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 Status
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are pending in the application. Claim 10 is canceled, following the preliminary amendment filed 07 August 2023.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that the instant application was effectively filed on 07 August 2023, but claims priority to Application No. KR 10-2021-0144435, filed on 27 October 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07 August 2023, 10 December 2024, and 03 April 2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “first and second opposite ends”
Claim 2 recites “each end”
Claim 3 recites “first and second ends”
Claim 5 recites “distal ends”
This constitutes the inconsistent use of terminology to describe seemingly the same structural feature of the claimed invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 6 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation “the pressure plate generally has a flat plate shape” contains a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted to mean “the pressure plate has at least a portion with a flat plate shape”.
Claim 6 is rejected, as it depends from, and therefore incorporates the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keates (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0006332), in view of Sugiyo (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0231356).
Regarding claim 1, Keates teaches an electrode assembly (300, Fig. 3, [0027]), comprising:
a mono cell (mono cell, Annotated Fig. 3, below) formed by sequentially stacking a first unit cell (first unit cell, Annotated Fig. 3, below) formed by stacking a separator (306, Fig. 3) and a negative electrode (308, Fig. 3) and a second unit cell (second unit cell, Annotated Fig. 3, below) formed by stacking a separator (306) and a positive electrode (304, Fig. 3),
a half-cell (half-cell, Annotated Fig. 3, below) formed by stacking a separator (306), a negative or positive electrode (304) and a pressure plate (316, Fig. 3, [0027]), and
a wrapping member (312, Fig. 3, [0027]) fixing the mono cell (mono cell) and the half cell (half-cell) to one another, the wrapping member (312) being wound around the mono cell and the half cell in a full-width direction (width dimension, Fig. 3),
wherein the half-cell (half-cell) is stacked so that the separator (306) thereof is positioned on an upper surface of the negative electrode (top of uppermost 308, Fig. 3) or the positive electrode thereof facing an outside of the mono cell, and an electrode of the mono cell having an opposite polarity (308) from the electrode of the half-cell (304) is positioned adjacent to the electrode of the half-cell with the separator as the boundary (see Annotated Fig. 3, below), and
wherein the pressure plate of the half-cell (316) comprises electrode interfaces of first (left-end of underside of 316, Fig. 3) and second (right-end of underside of 316, Fig. 3) opposite ends of the pressure plate (316) in a full-length direction (length dimension, Fig. 3),
but does not teach wherein the pressure plate of the half-cell comprises sloped portions in which electrode interfaces of first and second opposite ends of the pressure plate in a full-length direction are inclined towards the electrode of the half-cell.
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3
PNG
media_image1.png
409
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sugiyo teaches wherein the pressure plate (34, Fig. 3B) comprises sloped portions (sloped portions, Annotated Fig. 3B, below) in which electrode interfaces of first and second opposite ends (left and right electrode interfaces, Annotated Fig. 3B, below) of the pressure plate (34) in a full-length direction (x-axis, Fig. 3B) are inclined towards the electrode (down in z-axis, inward towards housed body, Fig. 3B, see [0040-0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure plate of Keates, such that it comprises sloped portions in which the electrode interfaces are inclined towards the electrode, as taught by Sugiyo, to apply a pressing force to the desired point ([0041]).
Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3B
PNG
media_image2.png
320
290
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is the position of the Examiner that the pressure plate (34) of Sugiyo is taught having electrode interfaces as shown in Annotated Fig. 3B, above. This is because housed object 14 is taught as “having an electrode body” (see [0027]). While 14 is not pictured in Fig. 3, Sugiyo teaches the plate (34) applying a pressing force on 14 (see [0041]).
Regarding claim 3, Keates, in view of Sugiyo teaches wherein the pressure plate (34, Fig. 3B of Sugiyo, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) has a plate shape (plate, [0041] of Sugiyo) in which first and second ends (left and right ends, Fig. 3B of Sugiyo) are curved toward the electrode direction of the half-cell (down in z-axis, inward towards housed body, Fig. 3B, see [0040-0041] of Sugiyo).
Regarding claim 4, Keates, in view of Sugiyo, teaches, wherein each sloped portion (sloped portions, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1) of the plate (34, Fig. 3B of Sugiyo, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) has a straight shape or a curved shape (curved, see [0040] of Sugiyo) that is bent towards the electrode direction of the half-cell (down in z-axis, inward towards housed electrode body, Fig. 3B, see [0040-0041] of Sugiyo).
Regarding claim 5, Keates, in view of Sugiyo teaches wherein the pressure plate (34, Fig. 3B of Sugiyo, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) generally has a flat plate shape (plate, [0040] of Sugiyo, see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above, for interpretation and see explanation, below) and inclination surfaces (inclination surfaces, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1) forming the sloped portions (sloped portions, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1), the sloped portions gradually thickening toward distal ends of the pressure plate (left and right in x-axis, see Fig. 3B of Sugiyo) in the full-length direction.
It is the position of the Examiner that since the pressure plate (34) of Sugiyo has flat sides in the z-axis (see Fig. 3B of Sugiyo), the pressure plate has at least a flat portion (see 35 U.S.C. § 112b rejection, above, for interpretation). Further, the pressure plate of Keates is depicted as flat on the upper sides (see Fig. 3 of Keates). Therefore, the pressure plate of Keates, in view of Sugiyo, as modified in the rejection of claim 1, above, is taught as generally having a flat pressure plate shape.
Regarding claim 6, Keates, in view of Sugiyo teaches wherein each inclination surface (inclination surfaces, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1) has a straight shape or a curved shape (curved, see [0040] of Sugiyo) bent towards the electrode of the half-cell (down in z-axis, inward towards housed electrode body, Fig. 3B, see [0040-0041] of Sugiyo, see rejection of claim 1 for modification).
Regarding claim 7, Keates, in view of Sugiyo teaches wherein the sloped portions (sloped portions, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1) each have a curved surface (curved, see [0040] of Sugiyo) in which an electrode facing surface (electrode facing surface, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1) is concavely curved in the full-length direction (down in z-axis, inward towards housed electrode body, Fig. 3B, see [0040-0041] of Sugiyo, see rejection of claim 1 for modification).
Regarding claim 14, Keates, in view of Sugiyo, teaches the electrode assembly of claim 1 (300, Fig. 3, see rejection of claim 1),
but does not teach a secondary battery comprising the electrode assembly of claim 1 and a receiving case accommodating the electrode assembly therein.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Keates teaches a secondary battery (100, Fig. 1, [0018]) comprising an electrode assembly (stack of 102/106/108, Fig. 1, [0018]) and a receiving case (118, Fig. 1) accommodating the electrode assembly therein.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the electrode assembly of Keates, in view of Sugiyo, such that it was accommodated in a receiving case, as taught by Keates, to obtain a battery that minimizes the effect of dendrites (see [0002-0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Keates, in view of Sugiyo teaches wherein the secondary battery (100, Fig. 1, see rejection of claim 14 for modification) is a lithium-based secondary battery (Li-metal battery, [0018]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keates (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0006332), in view of Sugiyo (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0231356), and further in view of Kitamura et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0294085).
Regarding claim 2, Keates, in view of Sugiyo teaches wherein a thickness of each end (sloped portions, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1) of the pressure plate (34, Fig. 3B of Sugiyo, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) is thicker than a thickness of a central portion (space between electrode interfaces, Annotated Fig. 3B, under claim 1) of the pressure plate,
but does not teach wherein a thickness of each end of the pressure plate is 30 to 50 μm thicker than a thickness of a central portion of the pressure plate.
However, Kitamura teaches wherein a thickness of each end (71c, Fig. 13) of a pressure plate (7c, Fig. 13, [0047 and 0107]) is 30 to 50 μm thicker (see explanation below) than a thickness of a central portion of the pressure plate (72c, Fig. 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure plate of Keates, in view of Sugiyo, such that the ends were 30 to 50 μm thicker than the center, to vary the compressive stress on the center vs the edges ([0113]). Further, it has been held that changes of size or shape of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art.
It is the position of the Examiner that the pressure plate 7c of Kitamura teaches a thickness difference in a range of 30-50 μm because Kitamura teaches a thickness of the plate 7 between 0.047 and 0.083 mm ([0069]), or a range of 36 μm. Therefore, the plate 7c (taught to be like plate 7, see [0107]), could have thick ends around 83 μm and a thin center around 47 μm, while conforming to the preferred specification disclosed by Kitamura. Thus, optimizing the difference in thickness of pressure plate ends relative to a central portion within the claimed range is known in the art.
Claims 8, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keates (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0006332), in view of Sugiyo (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0231356), and further in view of Kong et al. (KR 20090035328, Machine Translation attached).
Regarding claim 8, Keates, in view of Sugiyo teaches an outer surface of the pressure plate (top of 34, up in z-axis direction, Fig. 3B of Sugiyo, see rejection of claim 1 for modification) accommodating the wrapping member (312, Fig. 3),
but does not teach wherein an outer surface of the pressure plate has a groove accommodating insertion of the wrapping member therein, the groove extending in a full-width direction.
However, Kong teaches wherein an outer surface of the pressure plate (230, Fig. 3) has a groove (235, Fig. 3, Page2:L46-47) accommodating insertion of the wrapping member therein (240, Fig. 3), the groove extending in a full-width direction (left to right, Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure plate of Keates, in view of Sugiyo, such that it has a groove accommodating the wrapping member, as taught by Kong, to stop the shifting of the strap/band (see Page2:L49-50).
Regarding claim 9, Keates, in view of Sugiyo and Kong, does not teach further comprising one to four additional wrapping members wound around the mono cell and the half-cell and disposed respectively within one to four additional grooves extending into the outer surface of the pressure plate.
However, in an alternate embodiment, Keates teaches further comprising one to four additional wrapping members (further including one or more bands, see [0067]) wound around the mono cell (mono cell, Annotated Fig. 3, under claim 1) and the half-cell (mono cell, Annotated Fig. 3, under claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the mono cell and half-cell wrapping of Keates, in view of Sugiyo and Kong, to include additional wrapping members, as taught by Keates, to further provide pressure to the plates and stack (see [0027 and 0067]).
Keates, in view of alternate embodiments, Sugiyo, and Kong, still does not teach one to four additional wrapping members disposed respectively within one to four additional grooves extending into the outer surface of the pressure plate.
However, Kong teaches one to four additional wrapping members (one additional band 240, Fig. 3) disposed respectively within one to four additional grooves (one additional groove 235, Fig. 3) extending into the outer surface of the pressure plate (230, see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the additional wrapping members of Keates, in view of alternate embodiments, Sugiyo and Kong, such that the wrapping members were disposed in grooves of the pressure plate, as taught by Kong, to stop the shifting of the strap/band (see Page2:L49-50).
Regarding claim 12, Keates, in view of Sugiyo, does not teach wherein the pressure plate contains polypropylene resin.
However, Kong teaches a pressure plate (120, Fig. 2) contains polypropylene resin (polypropylene resin, Page2:L25-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure plate of Keates, in view of Sugiyo, such that it contains polypropylene resin, to provide high material strength which can compress the electrode plate as much as possible (see Page2:29-31).
Regarding claim 13, Keates, in view of Sugiyo and Kong, does not teach wherein the pressure plate consists of polypropylene resin.
However, Kong teaches a pressure plate (120, Fig. 2) consists of polypropylene resin (polypropylene resin, Page2:L25-31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the pressure plate of Keates, in view of Sugiyo, such that it consists of polypropylene resin, to provide high material strength which can compress the electrode plate as much as possible (see Page2:29-31).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keates (U.S. Pub. US 2018/0006332), in view of Sugiyo (U.S. Pub. US 2022/0231356), and further in view of Ono et al. (U.S. Pub. US 2020/0350529).
Regarding claim 11, Keates, in view of Sugiyo, teaches a contact area between each negative electrode (308, Fig. 3) and the separator (306, Fig. 3) adjacent thereto and a contact area between each positive electrode (304, Fig. 3) and the separator adjacent thereto (306),
but does not teach wherein in the electrode assembly, a contact area between each negative electrode and the separator adjacent thereto is wider than a contact area between each positive electrode and the separator adjacent thereto.
However, Ono teaches wherein in the electrode assembly (100, Fig. 4, [0020]), a contact area between each negative electrode (22, Fig. 4, [0021]) and the separator adjacent thereto (30, Fig. 4, [0021]) is wider than a contact area between each positive electrode (12, Fig. 4, [0021]) and the separator (30) adjacent thereto (see Fig. 4 and [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the negative electrode contact area with the separator of Keates, in view of Sugiyo, to be greater than the positive electrode separator contact area thereof, as taught by Ono, to maintain a constant facing area between the positive and negative electrodes in the event of shifting, thereby suppressing a fluctuation in power generation (see [0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Satou et al. (WO 2014/199822 A1) teaches the pressure plate of claim 1, 3-7, and 12-13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aidan L Papandria whose telephone number is (571)272-1831. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 ET.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/AIDAN LACHLAN PAPANDRIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights