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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2024/0128555-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 13OCT2023, 05APR2024, 14APR2025, 30SEP2025, 02JAN2026, and 16APR2026 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4-11 and 17-19 recites the term “about.” In determining the range encompassed by the term "about," one must consider the context of the term as it is used in the specification and claims of the application. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., 476 F.3d 1321, 1326, 81 USPQ2d 1427, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 2007). See MPEP 2173.05(b) III A. The specification as originally filed remains silent regarding a definition for the term “about.” For the purpose of examination limitations preceded by the term “about” are interpreted as including reasonable deviation/error associated with measurement as would be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Measured in m” inhibits clarity of the claim due to undefined letter, “m” – the following format is respectively suggested:
“Measured in meters (m)” such that any use of “m” afterwards is clearly defined.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and 14, “42” renders the claim indefinite due to a lack of units associated with the quantity– the constraint surrounding this quantity is unclear. Units must be associated with all numerical values where necessary; the values may otherwise be meaningless without them. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the scope of the claimed invention, and the public would not be able to determine the boundaries of what constitutes infringement (see MPEP 2173, MPEP 2111.01(II)).
For examination on the merits, the term “42” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification (MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01(I), (II)), where the units for 42 are 42 (g/Ah)*m-2. From the specifications, the quotient W/S may have the unit (g/Ah)*m-2 (Page 4, Paragraph [0010]) and the W/S may be 0.1 (g/Ah)*m-2 to 42 (g/Ah)*m-2 (Page 5, Paragraph [0013]).
In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues identified above, and to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, the following amendment to claim 1 is respectfully suggested:
“ . . . wherein the secondary battery satisfies following Equation (1) :
Equation (1): W / S < 42 (g/Ah)*m-2,
where, in Equation (1), W is a weight of the electrolyte measured in g per unit capacity of the secondary battery measured in Ah, and S is a product of a full length measured in m and a full width measured in m of the electrode assembly.”
In order to overcome the indefiniteness issues identified above, and to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, the following amendment to claim 14 is respectfully suggested:
“ . . . wherein the secondary battery satisfies following Equation (1) :
Equation (1): W / S < 42 (g/Ah)*m-2,
where, in Equation (1), W is a total weight of the electrolyte measured in g per unit capacity of the secondary battery measured in Ah, and S is a product of a full length measured in m and a full width measured in m of the electrode assembly.”
Claims 2-13 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 1 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 1 identified hereinabove.
Claims 15-20 are indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as they are directly or ultimately dependent upon claim 14 and therefore include, and do not remedy the indefiniteness issues of claim 14 identified hereinabove.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-3, 5-10, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Kawai (US 11411252 B2; “Kawai”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawai teaches a secondary battery (Kawai, col. 1, lines 20), housing (the accommodation part accommodating an electrode assembly) (Kawai, col. 1, lines 22-24) and an electrode assembly (Kawai, col. 1, lines 21) with an electrolyte (Kawai, col. 1, lines 53-54). Kawai further teaches the variables from Equation (1) as follows:
The weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery (corresponding to W in claim 1) is 1.3 g/Ah to 1.7 g/Ah (Kawai, col. 10, lines 27-31).
The width of the lithium ion secondary battery, which is not particularly limited, is 10 mm to 100 mm (Kawai, col. 5, lines 41-43).
The length was calculated using the ranges noted above and a ruler with B1=B2=100 mm (please refer to Fig. 1 below, an annotated version of Fig. 5 of Sheet 3 of 3 of Drawings of Kawai).
PNG
media_image1.png
444
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
Fig. 1. Annotated lengths are shown in the figure above. A secondary battery is shown with an L-shape in the plan view (Kawai, Col. 2, Lines 38-40).
Assuming that the width B1 = width B2 = 100 mm, the full length of the electrode assembly is 450 mm (see image above).
By plugging in 1.3 g/Ah and 0.0450 m2 (this is the S value, the product of a full length measured in m and a full width measured in m of the electrode assembly) for the above length and width into the equation (1) as specified in claim 1, the value is 28.9 g/Ah/m2. This falls in the range of claim 1.
While Kawai and the claims differ in that Kawai does not teach the exact same proportions as recited in the instant claims, they do provide the relationship outlined above.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Kawai overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that;
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003).
Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.
Kawai measures on a basis ofcross-sectional area to assess the structural integrity of the lithium-ion secondary battery (Col. 4, Lines 37-47). Kawai cites the transition to a laminate battery case (pouch) as the rationale behind the optimization of cycle characteristics and structural integrity (Col. 1, Lines 20-35, Col. 4, Lines 37-47 and Col. 2, lines 9-14). The structural integrity of the battery is paramount; the variables that are optimized are cited in Kawai and could have been picked out (with similar ranges) to further optimize structural integrity on a similar basis of per unit area of electrode assembly. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the length for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Kawai teaches a band-shaped laminate film that is molded into a shape of the electrode assembly (this is the battery case – pouch – of claim 2) (Kawai, col. 10, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 3, Kawai teaches a metal foil that can act as a barrier layer. Kawai teaches an outer polymer film that is disposed on an outer surface of the barrier layer. Moreover, Kawai teaches an inner polymer film (a sealant) that can melt at the time of heat sealing, disposed on an inner surface of the metal foil (the barrier layer) (Col. 9, lines 43-59). Kawai teaches that the battery was heat-pressed under high temperatures (Col. 12, lines 41-45).
Regarding claim 5, Kawai teaches that dimensions (Col. 5, lines 41-44) and the electrolyte injection amount (Col. 10, lines 27-31) may vary; these are both variables in the equation cited in claim 1. By plugging in 1.5 g/Ah and 0.0450 m2 (this is the S value, the product of a full length measured in m and a full width measured in m of the electrode assembly) for the above length and width into the equation (1) as specified in claim 1, the value is 33.3 g/Ah/m2.
Regarding claim 6, Kawai teaches that the weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.3 g/Ah to 1.7 g/Ah (Kawai, col. 10, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 7, Kawai teaches that the weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.5 g/Ah to 1.7 g/Ah (Kawai, col. 10, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 8, Kawai teaches that the S in Equation 1 may be 0.045 m2 (please see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Kawai teaches that the ratio of the full length to the full width of the electrode assembly may be 5 (0.450 m/0.100 m ~ 5) (please see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 10, Kawai teaches the full length of the electrode assembly is 450 mm, and the full width of the electrode assembly is 100 mm (please see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Kawai teaches that the battery case may be a hard container such as a metal can (Col. 1, lines 20-24)(can-type battery case).
Regarding claim 14, Kawai teaches that dimensions (Col. 5, lines 41-44) and the electrolyte injection amount (Col. 10, lines 27-31) may vary; these are both variables in the equation cited in claim 1. By plugging in 1.7 g/Ah and 0.0450 m2 (this is the S value, the product of a full length measured in m and a full width measured in m of the electrode assembly) for the above length and width into the equation (1) as specified in claim 1, the value is 37.8 g/Ah/m2 (please see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Kawai teaches a band-shaped laminate film that is molded into a shape of the electrode assembly (this is the battery case – pouch – of claim 2) (Kawai, col. 10, lines 20-24).
Regarding claim 16, Kawai teaches that the laminate film (pouch) is flexible (Kawai, col. 10, lines 20-24) and is composed of a three-layer structure including an outer polymer film (first cup), metal foil (a folding part), and an inner polymer film (second cup)(Kawai, col. 9, lines 43-57). The outer (first cup) and inner (second cup) polymer films are disposed on opposite sides and the laminate film is folded (Kawai, col. 10, lines 20-24). If the laminate film is folded, then it is a folding part, including each of its constituents (the metal foil – a folding part).
Regarding claim 17, Kawai teaches that the weight of the electrolyte per unit capacity of the secondary battery is 1.3 g/Ah to 1.7 g/Ah (Kawai, col. 10, lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 18, Kawai teaches that the S in Equation 1 may be 0.045 m2 (please see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 19, Kawai teaches that the ratio of the full length to the full width of the electrode assembly may be 5 (0.450 m/0.100 m ~ 5) (please see Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Kawai teaches that the battery case may be a hard container such as a metal can (Col. 1, lines 20-24)(can-type battery case).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Kawai (US 11411252 B2; “Kawai”) in view of Seino (US-20200028127-A1, “Seino”).
Regarding claim 4, Kawai teaches a separator with an adhesive layer which can keep the electrode assembly together through adhesion. A frictional force must be present as a result of the adhesive layer.
Kawai is silent on a frictional force between the electrode assembly and the bottom surface of the cup part.
Seino teaches that a frictional force between a finishing tape and an inner surface of a pouch may be configured to prevent the electrode assembly from moving inside the pouch case ([0016]). This constitutes the frictional force between the electrode assembly and the bottom surface of the cup part ([0016]), as stated in claim 4. Seino also teaches the finishing tape is made of a material having a relatively high frictional force with the inner surface of the pouch case to substantially reduce movement of the electrode assembly ([0042]). Seino specifies that a static coefficient of friction between the finishing tape and the first insulation layer of the pouch case (a bottom surface of the cup part) may be in the range from about 5 to about 7 to suppress movement of the electrode assembly ([0049]). Seino also teaches that a frictional force between the finishing tape and the inner surface of the pouch case may be configured to prevent the electrode assembly from moving inside the pouch case (Page 6, Claim 9). Assuming the battery in consideration weighed 5 kg, which is a medium to large sized battery, if the coefficient of friction were 5, then the following calculation (Calculation 1) should be employed from what is already known in the art:
[AltContent: rect]FS=μS×N, where:
FS = static friction force (in kgf)
μS = coefficient of static friction – this is 5 (unitless) in this case
N = normal force (in kgf) – this is 5 kgf in this case
Fig. 2. This would result in a kgf of 25 kg, which is above the 15 kgf specified in claim 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the secondary battery of Kawai with the frictional force of Seino.
Kawai and Seino each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). The motivation behind the limitations on the frictional force coefficient as stated in Seino ([0042]) is the stated goal of the applicant (Paragraph 60 of Specifications). In the art, the coefficient of friction is typically referred to instead of absolute values for force, and the results as shown in Calculation 1 overlap with the proposed range of greater than 15 kgf. Moreover, Seino teaches that the frictional force between the finishing tape and the inner surface of the pouch case may be configured (Page 6, Claim 9). The process behind the configuration is well-known in the art and was thus not specified in Seino, but the reference establishes that it is well-known in the art (Page 6, Claim 9).
Regarding claim 12, Kawai teaches a three-point bending strength test (col. 4, lines 32-36) that is similar to the crash drop test in assessing structural stability – flexural properties (col. 13, lines 6-14).
Kawai does not teach specific values for a crash shock test.
Seino teaches a drop test that also checks for damage to the battery (cracking of the Al base material of the electrode assembly), and the test assesses the impact resistance of the battery from a functional (capacitance values) and structural standpoint. The test relates these to the fixing force (movement of the electrode assembly) ([0041]). These factors are be linked to the leakage of electrolyte due to an impact ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery of Kawai with the methodology of Seino to arrive at a battery capable of resisting the damage from a 133.7 G X 15.8 ms crash condition. This very specific experimental condition may be obtained through routine experimentation for which the methodology has already been outlined in Seino (col. 4, lines 32-36, and col. 13, lines 6-14). The result effective variable is the fixing force of Seino ([0041]), which can be modified to prevent leakage of the electrolyte due to an impact like the 133.7 G X 15.8 ms crash condition. If the fixing force keeps the electrode assembly in place, it will prevent or reduce damage due to impact (less likely to leak) ([0041]). Seino also teaches a metal layer 122 positioned between the first insulation layer 121 and the second insulation layer of the pouch case to prevent or reduce the risk of an electrolyte filled in the pouch case 120 from leaking out, making another result-effective variable: the material composition of the pouch case ([0039]). A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Kawai (US 11411252 B2; “Kawai”) in view of Nishimura (JP2015191721, “Nishimura”).
Kawai teaches an initial capacitance of the battery. Moreover, Kawai calculates the amount of electrolyte by dividing the weight of electrolyte (g) by the initial capacitance of the battery (col. 12, lines 25-33). Kawai incorporates the capacitance in experimental optimization using the capacitance maintenance rate (col. 13-14, Table 3), which was defined as the ratio of cell capacitance after cycle to initial capacitance (Col. 14, lines 18-20).
Kawai is silent on a range of capacitance values for the secondary battery.
Nishimura teaches a capacitance value of 50 Ah in a secondary battery ([0125]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the battery of Kawai with the capacitance values from Nishimura. Kawai and Nishimura each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). Capacitance values in the range of 50 Ah – 200 Ah are commonly considered in the art in medium to large batteries depending on the functionality and power requirement from what is known in the art, such as in the case of cylindrical ([0014]) and prismatic (rectangular – [0131]) batteries as in Nishimura. A particular parameter can be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, and the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05.II.B.). The capacity of the secondary battery can be adjusted depending on the power requirements of the intended application; the capacity of the secondary battery is the result-effective variable. The capacity range can easily be determined through routine experimentation.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Nishimura (JP2015191721, “Nishimura”) in view of Seino (US-20200028127-A1, “Seino”).
PNG
media_image2.png
665
394
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nishimura teaches a range of surface areas (0.049 m2 in Battery B84, for example, see below for additional points in cm2) and electrolyte values (80 grams to 400 grams is the range of values considered experimentally) for an electrode assembly in an experimental setup, part of which is extracted below in Fig. 3. Nishimura teaches a battery case (container) housing the electrode assembly and the electrolyte ([0012], [0014]).
Fig. 3. Extracted parts of Tables 4 and 8 ([086] and [0091]) of Nishimura are shown above.
Nishimura is silent on a frictional force between the electrode assembly and the bottom surface of the cup part.
[AltContent: rect]Seino teaches that a frictional force between a finishing tape and an inner surface of a pouch may be configured to prevent the electrode assembly from moving inside the pouch case ([0016]). This constitutes the frictional force between the electrode assembly and the bottom surface of the cup part ([0016]), as stated in claim 4. Seino also teaches the finishing tape is made of a material having a relatively high frictional force with the inner surface of the pouch case to substantially reduce movement of the electrode assembly ([0042]). Seino specifies that a static coefficient of friction between the finishing tape (attached to the electrode assembly) and the first insulation layer of the pouch case (an inner surface of the battery case) may be in the range from about 5 to about 7 to suppress movement of the electrode assembly ([0049]). Seino also teaches that a frictional force between the finishing tape and the inner surface of the pouch case may be configured to prevent the electrode assembly from moving inside the pouch case (Page 6, Claim 9). Assuming the battery in consideration weighed 5 kg, which is a medium to large sized battery, if the coefficient of friction were 5, then the following calculation (Calculation 1) should be employed from what is already [AltContent: rect]known in the art:
FS=μS×N, where:
FS = static friction force (in kgf)
μS = coefficient of static friction – this is 5 (unitless) in this case
N = normal force (in kgf) – this is 5 kgf in this case
This would result in a kgf of 25 kg, which is above the 15 kgf specified in claim 21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to combine the secondary battery of Nishimura with the frictional force of Seino. Nishimura and Seino each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)). The motivation behind the limitations on the frictional force coefficient as stated in Seino ([0042]) is the stated goal of the applicant (Paragraph 60 of Specifications). In the art, the coefficient of friction is typically referred to instead of absolute values for force, and the results as shown in Calculation 1 overlap with the proposed range of greater than 15 kgf. Moreover, Seino teaches that the frictional force between the finishing tape and the inner surface of the pouch case may be configured (Page 6, Claim 9). The process behind the configuration is well-known in the art and was thus not specified in Seino, but the reference establishes that it is well-known in the art (Page 6, Claim 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.m.-5p.m..
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights