body on a side where the adhesive paper is located is less than 0.5 mm. ll (see that items 40a and items 2 extend downward to the same horizontal line, illustrated by the dashed line in the Examiner’s Modified Fig. 2),
However, Ide does teach that this heigh difference is small, with the adhesive paper (item 40a) and the substrate layer (item 2, 2a, or a portion thereof) extending downward to the same horizontal plane, indicating that the difference is small if not zero (see that items 40a and items 2 extend downward to the same horizontal line, illustrated by the dashed line in the Examiner’s Modified Fig. 2). Paragraph [0052] further teaches that the thickness decrease of positive electrode active material 2 and negative electrode active material 7 is equal to or more than the thicknesses of insulators 40, with “equal” suggesting a thickness difference of near zero.
The requirement that the difference is “less than 0.5 mm” is found to be obvious because the Fig. 2 and paragraph [0052] embodiment appears to suggest no substantial difference in the two heights. It is noted that the Fig. 2 embodiment may be contrasted with the Fig. 11 embodiment which clearly shows the adhesive tape [paper] extending below the plane of the middle portion, indicating a larger, non-zero difference.
PNG
media_image1.png
335
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Ide remains as applied to claim 1. Ide is silent regarding the length of the adhesive tape [adhesive paper], and therefore does not teach the length being 2 to 14 mm.
However, it has been held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent… It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions” (MPEP 2144.05 II); see also “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA)
Here, the claimed length is merely a length of an adhesive paper [or tape]. The skilled artisan would have understood that such tapes and papers can be taken at any length which is comparable to the device being manufactured; therefore, absent any evidence of criticality, the claimed range of 2 to 14 mm is found to be prima facie obvious. Additionally, since the battery of Ide is configured to be of a single-digit millimeter type scale (paragraphs [0083, 0084]), it would have been obvious to configured the adhesive paper to also be on a single-digit type millimeter scale, rendering the claimed range of 2 to 14 mm prima facie obviousness.
Regarding claim 13-14, Ide remains as applied to claim 1. Ide further teaches wherein the lithium-ion cell comprises the cell body formed by winding or laminating, and a tab extending out from an end surface of the end portion of the cell body, wherein the thin area is located at one end portion of the cell body from which the tab protrudes. (See Figs 1 and 2 which illustrate a laminated structure with tabs extending from the cell body).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Ide remains as applied to claim 1. Ide further teaches the cell of claim 1 as a subcomponent of a battery (Fig. 1) further comprising a shell made of a laminated aluminum film (paragraph [0046]) which encapsulates the cell (see Fig. 1) and an electrolyte (paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Ide remains as applied to claim 1. Ide further teaches that the batteries may be used in various power devices (paragraph [0002]).
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ide (US 2016/0181650) in view of Yadav (US 2019/0267628).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ide remains as applied to claims 1 or 2. Ide does not appear to teach wherein the adhesive paper has a maximum thickness of 0.2 to 2 mm.
However, ide does teach that the adhesive paper (item 40) may have a thickness which is 90% or 60% of the thickness of the adjacent electrode (paragraph [0057]).
Moreover, in the battery art, Yadav teaches that while conventional electrode active material layers are thin, it is desirable to make the electrode active material layer thicker for the benefit of reducing the number of cells required to achieve a desired capacity (paragraphs [0016-0017]). Yadav further teaches that such electrodes may have an active material layer having a thickness of up to 1000 μm (Yadav claim 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the electrode active material to have a thickness of 1000 μm for the benefit of reducing the number of individual cells needed for a given application as taught by Yadav. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the adhesive paper to have a thickness of up to 900 or 600 μm, which is 60% or 90% of the active material layer thickness, following the relative sizing guidance of paragraph [0057].
The claimed 0.2 to 2 mm range is therefore found to be obvious as the prior art suggests an overlapping range, and generally differences in relative dimensions to not create patentable distinction absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04 IVA and 2144.05 II).
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Ide (US 2016/0181650) and Wang’405 (US 2021/0091405)
Regarding claim 18-19, Ide remains as applied to claim 1. Ide further teaches that the exterior container for the battery [a shell] may be either a flexible film or a can case (paragraph [0046]), with the “can case” interpreted as a hard shell contrasted with the flexible film embodiment, but does not expressly teach the battery comprising a hard steel or aluminum shell.
In the battery art, Wang’405 teaches that it is conventional to house a battery within a rigid enclosure or within pouch [flexible] enclosure (paragraph [0021]), and that that the rigid enclosure may be made from a conductive material such as stainless steel, and gives advantages such as facilitating electrical conductivity and/or increased capacity (paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to configure the lithium-ion cell to have a hard metal shell, e.g. stainless steel, for the benefit of facilitating electrical connection and/or increasing battery capacity as taught by Wang’405.
Claims 1, 3 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wang (US 2021/0359370).
Regarding claim 1, 3 and 15, Wang teaches a lithium-ion cell (Fig. 10, item 31 is a battery cell; paragraph [0004] teaches that lithium deposition occurs within the battery, thus the lithium-ion cell is obvious), a side face of an end portion of a cell body of the lithium-ion cell having a thin area relative to a middle portion of the cell body (items 31 are thinner at their end potions and thicker in the middle), wherein the thin area is at least one inclined plane formed by a decreasing thickness of the end portion of the cell body in a direction from the middle portion of the cell body to an end surface of the cell body (see Fig.10 where a the cell body decreases in thickness in the periphery, defining planes inclined at an angle); wherein cell further comprises a support structure (item 41,42) attached to the thin area, and the support structure is shaped such that thickness increases in a direction from the middle portion of the cell body to the end surface of the cell body (see Fig. 10 where items 41/42 increase in thickness towards the periphery).
As to claim 15, Wang further teaches wherein the thin area comprises two inclined planes formed on opposite two sides of the end portion of the lithium-ion cell by a decreasing thickness in a direction from the middle portion of the cell body to the end surface of the cell body (see Fig. 10 where the cells 31 each comprise two inclined planes on opposite sides of the end portion which decrease in thickness away from the middle portion of the cell body).
Wang characterizes the support structure 41/42 as a “cushion pad” (paragraph [0046]), but does not characterize the support structure as an adhesive paper attached to the cell body.
However, Wang does teach the cushion pad can be elastomeric and formed of “silica gel” (paragraph [0046]), which is one of the materials mentioned in applicant’s detailed description as useful in forming the adhesive paper (see applicant’s published paragraph [0032]).
The requirement that the support structure is an adhesive paper attached to the cell body is found to be obvious over Wang because, as suggested in claim 3, the “paper” is not limited to a flat, 2D, body which would have constant thickness, but instead may be a generally flat body having a varying thickness, such as that schematically illustrated by Wang, and claims 1 and 3 do not limit the “adhesive paper” to materials which are not suggested by Wang.
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Wang (US 2021/0359370) and Hiratsuka (US 2003/0165736).
Regarding claim 9, Wang remains as applied to claim 3. Wang is silent regarding the adhesive paper having a maximum thickness of 0.2 to 2 mm.
However, in the battery art, Hiratsuka teaches that the portions of a battery not contributing to the cell capacity may be about 1 mm for a benefit of providing their necessary functions such as shock absorption, while not consuming too much total volume (paragraph [0004]).
Moreover, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Therefore, the claimed requirement that the adhesive paper has a thickness of 0.2 to 2 mm is found to be prima facie obvious because i) a skilled artisan would have understood sizes on the order of 1 mm to be suitable for a battery cell, providing the tradeoff between adding function of the additional part [the adhesive paper] and the capacity reduction by displacing capacity increasing elements of the cell, and ii) there is no showing of criticality associated with the 0.2 to 2 mm range sufficient to overcome the presumption of obviousness based on the difference being a mere matter of scale without associated functional difference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 and 10-11 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claim 4, the closest prior art includes Ide (US 2016/0181650) and Wang (US 2021/0359370) which were separately applied in the rejection of claims 1 or 1 and 3. Ide teaches a lithium-ion cell comprising a tape-like adhesive paper as described in the rejection of claim 1; such an adhesive tape could be expected to include a substrate and an adhesive layer, but Ide does not reasonably suggest that the tape/paper could have a varying thickness as required by claims 3 and 4. Wang teaches a structure readable on the adhesive paper of claim 1, and having a varying thickness as required by claim 3, but does not suggest the structure having “a substrate layer and an adhesive layer, and the substrate layer has an outer plane and an inner inclined plane having an included angle α relative to the outer plane, and the adhesive layer is disposed on the inner inclined plane” as required by claim 4. Thus, this cited prior art fails to reasonably teach or suggest the invention as defined in claims 4-6.
A diligent search has been performed, but has not yielded closer prior art which cures the deficiencies of these cited references, or which independently teaches or suggests claim 4 as a whole; therefore, claims 4-6 are not rejected, but are objected to for being dependent on rejected base claim 3.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Kim (CN 106654348) – a lithium battery comprising an adhesive tape on a thinned portion of the cell body;
Nemoto (US 2009/0297936) – a battery comprising a supporting structure on a thinner portion of the cell body;
Mimura (US 2016/0141721) – a lithium battery comprising an adhesive tape on a thinned portion of the cell body;
Fujii (US 2018/0366786) – a lithium battery comprising an adhesive tape on a thinned portion of the cell body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723