DETAILED ACTION
This is the final office action for 18/286,798, filed 10/13/2023, which is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/059672, filed 4/12/2022, which claims priority to German application DE10 2021 109 628.6, filed 4/16/2021.
Claims 11-21 are pending, and are considered herein.
In light of the claim amendments filed 7/10/2026, the prior art rejections are withdrawn, and new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
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 .
Additional Prior Art
The Examiner wishes to apprise the Applicant of the following references, which are not currently applied in a rejection, but are still considered relevant prior art.
U.S. Patent 5,994,993: This reference teaches a fuse indicator with an aluminum layer surrounded by a PVC layer (Figs. 1-2).
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0344379 A1: This reference teaches fuses for battery connectors, wherein the fuses comprise gaps filled with low-melting solder (Figs. 8-15).
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.
Claims 11-12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0266302 A1).
In reference to Claim 11, Kim teaches a battery cell (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0038]-[0043]).
The battery cell of Kim comprises an electrical fuse comprising layers 340b’ and 360, as shown in the embodiment 330d of Fig. 8 (paragraph [0059]).
Kim teaches that the electrical fuse is a melting fuse (i.e. thermo-breaker, paragraph [0018]).
Kim teaches that the electrical fuse has a groove or opening, corresponding to the region between layers 340b’ and 360 (Fig. 8).
Kim teaches that a material 340a’ is disposed in the groove/opening between layers 340b’ and 360 (Fig. 8, paragraph [0059]).
Kim further teaches that the material of layer 340a’ has a larger expansion coefficient than the material of layer 340b’ (paragraph [0059]).
This disclosure teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein an expansion material 340a’ having a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than a material of the melting fuse (i.e. layer 340b’) is arranged in the groove of the opening of the electrical fuse.
In reference to Claim 12, Kim teaches that the melting fuse is electrically connected to a current collector of a positive electrode of a battery cell, because the fuse is taught to be electrically connected to the battery, which includes all of the battery structures (Fig. 2).
In reference to Claim 15, Kim teaches that the expansion material 340a’ comprises a metal (paragraph [0059]).
In reference to Claim 19, Kim teaches that the expansion material 340a’ is provided with a cover 350.
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.
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 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0266302 A1).
In reference to Claim 14, Kim does not teach that the melting fuse necessary comprises aluminum.
However, he teaches that one of several suitable material for layer 360 of the melting fuse includes aluminum (paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed layer 360 of Kim from aluminum, because he teaches that this is a suitable material for this layer.
Forming layer 360 of Kim from aluminum teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the melting fuse comprises aluminum.
In reference to Claim 20, Kim does not teach a lithium-ion battery comprising two or more battery cells according to claim 11.
Fig. 2 of Kim only teaches a single battery.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the number of batteries of Kim within a battery arrangement to provide the desired voltage/current output.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the arrangement recited in Claim 20, without undue experimentation.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 11-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0084471 A1), in view of Kim (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0266279 A1), and Byun, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244280 A1), and as evidenced by Davidson, et al. (U.S. Patent 3,871,043).
In reference to Claim 11, Han teaches a battery cell (Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0067]-[0079]).
The battery cell of Han comprises an electrical fuse 616/617 (Fig. 5, paragraph [0070]).
Han teaches that the electrical fuse is a melting fuse (paragraph [0074]).
Han teaches that the electrical fuse has a groove, corresponding to a groove defining item 617, into which item 672 is inserted (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
Han teaches that a material 67/672 is disposed in the groove (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0077]-[0079). He teaches that this material is an insulating polymer (paragraph [0077]).
Han is silent regarding the specific material of the insulating polymer, and of the electrical fuse material. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach that the insulating resin has a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than a material of the melting fuse.
To solve the same problem of providing a fuse for a battery, wherein the fuse comprises a metal region and an insulating resin, Kim teaches that a preferred polymer insulator for this purpose includes polyethylene (paragraph [0046]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the insulating polymer spacer 67 in the device of Han from polyethylene, based on the disclosure of Kim.
To solve the same problem of providing a battery with a current collector, wherein the current collector comprises an integrated fuse, Byun teaches that a suitable material for this type of current collector comprises aluminum (paragraph [0059], shown as item 51 in Byun, Fig. 3).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the current collector and integrated fuse of Han from aluminum, based on the disclosure of Byun.
Evidentiary reference Davidson teaches that the thermal expansion coefficient of aluminum is lower than the thermal expansion coefficient of polyethylene (column 2, lines 4-10).
Therefore, forming the insulating resin 67 of Han from polyethylene, as taught by Kim, and forming the current collector and integrated fuse of Han from aluminum, based on the teachings of Byun, teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein an expansion material (i.e. polyethylene) having a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than a material of the melting fuse (i.e. aluminum) is arranged in the groove or the opening of the electrical fuse, such that the expansion material (67 of Han) is surrounded by the electrical fuse on a plurality of sides (i.e. the top and bottom sides, Fig. 5 of Han).
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
This modification further teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the melting fuse comprises aluminum.
This modification further teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the expansion material comprises a polymer.
In reference to Claim 12, Fig. 5 of Han teaches that the melting fuse 616/617 is electrically conductively connected to a current collector of a positive electrode of the battery cell (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
In reference to Claim 13, Fig. 5 of Han teaches that the melting fuse 616/617 is an integral constituent of the current collector of a positive electrode of the battery cell (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
In reference to Claim 17, it is the Examiner’s position that, because modified Han teaches that the expansion material is polyethylene (a material recited in Claim 18), this material exhibits an anisotropic coefficient of thermal expansion.
In reference to Claim 18, modified Han teaches that the expansion material comprises a polyethylene (described in the rejection of Claim 11 above).
In reference to Claim 19, Fig. 4 of Han teaches that the expansion material is provided with a cover (i.e. the cover of the battery cell).
In reference to Claim 20, modified Han does not teach a lithium-ion battery comprising two or more battery cells according to claim 11.
Fig. 4 of Han only teaches a single battery.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the number of batteries of Han within a battery arrangement to provide the desired voltage/current output.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the arrangement recited in Claim 20, without undue experimentation.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In reference to Claim 21, modified Han does not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 21, because modified Han does not teach the direction of the anisotropy of the thermal elongation.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that there are only a finite number of options in which the expansion material of modified Han may be arranged, and that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the orientation of the anisotropically-expanding material, in order to optimize the structure and behavior of the fuse.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization of the orientation of the expansion material would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the configuration recited in Claim 21, without undue experimentation, particularly because this configuration represents one of a finite number of possible orientations.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to a person if ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.).
Claims 11-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0084471 A1), in view of Byun, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0244280 A1), and Lee, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0039133 A1), and as evidenced by Luciani, JR., et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0098322 A1).
In reference to Claim 11, Han teaches a battery cell (Figs. 4-5, paragraphs [0067]-[0079]).
The battery cell of Han comprises an electrical fuse 616/617 (Fig. 5, paragraph [0070]).
Han teaches that the electrical fuse is a melting fuse (paragraph [0074]).
Han teaches that the electrical fuse has a groove, corresponding to a groove defining item 617, into which item 672 is inserted (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0077]-[0079]).
Han teaches that a material 67/672 is disposed in the groove (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0077]-[0079). He teaches that this material is an insulating polymer (paragraph [0077]).
Han is silent regarding the specific material of the insulating polymer, and of the electrical fuse material. Therefore, he does not explicitly teach that the insulating resin has a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than a material of the melting fuse.
To solve the same problem of providing an insulating resin for a fuse for a battery, Lee teaches that a preferred tape insulator for this purpose includes PVC (paragraph [0065]).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the insulating spacer 67 in the device of Han from PVC, based on the disclosure of Lee.
To solve the same problem of providing a battery with a current collector, wherein the current collector comprises an integrated fuse, Byun teaches that a suitable material for this type of current collector comprises aluminum (paragraph [0059], shown as item 51 in Byun, Fig. 3).
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have formed the current collector and integrated fuse of Han from aluminum, based on the disclosure of Byun.
Evidentiary reference Luciani teaches that the thermal expansion coefficient of aluminum is lower than the thermal expansion coefficient of PVC (paragraph [0010]).
Therefore, forming the insulating spacer 67 of Han from PVC, as taught by Lee, and forming the current collector and integrated fuse of Han from aluminum, based on the teachings of Byun, teaches the limitations of Claim 11, wherein an expansion material (i.e. PVC) having a greater coefficient of thermal expansion than a material of the melting fuse (i.e. aluminum) is arranged in the opening of the electrical fuse, such that the expansion material is surrounded by the electrical fuse on a plurality of sides.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
This modification further teaches the limitations of Claim 14, wherein the melting fuse comprises aluminum.
This modification further teaches the limitations of Claim 15, wherein the expansion material comprises a polymer.
This modification further teaches the limitations of Claim 16, wherein the expansion material comprises PVC.
In reference to Claim 12, Fig. 5 of Han teaches that the melting fuse 616/617 is electrically conductively connected to a current collector of a positive electrode of the battery cell (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
In reference to Claim 13, Fig. 5 of Han teaches that the melting fuse 616/617 is an integral constituent of the current collector of a positive electrode of the battery cell (Fig. 5, paragraphs [0069]-[0070]).
In reference to Claim 19, Fig. 4 of Han teaches that the expansion material is provided with a cover (i.e. the cover of the battery cell).
In reference to Claim 20, modified Han does not teach a lithium-ion battery comprising two or more battery cells according to claim 11.
Fig. 4 of Han only teaches a single battery.
However, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed would have been motivated to optimize the number of batteries of Han within a battery arrangement to provide the desired voltage/current output.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the arrangement recited in Claim 20, without undue experimentation.
The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections presented in the non-final office action have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Conclusion
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 SADIE WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-3245. The examiner can normally be reached 6am-2:30pm 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, Allison Bourke, can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.
/SADIE WHITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights