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 .
Status
Claims 1, 7, 14 and 17 are amended. Claims 1-18 are pending.
The objections and rejection under 35USC112b are withdrawn in light of the amendments.
New grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Note that: Applicant’s amendment to “without penetrating therethrough” is supported by the instant specification in instant figures 3-6 and the negative limitation supported because figure 2 identifies both possibilities such that the one may be excluded.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: while a width is necessarily present for all objects and therefore not subject to rejection under 35USC112b given that “a” is used in claim 4 it would be more consistent for claim 3 to also introduce “a width direction of the electrode assembly” rather than use “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: units are missing; any units read on the claimed thickness. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Hasegawa (US20130177788) in view of Lee (US20110129718) and Daidoji (US20080060189 as cited in the IDS dated 9/5/23).
With respect to claim 1, Hasegawa teaches an electrode assembly (50) for secondary
battery (title) comprising two or more electrodes (10, 20) and a separator (30) stacked in a
stacking direction (z) (fig. 1; [0074]) wherein the electrodes comprise electrode tabs (11, 21),
the electrode tabs including metallized film metal layers (14) on both sides of polymer substrate
(13) (fig. 1; [0077-80]), the electrode tabs electrically connected through a first metal connector
(fig. 1: 41 or fig. 17: 82 or fig. 27/39: 182) at an upper portion where the metal layer is formed
(14) and are electrically connected through a second metal connector (fig. 1: 80 or fig. 17: 81 or
fig. 27/39: 181/183) at a lower portion where the metal layer (14) is formed.
Hasegawa teaches the metal layer penetrating therethrough and is therefore silent to the metal layer formed without penetrating therethrough and teaches the electrode tabs wholly overlapping and is therefore silent to the electrode tabs not wholly overlapping in the stacking direction.
Lee teaches that a metal layer (fig. 1-9: 40/42/44) penetrating through the tabs (fig. 3-4) is an art recognized equivalent to a metal layer (fig. 1-9: 40/42/44) formed without penetrating therethrough (fig. 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the art recognized equivalent metal without penetrating therethrough with a reasonable expectation of similar results; stably coupling electrode tabs and leads increasing contact area such that a large capacity of current easily moves, as taught by Lee ([0042]) MPEP 2144.06.
Daidoji teaches an electrode assembly of a secondary ([0003]) stacked battery (fig. 3: 2)
wherein electrode tabs (7, 8) are not wholly overlapping (fig. 3: 7A does not overlap 7B; fig. 6:
all 7s partially overlapping; fig. 7: 7B does not wholly overlap longer 7A). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the partially overlapping
arrangements of Daidoji in Hasegawa to reduce tab breakage, improve and maintain welding
conditions in the overall battery despite increased tab numbers or changing tab numbers as
taught by Daidoji ([0011-15]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Hasegawa teaches the metal connectors electrically
connected at positions where they do not overlap the electrode tabs (Lee: fig. 5-6 42/52 on the right).
Regarding claim 3, as combined with Lee, modified Hasegawa provides for a
sandwich cross section electrically connecting and mechanically connecting the tabs (12/22) and lead (42/52: top and bottoms) (fig. 5-8 width and length directions shown).
Regarding claim 4, examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an
area where the first and second metal connectors are connected is not limited to the “further
electrically connected” positions of claim 2 but can be any area the connectors are connected.
Lee’s teaches less than 100% physical connection in figures 5-6 where one would appreciate that the use of tips of protrusions 42d/52d minimize direct connection while balancing enough connection to stably couple the metal layers (lead) to the tabs. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to balance the number of connections sites to
ensure electrical connection and balancing tab integrity and in doing so arrive at the claimed range barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa teaches that the second metal connector (asperities) have
a thickness 100micron ([0152]) (fig. 15: 81/83) and while the thickness of the first metal
connector (fig. 15: 82) the relative size depicted would be less than that of the second metal
connector for less than a total of 200micron which overlaps the claimed range. In the case
where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie
case of obviousness exists MPEP 2144.05. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would
appreciate that the thickness of the through members of Hasegawa is an art recognized
variable and a factor of the number of electrode tabs and thickness of the assembly which
depends on the load requirements wherein reducing the number of tabs reduces the of the
metal connectors; this variable would have been obvious to optimize for the needs of a
particular application.
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa teaches that the first (41) and second metal connectors
(through members: 80/180) are electrically connected via welding ([0121], [0154], [0210]). Welding and or adhesion are considered product by process limitations wherein the final product requires the fusion of the upper and lower ends which is also clearly depicted throughout Lee (fig. 1-9).
Regarding claim 7, modified Hasegawa teaches partially overlapping tabs (Daidoji: fig. 6-
7).
Regarding claim 8, modified Hasegawa teaches partially overlapping adjacent tabs
(Daidoji: fig. 6).
Regarding claim 9, modified Hasegawa does not depict only two electrode tabs however
explains that the number of tabs depends is known to vary (Daidoji: [0013]) wherein one of
ordinary skill would appreciate that a small battery with a stack of electrode/separators
resulting in two electrode tabs would be obvious to minimize battery size and cost for an
application in which the load demand is less. In this case where there are only two electrode
tabs partially overlapping one another (adjacent tabs) there are no “other” tabs as claimed such
that this conditional limitation is met (Daidoji: fig. 6 obvious to reduce stack removing
electrode/separators above second tab).
Regarding claim 10, Hasegawa teaches that the pitch of the first and second connectors
(through members) is an art recognized result effective variable which is desirable to increase
the contact surface area thereof as the area between metal connectors (through members) and
electrode (tabs) effects resistance which is desirable to reduce. While Hasegawa is explicitly
silent to the range of 50% or more, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would
optimize the connection to maximize contact surface area thereby arriving at an overlap with
the claimed 50% or more in order to reduce resistance as taught by Hasegawa ([0019]). In the
case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima
facie case of obviousness exists MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Hasegawa teaches that the first metal connector (41) covers the
entire upper portion of the tabs (portion entirely covered by 41). Note that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of upper and lower portions is any part of the tab in the upper and
lower positions. Lee teaches entire upper and lower coverage as well (fig. 1).
below by 9). Daidoji also teaches the lead (metal connector) being larger than the tabs i.e. covering the entire width of tabs.
Regarding claim 12, Hasegawa teaches the current collector comprises the polymer
substrate (13, polypropylene) has a thickness of 15micron and the metal layers (14s, aluminum)
have a thickness of 1micron; both values are within the claimed range and therefore read on
the claim ([0147]).
Regarding claim 13, Hasegawa teaches the polymer substrate is a polyolefin ([0080] and
[0147]).
Regarding claim 14, Hasegawa teaches that the metal layers are Ni, Al or steel ([0070]
and [0147]).
Regarding claim 15, Hasegawa teaches that the first and second metal connectors (parts
of through members) are made of Al ([0152]).
Regarding claim 16, Hasegawa teaches that both the metal layers of tabs (14s) and first
and second connectors (through-members) are made of the same material (Al: [0147, 0152]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Hasegawa teaches that the metal connectors (Lee: 42/52 top and bottom) are connected to a lead (44/54) (fig. 1; [0034]).
Regarding claim 18, Hasegawa, Lee and Daidoji teach secondary batteries (fig. 2 and 1,
respectively) containing the assembly of claim 1 (see above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on Lee for the amendment limitation argued as deficient in the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights