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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/30/23 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chu (US 2014/0099535).
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches an electrochemical device comprising: a housing, or pouch (14); an electrode assembly, or stack (12); and a tab, or terminals (16, 18) (Figure 1);
wherein the housing comprises a body portion, or first film (30), and a first portion, or second film (32), and the first, second, and third directions having the claimed elements are seen in annotated Figures 1 and 3 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
645
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
630
840
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As for claim 2, and with further regard to claim 1, the examiner notes that the limitations to the glue layer “located in a space defined by” any markers does not limit, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the glue layer to being only located in that space and not located outside of that space. Therefore, the glue layer of Chu as discussed above is located in the claimed spaces.
As for claim 4, the second seal edge has the structure as claimed (see annotated figures above), and the electrode assembly has the claimed structure (see Figure 2).
Regarding claims 5-6, it is seen in Figure 3 that Chu teaches the claimed structure including a second connection point between regions 58 and 56.
As for claim 8, it is seen in Figure 3 of Chu that a third, unsealed region exists directly left of the first seal edge connection point (see Figure 3 and annotated Figure 3 above).
With regard to claims 16-17, it is seen in Figure 1, as understood with respect to Figure 3, that the body portion further comprises first and second end walls having faces on opposite sides of the tab and provided in the first direction, and a second portion, or flange (44), from which the tab (16, 18) protrude.
Regarding claim 19, Chu teaches that the first and second polymer layers (36) comprise polypropylene ([0042]).
As for claim 20, Chu teaches a device, e.g. battery electric vehicle or hybrid vehicle, comprising the battery of claim 1 as discussed above ([0046]).
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, 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 3, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu.
The teachings of Chu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
With regard to claims 3, 7, and 9, the claims all require limitations having to do with relative proportions of elements anticipated by Chu. As to the relative proportions, on which Chu is generally silent, the examiner finds that it is well within the ordinary level of skill in the art to change the size and shape of components, for example to ensure proper function or to ensure that the battery will fit in the space allotted. Changes in size and shape are generally recognized as being within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 IV
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2013/0216896).
The teachings of Chu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 1, Chu teaches the device of claim 1 as discussed above, including providing the second seal edge adjacent to the sidewall (Figure 5) but fails to teach a first bonding piece configured to bond the second seal edge to an outer surface of the first sidewall.
Kim teaches an electrochemical device having a end (140c) analogous to the claimed second seal edge which is bonded to the side wall, or planar wall of the first pouch (141), by a bonding piece, or adhesive (250) (Figures 1, 4, and 5, [0014], [0016]).
Kim further teaches that the use of the adhesive is desirable for providing a simplified, automated process for fixing the adhesion parts to the pouch and protecting exposed ends of the pouch ([0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to use a bonding piece as suggested by Kim in the device of Chu in order to simplify the fixing process and protect exposed ends of the pouch.
As for claim 18, the skilled artisan would understand that duplicating and rearranging the bonding part of Kim to provide a similar simplified and automated process for the first end face and second portion. It has been held that rearrangement and duplication of parts is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2016/0351864).
The teachings of Chu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 13, Chu teaches the device of claim 1 but is silent on second and third bonding pieces to bond inner surfaces of the housing to the electrode assembly.
Yoon teaches a device including an electrode assembly and a housing, wherein bonding pieces, or anti-wrinkle members (350, 351), are configured to bond an inner surface of the first and second walls to the electrode assembly (Figure 5).
Yoon further teaches that the bonding pieces, or anti-wrinkle members, are desirable for preventing damage to the cell case when the case becomes wrinkled, which can cause electrolyte leakage and safety problems ([0013]-[0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention to provide bonding pieces such as taught by Yoon in the device of Chu in order to prevent electrolyte leakage and safety problems.
As for claim 12, the skilled artisan would understand that duplicating and rearranging the bonding part of Yoon to be provided at the sidewalls would provide additional protections. It has been held that rearrangement and duplication of parts is within the ordinary level of skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kodama et al. (US 2005/0069764).
The teachings of Chu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Chu teaches the device of claim 1 but is silent on whether the electrode assembly is wound.
Kodama teaches an electrode assembly including a stacked electrode structure that is wound, wherein the first current collector (9) is the outer surface of an outermost circle (Figure 8) in order to assist in preventing internal short-circuiting in the film outer casing ([0008]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the known electrode assembly structure of Kodama for the electrode assembly of Chu and the results of the substitution, i.e. a functional electrode assembly wherein internal short-circuiting is prevented, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2015/0340731).
The teachings of Chu as discussed above are incorporated herein.
Chu teaches the device of claim 1 but is silent on whether the electrode assembly is wound.
Kim teaches an electrode assembly including a stacked electrode structure that is wound, wherein the separator (44) is the outermost layer in order to avoid contact between the negative and positive electrodes ([0078]).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the known electrode assembly structure of Kim for the electrode assembly of Chu and the results of the substitution, i.e. a functional electrode assembly wherein contact between the electrodes is avoided, would have been predictable. MPEP 2143 I B
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 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 prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the claimed subject matter.
Specifically, Chu fails to anticipate the last limitation of claim 10 to the relative distances of the angular point and the boundary line. Therefore, Chu does not anticipate claim 10.
Chu does teach an angular point, or bulge, of the glue layer ([0043]), but the nature of the teachings of Chu are a teaching away, therefore precluding an obviousness rejection of claim 10.
It is noted that Ha et al. (US 2018/0342715) also teaches an angular point of a glue layer (Figure 7), but as discussed above, an obviousness rejection over Chu would be improper.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALIX ECHELMEYER EGGERDING whose telephone number is (571)272-1101. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 4:30pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/ALIX E EGGERDING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729