DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/291399, “Battery Cell, And Battery Module Comprising The Same”, is the national stage entry of a PCT application filed on 2/9/23 and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 2/10/22.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 9/19/25.
Official Notice
To improve conciseness, this Office action may include instances wherein the examiner has relied on Official Notice of facts not in the record, asserting that certain limitations in one or more dependent claim are old, common knowledge or well-known expedients in the art without presenting documentary evidence in support of the assertion. The facts relied on are intended only to fill gaps which might exist in the evidentiary showing to support the ground of rejection applied to the one or more dependent claim. See MPEP 2144.03 for more information regarding USPTO policy on Official Notice.
Each reliance on Official Notice is marked in the body of this Office Action by the tag “[OFFICAL NOTICE]” so as to create a clear record as to which elements or limitations of the invention are addressed utilizing Official Notice. Additionally, a basis for the taking of Official Notice is included in each instance so as to present science and/or technical reasoning to support the assertion.
Applicant may challenge any assertion of Official Notice. To adequately traverse such a finding, applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.
In the event that applicant adequately traverses the assertion of Official Notice, the examiner is required to provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. If the examiner adds a reference in the next Office action after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection, the Office action may be made final. If no amendments are made to the claims, the examiner must not rely on any other teachings in the reference if the rejection is made final.
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
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 15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, it is unclear what is meant by “cooling water that is not insulated”. The difference between an insulated and an uninsulated cooling water in a thermal management system for a battery is unclear as the water typically performs heat exchange with the battery cells, requiring thermal conduction instead of thermal insulation.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-2 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kamata (JP 2014-103026; citations from machine translation) and Mushiga (US 2011/0236746).
Regarding claim 1 and 2, Kamata teaches a battery cell (Fig. 1-4), comprising:
an electrode assembly (item 10);
a case (item 2) accommodating the electrode assembly; and
a sacrificial metal part (item M) provided on an outer surface of the case, and formed of a material, such as magnesium or aluminum, having a higher metal ionization tendency than that of the case (paragraph [0038]).
Kamata does not appear to teach the battery including a cell sheet to surround the sacrificial metal part and the case, wherein the cell sheet includes a metal layer.
In the battery art, Mushiga teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) a cell sheet (item 1) provided to surround a battery case (item 11), wherein the cell sheet includes a metal layer (item 3). Mushiga further teaches the cell sheet provided for labeling of the battery cell (paragraphs [0002, 0036]) and for preventing or inhibiting moisture exposure to the battery case (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the battery of Kamata by providing a cell sheet including a metal layer to surround the case including the sacrificial metal part, for the benefit of labeling the battery cell and/or protecting the case from moisture as taught by Mushiga.
Regarding claim 7-8, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Mushiga, relied on in the combined embodiment for teach the cell sheet, further teaches that the metal layer may be formed from aluminum (paragraph [0060]). Thus, this feature is obvious to include in order to achieve the benefit of Mushiga previously set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Mushiga, relied on in the combined embodiment for teach the cell sheet, further teaches the cell sheet being wrapped around the battery case in order to surround the battery case (paragraph [0078], Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to wrap the cell sheet onto the case in order to achieve the benefit of Mushiga previously set forth in claim 1.
Mushiga does not expressly teach that the wrapping includes overlapping ends of the sheet; however, unless some overlap occurs, there is risk that the sheet does not fully encircle the case. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of invention to provide some degree of overlap, at least as engineering tolerance, in order to ensure that the sheet completely surrounds the case so that the sheet can provide the protection benefit described in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kamata further teaches that the sacrificial metal part is coupled to the outer surface of the case (see Fig. 4), but does not teach that the components are laser-coupled together.
However, “laser-coupled” describes a method of manufacture rather than a product limitation, considering that the laser is not part of the battery cell. Moreover, claim 10 does not detail the laser-coupling process or describe any additional structure provided due to the “laser-coupled” limitation. Therefore, this additional feature is not found to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kamata further suggests wherein the sacrificial metal part surrounds a partial region of the case in a band shape (Fig. 4 schematically illustrates the sacrificial layer M disposed on a partial region of the case 2; since the case is cylindrical as shown in Fig. 1, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to extend the illustrated portion circumferentially around the case, such that the sacrificial part would form a band shape).
Regarding claim 12, the cited art remains as applied to claim 11. Kamata further teaches wherein the sacrificial metal part is coupled along the circumference of the case at a central portion between the upper surface and a lower surface of the case (as seen in Fig. 4, the sacrificial part M leaves a portion of the case 2 unexposed at the top and at the bottom. The central portion can be considered any portion between the upper surface and a lower surface of the case).
Claims 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kamata (JP 2014-103026; citations from machine translation), Mushiga (US 2011/0236746) and Zhong (US 2012/0177959).
Regarding claim 3 and 4, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kamata teaches wherein an exposed sacrificial metal part having a ring shape is provided on an upper surface of the case for protection at the location of groove (Fig. 4; paragraph [0038]; the layer M is expected to extend in the circumferential direction to provide the ring shape), but does not appear to teach wherein an additional exposed sacrificial metal part is provided on a lower surface of the case.
In the battery art, Zhong teaches that a cylindrical battery may be designed to have crimps/bends on both the top and bottom portions of the case (see Fig. 1), to improve heating properties, current carrying capacity and safety (paragraphs [0002-0007]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the battery of Kamata by including a crimped/bent structure on both the top and bottom of the battery cell for the benefit of improving heating properties, current carrying capacity and safety as taught by Zhong. It follows that it would have also been obvious to include an exposed sacrificial metal part having a ring shape on the lower surface of the case in order to provide the same protection on the lower crimped/bent portion.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kamata (JP 2014-103026; citations from machine translation), Mushiga (US 2011/0236746) and Zhang (CN 111725443; citations from machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kamata and Mushiga teach a battery cell having the structure recited in claim 1, but do not appear to teach the battery cells employed in a water cooled battery module having the structure set forth in claim 13.
In the battery art, Zhang teaches a battery module (Fig. 2), comprising: a plurality of battery cells (items 7); a cell frame (item 9) provided so that the plurality of battery cells is disposed apart from each other (see Fig. 2), and cooling water is configured to flow between the plurality of battery cells (item 8 is a circulating water channel); and a cooling water supply part (item 10) for supplying the cooling water into the cell frame. Zhang further teaches that the battery module solves heat safety problems in a manner that is cheaper and simpler than alternative thermal management systems (T005-T006, T026).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to employ the battery cells of the Kamata-Mushiga combined embodiment in a water cooled battery module having the claimed structure for the benefit of assembling the batteries in a higher power module having a desirable thermal management system as taught by Zhang.
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kamata (JP 2014-103026; citations from machine translation), Mushiga (US 2011/0236746), Zhang (CN 111725443; citations from machine translation) and Enomoto (US 2015/0188203).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. These claims further require wherein the battery module comprises a waterproof layer provided inside the cell frame and provided to cover a side end of the upper surface and a side end of a lower surface of the case, respectively, wherein the waterproof layer comprises a waterproof adhesive or a potting resin, and wherein the cooling water supply part is provided to supply cooling water that is not insulated.
Zhang further teaches the battery module including potting structure which secures and seals the batteries in a manner such that their end terminals are sealed from the cooling water (Figs. 1 and 2, items 2, 3 and/or 4 on the top and bottom of the battery cells 6; see also separate descriptions of a “water-proof heat-conducting sealing glue layer”, T014 and a “water-proof heat-conducting potting adhesive layer”, T015 which appear to be separate components; T053-T054 describe ends of the structure being “filled with sealing glue”).
Moreover, in the battery art, Enomoto teaches a thermal management module wherein the ends of individual cells are sealed and secured in an air-tight manner using an adhesive or an adhesive tape (paragraphs [0031, 0034, 0061]).
Thus the claimed structure is obvious in view of Zhang and/or Enomoto since the prior art structure is the same as that claimed, or at least functionally equivalent thereto, as it provides potting, sealing and water-proofing function for upper and lower ends of the battery case.
The claim 15 requirement that the cooling water supply part is provided to supply cooling water that is not insulated is suggested by Zhang since the cooling water is in thermal communication with the batteries of the module to cool the batteries.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Savovic (USP 5260146) and Mushiga (US 2011/0236746) .
Regarding claim 1 and 2, Savovic teaches a battery cell (Fig. 1), comprising:
assembled positive and negative electrodes (“The composition and manufacture of battery cells are well known to those skilled in the art”, c2:63-c3:2);
a case (item 120) accommodating the electrode assembly;
a sacrificial metal part provided on an outer surface of the case (“A sacrificial anode 150 is situated on the exterior of the battery housing 120”, c3:2-4), and formed of a material, such as magnesium or aluminum, having a higher metal ionization tendency than that of the case (c3:36-57); and
a cell sheet provided (item 180) to surround the sacrificial metal part and the case (c3:8-12; note that an opening is provided in the cell sheet 180 suggesting that it at least partially surrounds the case and the sacrificial part 150).
Savovic teaches the cell sheet as an insulating material such as a plastic film (c3:8-9), but does not appear to teach wherein the cell sheet includes a metal layer.
In the battery art, Mushiga teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) a cell sheet (item 1) provided to surround a battery case (item 11), wherein the cell sheet includes a metal layer (item 3). Mushiga further teaches the cell sheet provided for labeling of the battery cell (paragraphs [0002, 0036]) and for preventing or inhibiting moisture exposure to the battery case (paragraph [0018]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the battery of Savovic by providing a cell sheet including a metal layer to surround the case including the sacrificial metal part, for the benefit of labeling the battery cell and/or protecting the case from moisture as taught by Mushiga.
Savovic does expressly teach the positive and negative electrodes arranged in an electrode assembly.
However, some form of electrode assembly [including at least one positive electrode, at least one negative electrode, and at least one separator for separating the electrodes] is conventional, if not required. For example, Mushiga teaches (Fig. 2) a simple electrode assembly wherein a positive electrode (item 12) is separated from a negative electrode (item 13) via a separator (item 14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the positive and negative electrodes in the form of an electrode assembly for the benefit of further including a separator so that the electrodes can assume their designed purpose and form a battery without short circuited electrodes as taught by Mishiga.
Regarding claim 3, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The Fig. 1 embodiment of Savovic teaches wherein an exposed sacrificial metal part is provided on an upper surface of the case, but does not appear to teach wherein an additional exposed sacrificial metal part is provided on a lower surface of the case.
However, in a separate embodiment, Savovic teaches that additional sacrificial anodes may be strategically provided elsewhere on a battery casing, such as a lower part thereof (c4:19-25, Figs. 2, 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the Fig. 1 embodiment by providing an additional exposed sacrificial metal part on a lower surface of the case for the benefit of providing additional protection to other parts of a cell as a matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 6, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Mushiga, relied on in the combined embodiment for teach the cell sheet, further teaches an adhesive layer (item 4) provided on one surface of the metal layer and adhered to the case (paragraph [0042, 0048]), and a waterproof layer (at least one of layers 2, 5 and 6, noting that the waterproof layer may be a multi-layer structure) provided on the other surface in a direction opposite to the one surface of the metal layer (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to include this structure for benefits previously set forth as it is within the cell sheet of Mushiga.
Mushiga does not teach wherein the adhesive layer comprises a pressure-sensitive adhesive; however, pressure-sensitive adhesive is one of the commonly used types of adhesive for joining layers together in the battery art [OFFICIAL NOTICE]. The use of a pressure-sensitive adhesive for the adhesive layer of Mushiga merely requires the simple substitution of one known adhesive for another to yield predictable results; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness for substitution exists.
Regarding claim 7-8, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Mushiga, relied on in the combined embodiment for teach the cell sheet, further teaches that the metal layer may be formed from aluminum (paragraph [0060]). Thus, this feature is obvious to include in order to achieve the benefit of Mushiga previously set forth in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Mushiga, relied on in the combined embodiment for teach the cell sheet, further teaches the cell sheet being wrapped around the battery case in order to surround the battery case (paragraph [0078], Fig. 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to wrap the cell sheet onto the case in order to achieve the benefit of Mushiga previously set forth in claim 1.
Mushiga does not expressly teach that the wrapping includes overlapping ends of the sheet; however, unless some overlap occurs, there is risk that the sheet does not fully encircle the case. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of invention to provide some degree of overlap, at least as engineering tolerance, in order to ensure that the sheet completely surrounds the case so that the sheet can provide the protection benefit described in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Savovic further teaches that the sacrificial metal part is coupled to the outer surface of the case (see Fig. 1), but does not teach that the components are laser-coupled together.
However, “laser-coupled” describes a method of manufacture rather than a product limitation, considering that the laser is not part of the battery cell. Moreover, claim 10 does not detail the laser-coupling process or describe any additional structure provided due to the “laser-coupled” limitation. Therefore, this additional feature is not found to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Savovic (USP 5260146), Mushiga (US 2011/0236746) and Zhang (CN 111725443; citations from machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Savovic and Mushiga teach a battery cell having the structure recited in claim 1, but do not appear to teach the battery cells employed in a water cooled battery module having the structure set forth in claim 13.
In the battery art, Zhang teaches a battery module (Fig. 2), comprising: a plurality of battery cells (items 7); a cell frame (item 9) provided so that the plurality of battery cells is disposed apart from each other (see Fig. 2), and cooling water is configured to flow between the plurality of battery cells (item 8 is a circulating water channel); and a cooling water supply part (item 10) for supplying the cooling water into the cell frame. Zhang further teaches that the battery module solves heat safety problems in a manner that is cheaper and simpler than alternative thermal management systems (T005-T006, T026).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to employ the battery cells of the Savovic-Mushiga combined embodiment in a water cooled battery module having the claimed structure for the benefit of assembling the batteries in a higher power module having a desirable thermal management system as taught by Zhang.
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Savovic (USP 5260146), Mushiga (US 2011/0236746), Zhang (CN 111725443; citations from machine translation) and Enomoto (US 2015/0188203).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the cited art remains as applied to claim 13. These claims further require wherein the battery module comprises a waterproof layer provided inside the cell frame and provided to cover a side end of the upper surface and a side end of a lower surface of the case, respectively, wherein the waterproof layer comprises a waterproof adhesive or a potting resin, and wherein the cooling water supply part is provided to supply cooling water that is not insulated.
Zhang further teaches the battery module including potting structure which secures and seals the batteries in a manner such that their end terminals are sealed from the cooling water (Figs. 1 and 2, items 2, 3 and/or 4 on the top and bottom of the battery cells 6; see also separate descriptions of a “water-proof heat-conducting sealing glue layer”, T014 and a “water-proof heat-conducting potting adhesive layer”, T015 which appear to be separate components; T053-T054 describe ends of the structure being “filled with sealing glue”).
Moreover, in the battery art, Enomoto teaches a thermal management module wherein the ends of individual cells are sealed and secured in an air-tight manner using an adhesive or an adhesive tape (paragraphs [0031, 0034, 0061]).
Thus the claimed structure is obvious in view of Zhang and/or Enomoto since the prior art structure is the same as that claimed, or at least functionally equivalent thereto, as it provides potting, sealing and water-proofing function for upper and lower ends of the battery case.
The claim 15 requirement that the cooling water supply part is provided to supply cooling water that is not insulated is suggested by Zhang since the cooling water is in thermal communication with the batteries of the module to cool the batteries.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding dependent claims 5, the closest prior art is given above in the rejections of base claims 1 and 3. The cited art teaches a battery cell comprising at least one sacrificial metal part, but does not teach or fairly suggest the sacrificial metal part having a C-shape along the circumferential direction of the upper surface and the lower surface as required by claim 5. Therefore, claim 5 is not rejected over previously the cited art.
A diligent search has been performed, but no closer prior art has been discovered which cures this deficiency of the previously applied art, or which independently fairly teaches or suggests claim 5 as a whole including the above-described features and the features of base claim 3. Accordingly, claim 5 is not rejected, but are objected to for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Philips (US 2009/0233159) teaches use of zinc coating as an anticorrosive coating for negative electrode;
Xie (US 2019/0386260) teaches multilayer battery packaging material for protection from water corrosion;
Akizuki (US 2022/0045408) teaches battery case comprising metal layer, protective layer and adhesive layer;
KR 10-2021-049327 teaches a sacrificial metal component for a battery module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights