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.
Claims 14 -17 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 14 recites the limitation "the protrusion portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As claim 15 depends directly from claim 14, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the recess portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the protrusion portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As claim 17 depends directly from claim 16, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the recess portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2012/0064387), in view of Sastry et al. (US 2019/0088990; hereinafter “Sastry”).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a battery cell assembly (battery 100, see Figs. 1-4), comprising:
an electrode assembly formed by winding or laminating a stacked structure (see [0067]);
a first terminal plate (second terminal 150, see Fig. 4; [0063]) disposed on a first side with reference to a direction of the cell (see Figs. 3 and 4 of second terminal 150 disposed on a first side of the electrode assembly 120; see [0063]), electrically connected to the cell through at least one first electrode terminal (equated to top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-4; [0083]), and formed with at least one protrusion portion (equated to spaced-apart second extending region 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) configured to support the at least one first electrode terminal (equated to top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-4; [0083]); and
a second terminal plate (first terminal 130, see Fig. 4; [0063]) disposed on a second side with reference to a direction of the cell (see Figs. 3 and 4 of first terminal 130 disposed on a second side of the electrode assembly 120; see [0063]), electrically connected to the cell through at least one second electrode terminal (top terminal region 133b, see Figs. 1-4; [0075]), and formed with at least one recess portion (equated to recess formed between pair of spaced-apart first extending regions 132a and 132b, see Fig. 4; [0075]) configured to support the at least one second electrode terminal (top terminal region 133b, see Figs. 1-4; [0075]).
Kim teaches wherein the electrode assembly 120 may be formed by winding or laminating a stacked structure (see [0067]), but is silent to wherein the battery cell assembly includes a folding cell in which a solid-state unit cell in a sheet form is folded in a zigzag form.
Sastry teaches in Fig. 6A a simplified drawing of an all solid-state rechargeable battery cell is depicted that is wound. Although a few windings are made, this invention claims rechargeable solid state battery cells that include over 50 windings per cell. The solid state cells in this invention may also be packaged using z-fold, stacking, or plating techniques (see [0056]). Thus, Sastry teaches that z-fold is a known equivalent to winding or stacking.
In view of Sastry’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery cell assembly of Kim to include wherein the battery cell assembly includes a folding cell in which a solid-state unit cell in a sheet form is folded in a zigzag form, as taught by Sastry, because the substitution of a known element (the winding or stacked structure of Kim) for another known structure (the z-fold structure of Sastry, which is taught as an equivalent to a wound or stacked cell (see [0056] of Sastry)), would have been obvious with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim and Sastry teaches wherein:
the battery cell assembly is configured in a prismatic type (Kim: see Figs. 3 and 4); and
the battery cell assembly is assembled with a neighboring battery cell assembly in the form of bricks through the at least one protrusion portion of the battery cell assembly and at least one recess portion of the neighboring battery cell assembly (Kim: see Figs. 5A and 5B; [0093]-[0096]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim and Sastry teaches wherein the at least one first electrode terminal (equated to top terminal region 153b, see Figs. 1-4; [0083]) comprises:
a sensing busbar (second extending region 152a, see Fig. 4; [0083]) extending from the terminal portion (see Fig. 4 – top terminal region 153b has second extending region 152a extending from it) and electrically connected to at least one among a positive electrode lead and a negative electrode lead provided in the folding cell (see [0084] and Figs. 4-5 – second extending region 152a connected to second uncoated portion 122a, and in Fig. 5 is shown as a positive lead as second bottom and top terminal regions 153a and 153b are positive),
and the at least one second electrode terminal comprises:
a terminal portion in a ring shape (top of terminal region 133b, see Fig. 4; [0075]); and
a sensing busbar (first extending region 132a, see Fig. 4; see [0075]) extending from the terminal portion (see Fig. 4 – top of terminal region 133b has first extending region 132a extending from it) and electrically connected to at least one among a positive electrode lead and a negative electrode lead provided in the folding cell (see [0076] and Figs. 4-5 – first extending region 132a connected to first uncoated portion 121a, and in Fig. 5 is shown as a negative lead as first bottom and top terminal regions 133a and 133b are negative).
Though the combination of Kim and Sastry is silent to wherein the at least one first electrode terminal comprises a terminal portion in a ring shape, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, the particular shape of the terminal portion of the at least one first electrode terminal is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious at the time the invention was filed. See MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kim and Sastry teaches wherein:
the protrusion portion (Kim: equated to spaced-apart second extending region 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) is provided as a pair of protrusion portions (Kim: spaced-apart second extending regions 152a and 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]); and
the at least one first electrode terminal (Kim: equated to top terminal region 153b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) comprises a first positive electrode terminal (Kim: see Figs. 4, 5A and 5B and [0083]-[0084]) coupled to a first protrusion portion (Kim: equated to spaced-apart second extending region 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) of the pair of protrusion portions and is electrically connected to a positive electrode lead provided in the folding cell (Kim: see Figs. 4, 5A and 5B and [0083]-[0084]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kim and Sastry teaches wherein:
the at least one second electrode terminal (top terminal region 133b, see Fig. 4; [0075]) comprises a first negative terminal (Kim: see Figs. 4, 5A, and 5B and [0075]-[0076]) coupled to a first recess portion (Kim: equated to recess formed between pair of spaced-apart first extending regions 132a and 132b, see Fig. 4; [0075]) of the pair of recess portions (Kim: spaced-apart second extending regions 152a and 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) and is electrically connected to a negative electrode lead provided in the folding cell (Kim: see Figs. 4, 5A, and 5B and [0075]-[0076]).
The combination of Kim and Sastry teaches the recess portion (equated to recess formed between pair of spaced-apart first extending regions 132a and 132b, see Fig. 4; [0075]), but is silent to wherein it is provided as a pair of recess portions. However, the pair of recess portions is merely the duplication of the single recess portion already taught by the combination of Kim and Sastry that would help to increase rigidity, and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kim and Sastry teaches wherein:
the protrusion portion (Kim: equated to spaced-apart second extending region 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) is provided as a pair of protrusion portions (Kim: spaced-apart second extending regions 152a and 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]); and
the at least one first electrode terminal (Kim: equated to top terminal region 153b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) comprises a first negative terminal coupled to a first protrusion portion (Kim: equated to spaced-apart second extending region 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) of the pair of protrusion portions and is electrically connected to a negative electrode lead provided in the folding cell (Kim: see Figs. 4, 5A and 5B and [0083]-[0084] – though Kim depicts that the spaced apart second extending regions 152a and 152b, which are connected to second bottom and top terminal regions 153a and 153b, are positive (see Figs. 5A and 5B), Kim teaches that they are just connected to the second uncoated portion 122a of the electrode assembly 120 and so it would have been an obvious alternative to connect them to the negative side).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kim and Sastry teaches wherein:
the at least one second electrode terminal (top terminal region 133b, see Fig. 4; [0075]) comprises a first positive electrode terminal coupled to a first recess portion (Kim: equated to recess formed between pair of spaced-apart first extending regions 132a and 132b, see Fig. 4; [0075]) of the pair of recess portions (Kim: spaced-apart second extending regions 152a and 152b, see Fig. 4; [0083]) and is electrically connected to a positive electrode lead provided in the folding cell (Kim: see Figs. 4, 5A, and 5B and [0075]-[0076] – though Kim depicts that the spaced apart first extending regions 132a and 132b, which are connected to second bottom and top terminal regions 133a and 133b, are negative (see Figs. 5A and 5B), Kim teaches that they are just connected to the first uncoated portion 121a of the electrode assembly 120 and so it would have been an obvious alternative to connect them to the positive side).
The combination of Kim and Sastry teaches the recess portion (equated to recess formed between pair of spaced-apart first extending regions 132a and 132b, see Fig. 4; [0075]), but is silent to wherein it is provided as a pair of recess portions. However, the pair of recess portions is merely the duplication of the single recess portion already taught by the combination of Kim and Sastry that would help to increase rigidity, and mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP §2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim and Sastry as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zama et al. (US 2020/0243895; hereinafter “Zama”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Sastry is silent to wherein the folding cell further comprises a fixing tape adhered along the folding direction to a plurality of folding layers folded in as S-shape.
Zama teaches adhesive tapes 410 on four sides of a stack 10 (see Figs. 6 and 7) that cover the stack 10 in the stacking direction in order to prevent the stack 10 from being separated (see [0077]). Zama teaches that the adhesive tapes 410 are adhered along the folding direction to a plurality of folding layers folded in an S-shape (see Fig. 15).
In view of Zama’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the battery cell assembly of the combination of Kim and Sastry to include wherein the folding cell further comprises a fixing tape adhered along the folding direction to a plurality of folding layers folded in as S-shape, as taught by Zama, because it prevents the stack from being separated.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 5, and 7-13 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.
Claim 2: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
a housing cover including a second penetration hole into which the at least one protrusion portion is inserted, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 2.
Claims 10-13: Depend either directly or indirectly from claim 2.
Claim 5: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
the second terminal plate comprises a cell coupling protrusion formed with the at least one recess portion; and
the folding cell is formed with a coupling hole coupled to the cell coupling protrusion.
Claim 7: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein the first terminal plate and the second terminal plate are formed of an insulation material and comprise a rib configured to support the sensing busbar.
Claim 8: The prior art, either taken alone or in combination, fails to teach:
wherein the at least one first electrode terminal comprises:
a first positive electrode terminal coupled to a first protrusion portion of the pair of protrusion portions and is electrically connected to a positive electrode lead provided in the folding cell; and
a first negative terminal coupled to a second protrusion portion of the pair of protrusion portions and is electrically connected to a negative electrode lead provided in the folding cell.
Claim 9: Depends directly from claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN HA whose telephone number is (571)270-5934. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458 . 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.
/S.S.H/Examiner, Art Unit 1735 4 April 2026
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights