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 .
This is the initial Office action based on application number 18/308834 filed on 4/28/2023. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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: f in fig. 1, 300 in fig. 5, 400 in fig. 6. 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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding to claim 1: ….the negative tabs comprising at least the first negative tab and the second negative tab [[is]] are shifted to one side of the negative electrode plate….
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 4, 9, 12, 18 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 to claim 4: the limitation of “a distance between the first positive tab and the positive electrode plate is a first distance” is unclear as a specific side of the positive electrode plate is not recited. A distance could be interpreted between (i) the first positive tab and a closest side edge of the positive electrode plate; (ii) the first positive tab and a farthest side edge of the positive electrode plate; or (iii) the first positive tab and a bottom edge of the positive electrode plate. For compact prosecutions, Examiner considers (i) as a first distance as it is disclosed in pg. 11 and fig. 1 in the instant specification.
Regarding to claim 9: the limitation of “a top side of the positive electrode” is unclear as
“a top side” could be interpreted as (i) a new top side not recited in claim 2; or (ii) the top side recited in claim 2,
“the positive electrode” could be interpreted as (iii) a new positive electrode not recited in claim 2; or (iv) the positive electrode plate recited in claim 2.
For compact prosecutions, Examiner considers (ii) and (iv) as a top side of the positive electrode as it is disclosed in fig. 1 in the instant specification.
Regarding to claim 12: the limitation of a “third-order platform” liquid injection hole is unclear. The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention. As the meaning of “third-order platform” is not apparent from the prior art or the specification at the time the application is filed, the claim language is unclear. See MPEP 213.05(a)(I)For purposes of examination, a third-order platform liquid injection hole is being interpreted as any platform liquid injection hole.
Regarding to claim 18: The term of “light” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “light” 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 purposes of examination, a light panel is being interpreted as any panel that is part of the top cover.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A). The English translation of the KR 20170104826 A is attached.
Regarding to claim 1: Lee et al. disclose an electrode assembly and a secondary battery (par. 1). The electrode assembly comprising:
a positive electrode plate (111) (par. 25, fig. 2) comprising two electrode tabs (121, 131) (equivalent to a first positive tab and a second positive tab) (fig. 2) which are welded to the positive electrode plate (111) (par. 29) (equivalent to electrically connected with each other);
a negative electrode plate (112) (par. 25, fig. 2) comprising two electrode tabs (122, 132) (equivalent to a first negative tab and a second negative tab) (fig. 2) which are welded to the negative electrode plate (112) (par. 29) (equivalent to electrically connected with each other); and
a separator (170) (par. 25, fig. 2) which is interposed between the positive electrode plate (111) and the negative electrode plate (112) (par. 25, fig. 2) (equivalent to separating the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate);
wherein the positive electrode plate (111), the separator (170), and the negative electrode plate (112) are sequentially laminated to form the stacked electrode assembly (par. 25, fig. 1, 2); and
wherein the positive tabs (121, 131) are shifted to one side of the positive electrode plate (111) (fig. 2), and the negative tabs (122, 132) are shifted to one side of the negative electrode plate (112) (fig. 2), and the positive tabs and the negative tabs are both located at a same end of the stacked positive (111) and negative electrode plates (112) (fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 2: Lee et al. disclose the positive tabs (121, 131) are located at one side of the central axis of the positive electrode plate (111) (fig. 1, 2) and the negative tabs (122, 132) are located at the other side, opposite to the one side, of the central axis of the negative electrode plate (112) (fig. 1, 2), and the positive tabs (121, 131) and the negative tabs (122, 132) are respectively arranged in sequence along a top side of the positive electrode plate (111) or negative electrode plate (112) (fig. 1, 2).
Regarding to claim 3: Lee et al. disclose the positive tabs (121, 131) are shifted to one side of the central axis of the positive electrode plate (111) (fig. 1, 2), and the negative tabs (122, 132) are shifted to the other side, opposite to the one side, of the central axis of the negative electrode plate (112) (fig. 1, 2).
Regarding to claim 5: Lee et al. disclose the central axis of the positive electrode plate (111) coincides with the central axis of the negative electrode plate (112) (fig. 2), the negative tab (122) (equivalent to the first negative tab) is further away from the central axis of the negative electrode plate (112) than the negative tab (132) (equivalent to the second negative tab) (fig. 2); the negative tab (122) and the positive tab (121) (equivalent to the first positive tab) are symmetrically arranged to the central axis (fig. 2); and a gap between the positive tabs is equal to a gap between the negative tabs (fig. 2).
Regarding to claim 6: Lee et al. disclose an electrode plate (110), which can be the positive electrode plate (111) and/or the negative electrode plate (112) (par. 24, 28), has a first electrode tab (120) and a second electrode tab (130) (par. 42, fig. 5). The first electrode tab (120) has a wider width than the second electrode tab (130) (par. 42, fig. 5).
Regarding to claim 8: Lee et al. disclose there are a plurality of electrode plates (100) (equivalent to the positive and the negative electrode plates), the first electrode tabs (120) and the second electrode tabs (130) are electrically connected through a bridge (160) (equivalent to all the first positive tabs are electrically connected with each other, all the second positive tabs are electrically connected with each other, all the first negative tabs are electrically connected with each other, and all the second negative tabs are electrically connected with each other) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4).
Regarding to claim 10: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly comprising a plurality of electrode plates (100) (equivalent to more than two charging and discharging assemblies according to claim 1) (par. 38, fig. 4), and a bridge (160) (equivalent to a connecting piece) (par. 38, fig. 4), wherein the bridge (160) comprises:
an intersection between the bridge (160) and an electrode lead (140) (equivalent to a main region) (fig. 4), and
two connecting arms electrically connected with the intersection respectively, wherein two connecting arms are connected, respectively, with a positive tab or a negative tab of all of the plurality of electrode plates (100) (equivalent to at least one of the at least two connecting arms is connected with a positive tab or a negative tab of one of the charging and discharging assemblies, and at least another of the at least two connecting arms is connected with a positive tab or a negative tab of another of the charging and discharging assemblies) (par. 38, 39, fig. 4).
Regarding to claim 16: Lee et al. disclose a height of the first electrode tabs (120) and the second electrode is greater than a width of the connecting arm connected therewith (fig. 4).
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.
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 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A).
Regarding to claim 4: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly and the secondary battery as described in paragraph 5 above. Lee et al. further disclose that the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab may be spaced apart (par. 32). Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose the relative distances between the positive electrode tab (121) and the closest side edge of the positive electrode plate (111), between two positive electrode tabs (121, 131), and between the positive electrode tab (131) and the central axis of the positive electrode plate (111). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the positive electrode tabs and make the relative distances as instant claimed dimension since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lee et al. would not operate differently with the claimed relative distances, since the multiple electrode tabs are intended to reduce resistance of the electrode tabs while current flows through. The device would function appropriately having the claimed relative distances. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed relative width of the negative tabs is “optionally” (specification pg. 4 lines 14-24).
Regarding to claim 7: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly and the secondary battery as described in paragraph 5 above. Lee et al. further disclose that first electrode tabs (120) and the second electrode tab (130) can have the same width (fig. 3a) or different widths (fig. 5). Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose the negative tab is larger in width near the central axis than near an edge of the negative electrode plate. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the negative tab larger in width near the central axis than near an edge of the negative electrode plate since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Lee et al. would not operate differently with the claimed relative width of the negative tabs, since the multiple electrode tabs are intended to reduce resistance of the electrode tabs while current flows through. The device would function appropriately having the claimed relative width of the negative tabs. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the claimed relative width of the negative tabs is “optionally” (specification pg. 5 lines 7-8 ).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A) as applied in claim 2 above, and further in view of Londarenko et al. (US 20190013510 A1).
Regarding to claim 9: Lee et al. disclose the positive tabs (121, 131) are located along the top side of the positive electrode plate (111) as described in paragraph 5 above. Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose the top side of the positive electrode is provided with a ceramic insulating layer, with a thickness from 0.5 mm to 8 mm. However, Londarenko et al. disclose electrodes of a battery cell (abstract). The electrode (600) comprise an active coated region (420), an insulated coated region (430) (equivalent to a ceramic insulating layer), and an uncoated tab (450) (par. 33, fig. 6A, 6B, 6C, 6D). The insulation material in the insulated coated region (430) is a ceramic (par. 31). The insulation coating (430) may be applied to have a width (equivalent to a thickness) of about 1.0 mm to 5.0 mm. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the insulated coated region (430) of Londarenko et al. in the top side of the positive electrode plate (111) of Lee et al. because Londarenko et al. teach that the insulating material can prevent the tab contacting with an adjacent electrode thereby causing a short (par. 31).
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A) as applied in claim 10 above, and further in view of Su et al. (CN 209747660 U). The English translation of the CN 209747660 U is attached.
Regarding to claim 11: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly as described in paragraph 5 above. Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose there are four connecting arms, the four connecting arms extending from the main region, and two of the connecting arms being connected with one of the charging and discharging assemblies, and the other two of the connecting arms being connected with the other of the charging and discharging assemblies. However, Su et al. disclose a stacked battery core structure and a lithium-ion battery (par. 2). The stacked battery core are connected through a positive electrode connecting piece (7) and a negative electrode connecting piece (8) (equivalent to the connecting pieces) (par. 43, fig. 1). The positive and negative connecting pieces (7, 8), respectively, comprise positive and negative electrode tab connecting portions (72, 82) (equivalent to four connecting arms) (the area other than electrode tab connecting portions (72, 82) is equivalent to the main region) (par. 43, fig. 3, 4). One side of the electrode tab connecting portion (equivalent to two of the connecting arms) is connected with cores (3, 4) (equivalent to one of the charging and discharging assemblies) and the other side of the electrode tab connecting portion (equivalent to the other two of the connecting arms) is connected with cores (5, 6) (equivalent to the other of the charging and discharging assemblies) (par. 46, fig. 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the electrode tab connecting portions (72, 82) (equivalent to four connecting arms) of Su et al. in the bridge (160) of Lee et al. because Su et al. teach that the connection of the battery cores of Su et al. make the stacked battery core structure more compact and improves the space utilization of the battery (par. 48).
Regarding to claim 12: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly as described in paragraph 5 above. Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose two connecting arms connected with a same charging and discharging unit are located on a same straight line, and there is a gap between connecting arms connected with different charging and discharging assemblies. However, Su et al. disclose a stacked battery core structure and a lithium-ion battery (par. 2). The stacked battery core are connected through a positive electrode connecting piece (7) and a negative electrode connecting piece (8) (par. 43, fig. 1). The positive and negative connecting pieces (7, 8), respectively, comprise positive and negative electrode tab connecting portions (72, 82) (par. 43, fig. 3, 4). One side of the electrode tab connecting portion (equivalent to two of the connecting arms located on a same straight line) (fig. 3, 4) is connected with cores (3, 4) (equivalent to a same charging and discharging unit) (par. 46, fig. 5). The other side of the electrode tab connecting portion (equivalent to the other two of the connecting arms located on a same straight line) is connected with cores (5, 6) (equivalent to a different charging and discharging assembly) (par. 46, fig. 5). There is a gap between two different sides of the electrode tab connecting portions (72, 82) (fig. 3, 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the straight line electrode tab connecting portions and the gap between two sides of the electrode tab connecting portions of Su et al. in the bridge (160) of Lee et al. because Su et al. teach that the connection of the battery cores of Su et al. make the stacked battery core structure more compact and improves the space utilization of the battery (par. 48).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A) in view of Su et al. as applied in claim 12 above, and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 20200144585 A1).
Regarding to claim 13: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly as described in paragraph 8 above. Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose a groove is provided at a position of the main region corresponding to the gap. However, Zeng et al. disclose a secondary battery (abstract). The secondary battery (10) comprises current collecting members (70) (equivalent to the connecting pieces) (par. 77, fig. 8). The current collecting member (70) includes an extending portion (701) (equivalent to a groove) (par. 77, fig. 8, 10) at a main region corresponding to gaps between two arms (fig. 8). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the extending portion (701) of Zeng et al. to the positive and negative connecting pieces (7, 8) of Su et al. which is already incorporated into the electrode assembly of Lee et al. to connect a plurality of electrode plates (100) of Lee et al. because Zeng et al. teach that the extending portion (701) can improve an efficiency of the connecting and fixing operation of the current collecting member (70) and the electrode terminal (60) (par. 88).
Claims 14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A) as applied in claim 10 above, and further in view of Wakimoto et al. (US 20180375070 A1), hereinafter Wakimoto et al. 070 .
Regarding to claim 14: Lee et al. disclose the bridge (160) (equivalent to a positive connecting piece when the bridge (160) is used to connect the positive tabs) electrically connects to the first electrode tabs (120) and the second electrode tabs (130) (equivalent to the positive tabs) (par. 38, fig. 4). Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose a fuse hole is provided between the main region and the connecting arms of the connecting piece for the positive tab. However, Wakimoto et al. 070 disclose a rectangular secondary battery and a method of manufacturing a rectangular secondary battery (par. 2). The rectangular secondary battery comprises a positive-electrode current collector (6) (equivalent to a positive connecting piece) (par. 56, 57, fig. 2, 15B). The positive-electrode current collector (6) has a pair of fuse holes (108) placed between a joint (32) (equivalent to the main region) and a joint (30) (equivalent to the connecting arms) (par. 99, fig. 15B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the fuse holes (108) of Wakimoto et al. 070 in the bridge (160) between the intersection and the two connecting arms of Lee et al. because Wakimoto et al. 070 teach that fuse hole is used to prevent overcurrent flows through the rectangular secondary battery (par. 99).
Regarding to claim 17: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly comprising a plurality of electrode plates (100) (equivalent to more than two charging and discharging assemblies) as described in paragraph 5 above. Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose a top cover, more than two charging and discharging assemblies are connected by butterfly welding, the connecting piece is welded with the top cover, and the top cover is provided with a third-order platform liquid injection hole. However, Wakimoto et al. 070 disclose a rectangular secondary battery and a method of manufacturing a rectangular secondary battery (par. 2). The rectangular secondary battery (20) comprises a sealing plate (2) (equivalent to a top cover) that seals the opening of a square outer package (1) (par. 46, fig. 1). A positive electrode collector (6) and a negative electrode collector (9) (equivalent to the connecting pieces) are, respectively, connected to a positive electrode terminal (7) and a negative electrode terminal (10) by welding (par. 65, fig. 8) (a positive electrode terminal (7) and a negative electrode terminal (10) are parts of the sealing plate (2)) (par. 62, fig. 6). A first electrode body element (3a) and a second electrode body element (3b) (equivalent to more than two charging and discharging assemblies) are connected by welded portions (30, 31) via the positive electrode collector (6) and the negative electrode collector (9) (par. 64, fig. 7) (a butterfly configuration is shown in fig. 7). Wakimoto et al. 070 further disclose an electrolyte injection hole (17) is provided in the sealing plate (2) (par. 53, fig. 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sealing plate (2) including the electrolyte injection hole (17) and the butterfly configuration of Wakimoto et al. 070 to house and connect a plurality of electrode plates (100) of Lee et al. because Wakimoto et al. 070 teach that this configuration can make the energy density of the secondary battery higher (par. 13), and an electrolyte solution can be injected into the battery case via the electrolyte injection hole (par. 64).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A) as applied in claim 10 above, and further in view of Wakimoto et al. (US 20190115611 A1), hereinafter Wakimoto et al. 611.
Regarding to claim 15: Lee et al. disclose the bridge (160) (equivalent to the connecting piece for the negative tab when the bridge (160) is used to connect the negative tabs) electrically connects to the first electrode tabs (120) and the second electrode tabs (130) (equivalent to the negative tabs) (par. 38, fig. 4). Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose the main region of the negative tab connecting piece is pitted. However, Wakimoto et al. 611 disclose a method of manufacturing a secondary battery (abstract). The secondary battery comprises a negative electrode collector (9) (par. 46, 47, fig. 2, 9). A rough surface portion (70) (equivalent to pitted surface), configured to form the welding portion (33), is formed at the middle of the negative electrode collector (9) (par. 66, fig. 9A, 9B). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the rough surface portion (70) of Wakimoto et al. 611 in the intersection of the bridge (160) of Lee et al. because Wakimoto et al. 611 teach that the rough surface portion can make more efficient and reliable welding between the collector and a terminal (par. 11).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A) in view of Wakimoto et al. (US 20180375070 A1), hereinafter Wakimoto et al. 070, as applied in claim 17 above, and further in view of Kim. (US 20100143789 A1).
Regarding to claim 18: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly comprising a plurality of electrode plates (100) as described in paragraph 10 above. Lee et al. and Wakimoto et al. 070 fail to explicitly disclose the top cover comprises a light panel and a pole, and a shortest distance between an encapsulated part of the pole and the light panel is 0.75 mm to 1.0 mm. However, Kim discloses a secondary battery that enhances the safety and reliability (abstract). The secondary battery comprises a cap assembly (300) (equivalent to the top cover) (par. 28, fig. 2). The cap assembly (300) comprises a short-circuit plate (400) (equivalent to a light panel) (par. 45, fig. 3), a terminal plate (330) (equivalent to an encapsulated part of a pole), and an electrode terminal (350) (equivalent to the pole) (par. 45, fig. 3). A second distance L2 (equivalent to a shortest distance between an encapsulated part of the pole and the light panel) between a third plate (430) of the short-circuit plate (400) and the terminal plate (330) is 0.5 to 1 mm (par. 57, 61, fig. 3, 4). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the distance of 0.5 to 1 mm between the short-circuit plate (400) and the terminal plate (330) of Kim to connect and house a plurality of electrode plates (100) of Lee et al. because Kim teaches the distance of 0.5 to 1mm enhances the safety and reliability of the secondary battery (par. 8).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20170104826 A) as applied in claim 10 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US 20210143508 A1).
Regarding to claim 19: Lee et al. disclose the electrode assembly comprising a plurality of electrode plates (100) as described in paragraph 5 above. Lee et al. fail to explicitly disclose a battery module, comprising: a plurality of battery cores according to claim 10; a frame for supporting the battery cores; a heat conducting plate provided between adjacent battery cores; and an air duct provided in a middle of the frame. However, Yoshida discloses a power supply device includes a plurality of rectangular battery cells (abstract). The power supply device (100, 200) (equivalent to a battery module) includes:
a plurality of rectangular battery cells (1) (equivalent to a plurality of battery cores) (par. 72, fig. 1, 2);
plates (6) and bind bars (7) (equivalent to a frame) for fixing each battery cell (1) (par. 121, fig. 1, 2);
a separator core (4) (equivalent to a heat conducting plate), which is a heat exchange plate, placed between adjacent battery cells (1) (par. 63, fig 2, 3); and
air flow ducts (17) on both sides of a battery stack (9) (air flow ducts (17) extend from the back, the middle, and the front parts of the bind bars (7)) (par. 125, fig. 16).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the power supply device (100, 200) of Yoshida to house a plurality of electrode plates (100) of Lee et al. because Yoshida teaches that this configuration can achieve an ideal power supply device suitable for the specifications of the battery cells and reduce manufacturing cost (par. 10)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIN JAN WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached on 571-272-1295. 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.
/PIN JAN WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729