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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is both too concise and references the figures. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 8 and 16 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.
With respect to claim 8, it is not clear what applicant is referring to with the “out-of-plane direction” as applicant never clearly articulated what the plane in question was in the specification. Without an understanding what the plane in question is (plane of the figures, a plane of the frame itself, etc.) it is unclear what is thereby out of the plane as well. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will presume the plane is the center of the frame (e.g. a vertical line through fig. 4) and “out-of-plane direction” is offset from this (e.g. like the location of adhesives 160a and 160b in the figure), but clarification is requested.
In claim 16, there is no antecedent basis for “the redox couple”. It appears claim 16 should depend from claim 15 and not claim 14. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will presume claim 16 depends from claim 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2021/0175532) in view of Moonaw et al (US 2016/0329535) and any of Park et al (US 2016/0177136) (hereafter “Park ‘136”), Kim et al (US 2020/0185677) (hereafter “Kim ‘677”), Park et al (US 2020/0277432) (hereafter “Park ‘432”), or Kim et al (US 2013/0280570) (hereafter “Kim ‘570”). The rejection further relies on the Intertronics Academy (June 1, 2021) as optional evidence and/or prior art.
With respect to claim 1, Lee discloses a secondary battery module (par. 0004) comprising first and second current collectors (108A, 108B) spaced apart from each other, a separator 112 disposed between the first and second current collector, a frame (unlabeled structure of fig. 2A, 4, 5A, and 5B) defining a first electrode reservoir 106A between the first current collector 108A and separator 112 as well as a second electrode reservoir 106B between the second current collector 108B and the separator 112. See fig. 2A and par. 0028.
Lee does not explicitly disclose the first and second current collectors are affixed to the frame via first and second adhesives. Moonaw discloses an alternative battery configuration and teaches the use of a frame 464 to support and space apart the various components of the battery. Moonaw further teaches that the first and second current collectors (421A, 421B) can be fixed to the frame using first and second adhesive seals (463A, 463B). See fig. 4 and par. 0054, 0055. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize the framing and adhesive sealing structure of Moonaw for the battery of Lee in order to hold the various battery components together and prevent battery leaks. See Moonaw par. 0006-0011.
Lee and Moonaw do not explicitly disclose that the adhesives have an adhesive force of ≥ 300 gf/25mm. However, there are numerous examples in the battery art where adhesives are utilized as part of a battery construction where the desired adhesive force for the adhesive seal exceeds 300 gf/25 mm. In particular, Park ‘136 teaches the use of pressure sensitive adhesive layers for battery application that have adhesive force in excess of 300 gf/25 mm (par. 0051). Kim ‘677 teaches an alternative battery where adhesives are used to secure components and the strength of the adhesive exceeds 15.2 gf/mm (equivalent to 380 gf/25 mm). See Table 1 and par. 0103-0108. Park ‘432 teaches the use of resin adhesives for battery applications can exceed 150 gf/10 mm (equivalent to 375 gf/25 mm) (par. 0070). Kim ‘570 teaches the use of adhesives in battery applications that have adhesive force in excess of 300 gf/25 mm (par. 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to utilize any of the teachings of Park ‘136, Kim ‘677, Park ‘432, or Kim ‘570 because the stronger the seal of Lee and Moonaw is, the more it can resist rupturing and leaking due to external forces.
With respect to claim 2, it is initially noted that this claim appears to be drawn to the viscosity of the adhesive prior to drying and curing. However, claim 2 is drawn to a final product of the adhesion (i.e. the battery containing the final cured and dried product). Hence this limitation does not appear to further define the actual claimed invention, but rather the properties of the material to construct the final material. Product claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structures implied by the steps (MPEP 2114). No structure appears to be implied by the viscosity of the adhesive initially.
Alternatively, even if the examiner were to give this limitation further due consideration, Intertronics evidences that the claimed adhesive viscosities would range between the viscousness of milk and treacle (i.e. a fairly broad range) and further suggests controlling the viscosity of adhesive is an important parameter in your desired final product (i.e. viscosity is a result effective variable). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to find the desired level of viscosity to control how and where the adhesive is being dispensed.
With respect to claim 3, because the prior art teaches adhesive forces meeting and exceeding the claimed adhesive forces of the present invention, it is presumed they would similarly meet condition (3) of the claim absent any evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 4, Park ‘136 suggests at least an acrylate based adhesive (par. 0033), Kim ‘677 teaches various acrylate based polymers (par. 0064), Park ‘432 teaches isocyanate based adhesives (par. 0013-0015), and Kim ‘570 teaches at least acrylate and isocyanate based adhesives (par. 0033 and 0034).
With respect to claim 5, the form the adhesive takes prior to the claimed final product of the claims does not appear to further define the final product. See the similar conclusion for claim 2 discussed above. Alternatively, Moonow teaches forming a thin film of the adhesive (463A and 463B in fig. 4 and that would constitute a film-type adhesive giving the claim languages its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to claim 6, Lee teaches that each current collector includes a metal current collector (108A, 108B) and a carbon current collector (208A, 208B) disposed between the metal current collector and the frame. See fig. 2A and par. 0055 and 0056. Because the carbon current collectors are closest to the frame of Lee, this is clearly a suitable surface for applying the adhesive layer of Moonaw to affixed this to the frame.
With respect to claim 7, the adhesive (463A, 463B) of Moonaw is applied to the edges of the current collector (fig. 4) so it would have been obvious to apply to the carbon current collectors of Lee.
With respect to claim 8 as best understood, Moonaw teaches the same “out-of-plane direction” as that of the present invention (compare 463A and 463B in fig. 4 of Moonaw to 106a, and 160b in fig. 4 of the present invention).
With respect to claim 9, Moonaw shows that its frame is a closed ring shape (fig. 5). To prevent leaking and getting a quality seal, it is arguably imperative and at least obvious that the adhesive layer connecting each current collector to the frame should extend around the entire closed ring so that the current collector is connected with no liquid permeable gaps between the frame and current collectors.
With respect to claim 10, the adhesive layers of Moonaw are already strip shape and the black lines in the augmented drawing below show two edges of the frame. These edges coincide with the edge of the stripe shaped adhesive.
PNG
media_image1.png
389
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Lee discloses a communication channel 304 that permits fluid to flow between first and second electrode reservoirs (fig. 3A and par. 0070).
With respect to claim 12, the communication channel of Lee is at the edge of the membrane presumably through or adjacent the frame (fig. 3A). Although this is not specified as being defined by an adhesive member and the frame, the whole of fig. 3 shows there are many ways to have this communication channel configured (including alternate apertures 308, 309, 310) and the means for connecting one reservoir to another is not particularly limited. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing to locate this channel at any number of potential paths between the first and second reservoir, including along either the first or second adhesive member.
With respect to claim 13, Lee teaches that the electrode reservoirs contain electrodes and are made of things like carbon felt and carbon cloth. See par. 0052 as well as the discussion in par. 0033 where the materials like carbon felt are the electrodes of the cell. This would constitute first and second solid electrodes that are impregnated with the first and second liquid electrodes.
With respect to claim 14, Lee teaches a plurality of modules where each module includes a secondary battery (fig. 1 and par. 0029).
With respect to claims 15 and 16, this claim is merely telling us how the device is to be operated (i.e. with a redox couple) without further defining the actual structure of the battery. Manner of operating a device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art (MPEP 2114). Alternatively, Lee already teaches the same redox couple (par. 0044-0048).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAJ K OLSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights