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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “A” in figure 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida et al. (US 20030049519 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Ishida teaches a secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly (¶ 0019); and a case where the electrode assembly is inserted (¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029). Ishida teaches that the case has an inner side wherein a coating film including a gas absorbent is provided on an inner surface of the case (¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029). This reads on the case having a coating layer, on the inner side, containing a gas absorbing material. Ishida teaches that the gas absorbing element absorbs gas produced inside the battery (¶ 0019). Since the material is an absorbent material, it will absorb when gases are produced which occurs at higher temperatures. This reads on the materials ability to absorb or desorb internal gas depending on a temperature inside the case.
With regard to claim 5, Ishida teaches that the gas absorbing material comprises at least one selected from zeolites, metal oxides and carbon materials such as active carbon (¶ 0060 - ¶ 0061).
With regards to claim 10, Ishida teaches that methane and carbon dioxide are the primary components of the gas produced in the battery (¶ 0016). Ishida also teaches that the gas absorbing material capable of absorbing methane, ethane, ethylene, carbon dioxide, or hydrogen (¶ 0020). These gases read on the internal gas of the claimed invention.
With regards to claim 11, Ishida teaches an example where the battery includes a resin that functions a safety valve between the electrodes leads, at the opening of the case (¶ 0072). Ishida teaches that there is a relatively weak joint between the resin film and the inner face of the case (¶ 0072). Ishida goes on to teach that this joint surface is peeled off to release the gas to the outside with an increase in internal pressure of the battery (¶ 0072). This reads on a gas emission vent under pressure.
With regards to claim 12, Ishida in view of long teaches the secondary battery of claim 1. Ishida also teaches that the secondary battery is applicable to large-sized batteries used for electronic vehicles and power reservoirs (¶ 0255). Since these applications would require a battery module and they share the same function as a battery module, it reads on the secondary battery module that comprises the secondary battery of claim 1.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 20030049519 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 20180272314 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Ishida teaches a secondary battery, comprising: an electrode assembly (¶ 0019); and a case where the electrode assembly is inserted (¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029). Ishida teaches that the case has an inner side wherein a coating film including a gas absorbent is provided on an inner surface of the case (¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029). This reads on the case having a coating layer, on the inner side, containing a gas absorbing material. Ishida teaches that the gas absorbing element absorbs gas produced inside the battery (¶ 0019). Ishida teaches that it is preferred that the gas absorbent selectively absorbs gases such as carbon dioxide (¶ 0059). As Ishida teaches that the material absorbs gas, the material is inherently capable of absorbing or desorbing the internal gas. Ishida goes on to teach that the gas absorbing material comprises zeolites, metals, metal oxides and carbon materials such as active carbon (¶ 0060 - ¶ 0061). Ishida also teaches that any suitable gas absorbing material other than the previous examples may be utilized (¶ 0076).
In a similar field of endeavor, Long discloses that MOFs are ideally suited for use in gas sorption or separation (¶ 0003 and ¶ 0054). Long teaches that diamine appended MOFs such as mmen-Mg2(dobpdc) are promising adsorbents for highly selective CO2 capture (¶ 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to substitute the gas absorbing material taught by Ishida with diamine appended MOFs such as mmen-Mg2(dobpdc) as taught by Long. This would predictably improve the capabilities of the gas adsorbing material, allowing it to absorb CO2 gas effectively.
While Ishida in view of Long does not explicitly disclose the material absorbs or desorbs internal gas depending on a temperature inside the case, modified Ishida teaches the same materials used in dependent claims 4 and 5. Thus, the ability to absorb or desorb gas depending on the temperature inside the case is deemed to be an inherent physical property of the material and would be rendered obvious. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to claim 2, Ishida does not teach critical temperature based on which the gas absorbing material absorbs and desorbs gas.
However, as discussed earlier, modified Ishida discloses mmen-Mg2(dobpdc), which is an example of the materials used in the claimed invention. Thus, the critical temperature is deemed to be an inherent physical property of the material and would be rendered obvious through the combination as the modified Ishida discloses the same material used in the instant invention. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
With regards to claim 3, modified Ishida teaches all the claim limitations of claim 1. Long further teaches that the gas absorbing material comprises diamine appended MOFs that comprise a repeating core that includes metals such as magnesium, manganese, iron, zinc, and cobalt (¶ 0064 and ¶ 0066).
With regards to claim 4, modified Ishida teaches the secondary battery of claim 3. Long further teaches mmen grafted to the M2(dobpdc) framework, where M may be Mg, Mn, Fe, Co, or Zn, as an example of the diamine appended MOF.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 20030049519 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 20180272314 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Shibata et al. (US 20130171483 A1).
With regards to claim 6, as mentioned earlier, Ishida in view of Long teaches a plurality of gas absorbing materials that may be included in the coating layer. In ¶ 0070, Ishida teaches a binding agent that may be added to the gas absorbent which reads on the coating layer comprising a binder. However, modified Ishida does not specifically teach using two materials in the coating layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Shibata discloses a secondary battery with a case comprising a gas absorber provided within the case (¶ 0011). Shibata teaches activated carbon and zeolite as materials that may be used as the gas absorbent material (¶ 0023). Shibata also teaches that a molecular-compound forming material is preferred in some conditions (¶ 0023). Shibata goes on to teach that combinations of compounds will make it possible for wide variety of gases to be effectively absorbed (¶ 0023).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to select two materials taught by modified Ishida, such as mmen-Mg2(dobpdc) and a zeolite, to be the gas absorbing materials in the coating layer, as Shibata teaches that this will allow for a wide variety of gases to be effectively absorbed.
Modified Ishida does not specifically teach the critical temperature of the materials; however, similar to the claimed invention, modified Ishida teaches mmen-Mg2(dobpdc) and zeolites as gas absorbing materials. Thus, the critical temperatures are deemed to be an inherent physical property of the materials and would be rendered obvious through the combination. NOTE: Where … the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 20030049519 A1) in view of Long et al. (US 20180272314 A1) and Shibata et al. (US 20130171483 A1) as applied to claim 6 and in further view of Deng et al. (US 6358302 B1).
With regards to claim 7, modified Ishida is silent on the amount of gas absorbing material included in the coating layer.
In a similar field of endeavor, Deng teaches a multi-composite adsorbent mixture that is capable of removing gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons (col 2, lines 34-41). Deng teaches that different adsorbent materials adsorb in the composite adsorb the different gasses mentioned earlier (col 4, 7-11). Deng teaches alumina and zeolites as examples of the gas adsorbent (col 4, 12-15). These gas adsorbents may be considered gas absorbents as applicant claims similar materials as gas absorbents. Deng goes on to teach that the adsorbent mixture may comprise from about 5 to about 95% CO2 adsorbent; and about 5 to about 95% nitrogen oxide/hydrocarbon adsorbent (col 4, 7-11). Deng also teaches that materials may be included within any percentage in the range as long as the total weight is 100% (col 4, 7-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the coating layer taught by modified Ishida to include the two gas absorbent materials in a range within the range taught by Deng, as this would predictably yield a gas absorbing material capable of absorbing a variety of gases. The ranges taught by Deng would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to be within the percentages claimed, absent evidentiary data or unexpected results.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 20030049519 A1).
With regards to claim 8, Ishida teaches that the coating film may have a thickness of 0.5 mm (500 µm) (¶ 0160). This overlaps with the claimed range (50 µm – 500 µm) of the invention. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida et al. (US 20030049519 A1) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Kim et al. (US 20150140402 A1).
With regards to claim 9, Ishida is silent on the coating layer having a pattern structure and an area ratio of the coating layer with respect to the total surface of the case.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches a pattern coating layer on a surface of a coating layer (¶ 0006). Kim teaches that the pattern structure of the coating layer allows for enhanced adhesion of the coating layer (¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039). Kim goes on to teach that a total area of the pattern coating layer may be in a range of about 10% to about 70% based on a total area of the separator (¶ 0039). The greater the range that the coating layer is applied, the greater the adhesion. This range overlaps with the range of the claimed invention (50 to 90%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the coating layer taught by Ishida to have a pattern structure with an area ratio within the range taught by Kim such as 10% - 70% with respect to a total surface area of the case to improve the adhesivity of the coating layer to the case.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNSUYADOR YUSIF whose telephone number is (571)272-4531. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 5 pm (M-R).
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, Galen H Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/HUNSUYADOR MUGEESATU YUSIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728