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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 discloses at line 5 “the outer package substantially uniformly applies pressing force”. This will be examined with a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification at P9/L3-7 which states, “[T]he shape of the outer package 2 is not limited to the shape illustrated in FIG. 3, and may be any shape as long as the pressing force is substantially uniformly applied to each of the front surfaces and the rear surfaces of the accommodated contents 3, 4”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kaneta (US 2003/0124416).
Regarding claim 1, Kaneta discloses in Figs 1-5, a secondary battery ([0002]) comprising: an outer package (refs 11); and a content (“middle”, all refs 12-16, Fig 1 below) accommodated in the outer package (refs 11), wherein the content (“middle”, all refs 12-16, Fig 1 below) includes an electrode body (ref 16), and the outer package (refs 11) substantially uniformly ([0024], “a pressing force as uniform as possible”, [0028] “substantially uniform pressure”) applies pressing force ([0024]) to each of a front surface (“front”, Fig 1 below) and a rear surface (“rear”, Fig 1 below) of the content (“middle”, all refs 12-16, Fig 1 below) due to elastic force ([0024]) of the outer package (refs 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
364
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kaneta discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above and also discloses the content includes a laminated pack ([0027]) inside of which the electrode body (ref 16) is hermetically accommodated ([0027]).
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneta (US 2003/0124416) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 2018/0198169).
Regarding claims 4 and 7, Kaneta discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the electrode body is formed of powder material.
Fukui et al. discloses in Figs 1-10, an all-solid state secondary battery (ref 1) including a laminate (ref X) of internal electrode / separator structures ([0025]). The internal structures including electrodes are formed of powder, all-solid material ([0052-[0054]). This configuration results in a uniform pressing force applied to the battery and enhances the battery performance and structural integrity ([0003], [0012], [0064]).
Kaneta and Fukui et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the internal contents of the battery of Kaneta of the all-solid materials as disclosed by Fukui et al. to result in a uniform pressing force applied to the battery and enhance the battery performance and structural integrity.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneta (US 2003/0124416) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0136833).
Regarding claim 3, Kaneta discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose an inside of the outer package is under a negative pressure, and inside the outer package, an inside of the laminated pack is under a lower pressure than an outside of the laminated pack.
Lee et al. discloses in Fig 1, a lithium battery (Abstract) including a laminated electrode structure and packaged in a film housing (ref 102). The structure is sealed under reduced pressure ([0052]). This configuration enhances overall battery structural integrity, stability, and performance ([0052]).
Kaneta and Lee et al. are analogous since both deal in the same field of endeavor, namely, batteries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the negative pressure of Lee et al. into the outer package and laminated structure of Kaneta to enhance battery structural integrity, stability, and overall performance. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the innermost hermetically sealed structure to have a lower/lowest internal reduced packaging to continue and enhance the attributes of the disclosed reduced pressure sealing, namely, enhances battery structural integrity, stability, and performance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneta (US 2003/0124416) in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0136833) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2009/0136833).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kaneta discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above but does not explicitly disclose the electrode body is formed of powder material.
Fukui et al. discloses in Figs 1-10, an all-solid state secondary battery (ref 1) including a laminate (ref X) of internal electrode / separator structures ([0025]). The internal structures including electrodes are formed of powder, all-solid material ([0052-[0054]). This configuration results in a uniform pressing force applied to the battery and enhances the battery performance and structural integrity ([0003], [0012], [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the internal contents of the battery of Kaneta of the all-solid materials as disclosed by Fukui et al. to result in a uniform pressing force applied to the battery and enhance the battery performance and structural integrity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kanai et al. (US 2008/0171259) discloses in Figs 1-8, a laminated battery (ref 1) including a pressing portion (ref 52) formed within a frame housing (ref 30) that applies a uniform force to the battery ([0084]).
Schumann et al. (US 2014/0045005) discloses in Figs 1-5, a battery stack (ref 120b) contained in a housing (ref 110) utilizing spring elements (refs 210, 220) to provide a uniform pressing force on the stack ([0027]).
Choi et al. (US 2019/0020004) discloses in Figs 1-8, a battery module (ref 100) comprising a plurality of stacked cells (refs 110) accommodated in a housing (ref 200). The housing (ref 200) has flexible ribs (refs 300) thereon which provides uniform pressing force on the stacked cells ([0045]).
Tsukuda et al. (US 2015/0194640) discloses in Figs 1-8, a secondary battery (ref 1) including a casing (ref 20). The casing (ref 20) has curved wall faces (refs 201, 202, [0042]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J DOUYETTE whose telephone number is (571)270-1212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8A - 4P 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/KENNETH J DOUYETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725