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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the two tabs of the each electrode assembly protrude from the packaging shell in different directions” is unclear which tabs are being referred to here as claim 1 claims two sets of “two tabs”. Furthermore, there is insufficient disclosure to show how the tabs protrude in opposite directions as the instant Figures disclose all of the tabs that are not connected extending in the same direction.
For purposes of examination the examiner is interpreting “wherein the two tabs of the each electrode assembly protrude from the packaging shell in different directions” to mean any structure where the nonconnected tabs are protruding in a different location that is not stacked as the connected tabs.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (JP2019145628, see Machine Translation for citations) (Provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on March 7th, 2023)
Regarding Claim 1 & 15, Sano discloses an electrochemical apparatus (power storage device, [001]), comprising two electrode assemblies and a packaging shell, wherein the two electrode assemblies are respectively disposed in independent cavities in the packaging shell (electrode bodies-4a/4b are disposed in separate shells, Fig. 1, [0026]);
Each electrode assembly comprises two tabs with opposite polarities (), wherein at least one tab of one electrode assembly is connected to one of two tabs of the other electrode assembly, and orthographic projections of the two connection tabs along a seal thickness direction Z overlap to form a tab overlapping region (Fig. 1, tab-50a and tab-52b are of opposite polarity and overlap, [0037]); and
Sano does not directly disclose wherein the a ratio α of an overlapping width O1 of the two connected tabs to a width W1 of either of the two connected tabs satisfies 40%<α≤100%, wherein the overlapping width O1 is an overlapping width of the two connected tabs along a seal length direction X at an outer edge of a seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z; and the width W1 of the tab is a width of either of the two connected tabs along the seal length direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0037]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein the a ratio α of an overlapping width O1 of the two connected tabs to a width W1 of either of the two connected tabs satisfies 40%<α≤100%, wherein the overlapping width O1 is an overlapping width of the two connected tabs along a seal length direction X at an outer edge of a seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z; and the width W1 of the tab is a width of either of the two connected tabs along the seal length direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z.
Regarding Claim 2 & 16, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above. Sano further discloses herein each of the two connected tabs is provided with a tab adhesive (sealing member-60 acts tab adhesive formed of good adhesion material, [0041], Fig. 2).
Sano does not directly disclose wherein along the seal length direction X at an outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell, the tab adhesive extends beyond two side of the tab provided with the tab adhesive by a shoulder with D2, and D2/W1 ≥ 1/60; wherein the shoulder width D2 of the tab adhesive is a distance by which a side of the tab adhesive exceeds an edge of the tab provided with the tab adhesive on a same side along the direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0037]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein along the seal length direction X at an outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell, the tab adhesive extends beyond two side of the tab provided with the tab adhesive by a shoulder with D2, and D2/W1 ≥ 1/60; wherein the shoulder width D2 of the tab adhesive is a distance by which a side of the tab adhesive exceeds an edge of the tab provided with the tab adhesive on a same side along the direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell.
Regarding Claim 3 & 17, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Sano does not directly disclose wherein orthographic projections of the tab adhesives on the two connected tabs along the seal thickness direction Z overlap to form a tab adhesive overlapping region, and a ratio β of an overlapping width O2 of the tab adhesives to a width W2 of either of the tab adhesives satisfies 40%<β≤100%, wherein the overlapping width O2 of the tab adhesives is an overlapping width of the tab adhesives along the seal length direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z; and the width W2 of the tab adhesives is a width of either of the tab adhesives along the seal length direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations, where these dimensions claimed are directly related to the thickness of the tab structures. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0037]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein orthographic projections of the tab adhesives on the two connected tabs along the seal thickness direction Z overlap to form a tab adhesive overlapping region, and a ratio β of an overlapping width O2 of the tab adhesives to a width W2 of either of the tab adhesives satisfies 40%<β≤100%, wherein the overlapping width O2 of the tab adhesives is an overlapping width of the tab adhesives along the seal length direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z; and the width W2 of the tab adhesives is a width of either of the tab adhesives along the seal length direction X at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell viewed along the seal thickness direction Z.
Regarding Claim 4 & 18, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Sano does not directly disclose wherein a distance between the two connected tabs at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell is D5; and a connecting region forms between the two connected tabs, a tab length of each of the two connected tabs between the connecting region and the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell is D6, and 0<D5/D6≤1.7.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations that are directly related to the thickness of the packaging shell and the tab thickness. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0037]). Sano further discloses wherein the wall thickness of the exterior body can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0040]). Sano further discloses wherein the electrode bodies can have their lengths adjusted through adjusting the length and width of the active material and current collectors ([0046]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein a distance between the two connected tabs at the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell is D5; and a connecting region forms between the two connected tabs, a tab length of each of the two connected tabs between the connecting region and the outer edge of the seal of the packaging shell is D6, and 0<D5/D6≤1.7.
Regarding Claim 5, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Sano does not directly disclose wherein 3 mm≤D6≤30 mm.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations that are directly related to the thickness of the packaging shell and the tab thickness. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0037]). Sano further discloses wherein the wall thickness of the exterior body can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0040]). Sano further discloses wherein the electrode bodies can have their lengths adjusted through adjusting the length and width of the active material and current collectors ([0046]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein 3 mm≤D6≤30 mm.
Regarding Claim 6, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above. Sano does not directly disclose wherein 0.1 mm<D5≤(H1+H2)/2+5 mm, wherein H1 and H2 are respective thicknesses of the two connecting electrode assemblies.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations that are directly related to the thickness of the packaging shell and the tab thickness. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0037]). Sano further discloses wherein the wall thickness of the exterior body can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0040]). Sano further discloses wherein the electrode bodies can have their lengths adjusted through adjusting the length and width of the active material and current collectors ([0046]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein 0.1 mm<D5≤(H1+H2)/2+5 mm, wherein H1 and H2 are respective thicknesses of the two connecting electrode assemblies.
Regarding Claim 7, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Sano does not directly disclose wherein an area S1 of the connecting region on each of the two connected tabs ranges from 1 mm2 to 200 mm2.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations that are directly related to the thickness of the packaging shell and the tab thickness. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can range from 50 to 1000um ([0037]). Sano further discloses wherein the wall thickness of the exterior body can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0040]). Sano further discloses wherein the electrode bodies can have their lengths adjusted through adjusting the length and width of the active material and current collectors ([0046]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein an area S1 of the connecting region on each of the two connected tabs ranges from 1 mm2 to 200 mm2.
Regarding Claim 8, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Sano does not directly disclose wherein in a direction in which the two connected tabs extend out of the packaging shell, a distance D1 by which the tab adhesive exceeds an upper edge of the packaging shell along a seal width direction Y satisfies 0.2 mm≤D1≤5 mm, a thickness of the tab adhesive D3 satisfies 0.1 mm≤D3≤3 mm, and a thickness of the tab D4 satisfies 0.2 mm≤D4≤5 mm.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations that are directly related to the thickness of the packaging shell and the tab thickness. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can range from 50 to 1000um ([0037]). Sano further discloses wherein the wall thickness of the exterior body can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0040]). Sano further discloses wherein the electrode bodies can have their lengths adjusted through adjusting the length and width of the active material and current collectors ([0046]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein in a direction in which the two connected tabs extend out of the packaging shell, a distance D1 by which the tab adhesive exceeds an upper edge of the packaging shell along a seal width direction Y satisfies 0.2 mm≤D1≤5 mm, a thickness of the tab adhesive D3 satisfies 0.1 mm≤D3≤3 mm, and a thickness of the tab D4 satisfies 0.2 mm≤D4≤5 mm.
Regarding Claim 9 & 19, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above.
Sano does not directly disclose wherein 50%≤α≤100%.
However, the examiner notes that these limitations are relative dimension limitations, where these dimensions claimed are directly related to the thickness of the tab structures. Furthermore, Sano discloses wherein the length and width of the current collector and the tabs can be adjusted ([0046]). Sano further discloses wherein the thickness of the leads can have a wide range of thicknesses ([0037]).
In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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.
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the disclosure of Sano to have wherein 50%≤α≤100%.
Regarding Claim 10 & 20, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above. Sano further discloses wherein the two connected tabs are two tabs with opposite polarities ([0037]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above. Sano further discloses wherein the two tabs of the each electrode assembly protrude from the packaging shell in different directions (see 112b rejection above for interpretation, Fig. 1, show tab-50b and tab52a to protrude separate from the connected tabs, [0025]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above. Sano further discloses a partition plate sandwiched between the two electrode assemblies, wherein a thickness of the parit5ition plate ranges from 2 um to 100 um (partition wall-6, can range from 10 to 100 um, [0036]).
Regarding Claim 13, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above. Sano further discloses wherein a structure of each electrode assembly comprises at least one of a winding structure or a stacked structure (wound body, [0026]).
Regarding Claim 14, Sano discloses the limitations as set forth above. Sano further discloses wherein the packaging shell comprises at least one of an aluminum-plastic film, an aluminum shell, a steel shell, or a plastic shell (exterior body acting as packaging shell can be made of aluminum or stainless steel, [0040]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANKITH R SRIPATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30 am - 5:00pm.
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.
/ANKITH R SRIPATHI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728