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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed January 11, 2024; May 28, 2025; September 9, 2025 and October 30, 2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
With respect to foreign language references with no translation of the document: “If no translation is submitted, the examiner will consider the information in view of the concise explanation and insofar as it is understood on its face, e.g., drawings, chemical formulas, English language abstracts, in the same manner that non-English language information in Office search files is considered by examiner in conducting searches.” See MPEP §609.04(a)(II) (D) and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii).
The Third-Party IDS submission filed January 20, 2025 is acknowledged. It is noted that the submission has not been considered as certain copies furnished are not completely legible (blank or missing information present on numerous pages of various cited references). This information disclosure statement filed fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as noted in the copy annotated by the Examiner provided with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings received January 11, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Figure 14 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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. See para. [0003] which states that Fig. 14 appears to be directed to JP 2019-194949A.
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the side surfaces of the electrode body" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 now requires a plurality of the laminated batteries and it is unclear as to which sides surfaces of which electrode body/bodies, the singular electrode body of claim 10 is referring to in the presence of plural laminated batteries (each having respective side surfaces and a respective electrode body).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga (JP 2000-156242A) in view of either Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611).
As to claim 1, Soga discloses a laminated battery comprising:
an electrode body 1/3/2;
side surface members 13/23 disposed at a side surface of the electrode body 1/3/2;
a laminate sheet 5a-5c covering the electrode body 1/3/2; and
side surface resin members A1 provided to side surfaces, which are at a side surface member side, of the laminate sheet 1/3/2,
wherein the side surface members 13/23 and the laminate sheet 5a-5c are welded,
the laminate sheet has a metal layer 5b, and
the side surface resin members A1 cover the metal layer 5b of the side surfaces of the laminate sheet (Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
486
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, the side surface members 13/23 and the laminate sheet 5a-5c are welded directly (Figs. 9, for example).
As to claim 7, the electrode body 1/3/2 includes at least one electrode unit body formed by a positive electrode collector 11, positive active material 10, electrolyte layer separator 3, negative electrode layer 20 and a current collector 21 layered in that order (Fig. 1a, for example).
As to claim 8, the side surface members 13/23 are terminals and having inner facing edge surfaces that face side surfaces of the electrode body 1/3/2 and the facing surfaces are electrically connected to the electrode body (Figs. 1-4 for example).
Soga does not teach of the side surface members 13/23 disposed at side surfaces (plural, claims 1 and 8) or the terminals face one another via an intervening electrode body (claim 9).
As shown in Figs. 1-2 above, the side surface members (terminals) 13 and 23 are disposed on the same side surface of the battery.
Modifying the side surface members/terminals 13 and 23 to be on different side surfaces (claims 1, 8) where the terminals would face each other via the intervening electrode body 1/3/2 would have been of routine skill in the art.
The battery cell still retains the majority of the structure requisite in Soga, merely repositioning the terminals shown in Figs. 1 and 2 from the same side to opposite sides would have been an obvious and predictable packaging and electrical layout choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Placement of terminals are determined by conventional connection requirements of the cell. Thus starting from the known cell of Soga above having both terminals on one side, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had routine knowledge to route one terminal to the opposite side where doing so provided any number of recognized benefits including, but not limited to, polarity separation of terminals, accessibility and connection requirements between the cell and electronic device to which the cell is electrically connected to, packaging integration, avoidance of terminal crowding.
Even further position the terminals from the same side to opposite sides would have been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine design choice because the placement of the terminals does not alter the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Soga. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Otohata recognized that film cased batteries were conventionally recognized to have terminals on either the same side of the electrode body (Figs. 3-4, for example) but equally known to be provided on opposite sides of the electrode body (Fig. 11) and that a laminate cell can readily take on either terminal orientation and still effectively provide for equivalent battery designs. This design provides for terminals (side surface members) on side surfaces (plural surfaces, claims 1 and 8) and further disposed on opposite sides of the electrode body (claim 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal placement of Soga to be on opposite sides of the electrode body as taught by Otohata since the placement of the terminals to different sides of the electrode body represented a conventionally recognized simple rearrangement of terminals from a laminate battery. Furthermore, the placement of the terminals would not have altered the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Soga. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga (JP 2000-156242A) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0054239).
Modified-Soga does not teach the plural batteries stacked along a direction parallel to the side surfaces of each electrode body and a plurality of inter-battery connecting terminals that are electrically connected to the terminals to connect the plurality of laminate batteries in series.
Arranging a plurality of discrete cells in identical orientation (e.g. a battery module or pack of cells) and electrically connecting them together requires routine skill in the art. Aligning terminals for a series connection would have resulted in a battery stack/module/pack having a desired power output (series connection provides for obtaining an increased voltage).
For example, Watanabe, drawn to thin film batteries, shows that it was readily known in the art to stack plural cells 10 and connect the cells in series using an array of bus bars (inter-battery connecting terminals) that are connected to the terminals 4b of the cell (paras. [0046], [0077], Fig. 8). Arranging cells in desired stacking and electrical connection was understood to provide for an assembled battery having suitable voltage as a whole to power a desired load requirement.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the batteries of Modified-Soga to be a stack of cells, stacked along a direction parallel to the side surfaces of each electrode body and a plurality of inter-battery connecting terminals that are electrically connected to the terminals to connect the plurality of laminate batteries in series as taught by Watanabe since it would have provided for an assembled battery module/pack/stack having a desired power output (such as a desired voltage output resulting from a series connection).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soga (JP 2000-156242A) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611) and Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0194103, hereafter referred to as Otohata-103).
As to claim 11, Soga discloses a method of manufacturing a laminated battery comprising:
an electrode body 1/3/2;
side surface members 13/23 disposed at a side surface of the electrode body 1/3/2;
a laminate sheet 5a-5c covering the electrode body 1/3/2; and
side surface resin members A1 provided to side surfaces, which are at a side surface member side, of the laminate sheet 1/3/2,
wherein the side surface members 13/23 and the laminate sheet 5a-5c are welded,
the laminate sheet has a metal layer 5b, and
the side surface resin members A1 cover the metal layer 5b of the side surfaces of the laminate sheet (Fig. 9).
The resultant product of claim 11, welds the periphery of the cell enclosure causing members there to effectively weld together. While the elements prior to welding may be discrete, the resultant welded product causes elements to fuse together. As a result the welded product of claim 11 and the welded product of Soga are structurally identical.
PNG
media_image1.png
486
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Soga does not teach of the side surface members 13/23 disposed at side surfaces (plural) or of welding the side surface members 13/23 and the laminae 5a-5c by a heat bar.
As to the side surface members 13/23 disposed at side surfaces (plural):
As shown in Figs. 1-2 above, the side surface members (terminals) 13 and 23 are disposed on the same side surface of the battery.
Modifying the side surface members/terminals 13 and 23 to be on different side surfaces (claims 1, 8) where the terminals would face each other via the intervening electrode body 1/3/2 would have been of routine skill in the art.
The battery cell still retains the majority of the structure requisite in Soga, merely repositioning the terminals shown in Figs. 1 and 2 from the same side to opposite sides would have been an obvious and predictable packaging and electrical layout choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Placement of terminals are determined by conventional connection requirements of the cell. Thus starting from the known cell of Soga above having both terminals on one side, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had routine knowledge to route one terminal to the opposite side where doing so provided any number of recognized benefits including, but not limited to, polarity separation of terminals, accessibility and connection requirements between the cell and electronic device to which the cell is electrically connected to, packaging integration, avoidance of terminal crowding.
Even further position the terminals from the same side to opposite sides would have been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine design choice because the placement of the terminals does not alter the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Soga. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Otohata recognized that film cased batteries were conventionally recognized to have terminals on either the same side of the electrode body (Figs. 3-4, for example) but equally known to be provided on opposite sides of the electrode body (Fig. 11) and that a laminate cell can readily take on either terminal orientation and still effectively provide for equivalent battery designs. Otohata-103 also recognized that terminals can be readily disposed on the same side or opposite sides of a laminate battery (para. [0080]). These design provide for terminals (side surface members) on side surfaces (plural surfaces, claim 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal placement of Soga to be on opposite sides of the electrode body as taught by Otohata and/Otohata-103 since the placement of the terminals to different sides of the electrode body represented a conventionally recognized simple rearrangement of terminals from a laminate battery. Furthermore, the placement of the terminals would not have altered the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Soga. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to welding the side surface members and the laminate sheet by a heat bar.
Soga teaches of sealing the laminate using heat fusion in general. A conventional method for heat fusing the peripheral seal region of a laminate housing battery included welding the elements together using a heat bar.
Otohata-103 is drawn to the same field of endeavor, sealing of laminate film battery housings. Otohata-103 understood that it was well known in the art to employ heat bars 109a/109b to effectively weld the laminate film periphery together and effectively seal the laminate.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Soga by welding the side surface members and the laminate together using a heat bar as taught by Otohata-103 since it would have provided a well-known technique for welding and sealing battery cell laminate packaging together.
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shioda et al. (JP 2000208111A) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611).
As to claim 1, Shioda discloses a laminated battery comprising:
an electrode body 7;
side surface members 3 disposed at side a surface of the electrode body 7;
a laminate sheet 1 covering the electrode body 7; and
side surface resin members 9 provided to side surfaces, which are at side surface member side of the laminate sheet 1,
wherein the side surface members 3 and the laminate sheet are welded,
the laminate sheet 1 has a middle metal layer, and
the side surface resin member 9 covers the metal layer of the side surfaces of the laminate sheet 1 (Fig. 1).
The resultant end product of claim 1, welds the periphery of the cell enclosure causing members there to effectively weld together. While the elements prior to welding may be discrete, the resultant welded product causes elements to fuse together. As a result the welded product of claim 1 and the welded product of Shioda are structurally identical.
PNG
media_image2.png
285
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, a resin film 4 is disposed between the side surface members 3 and the laminate 1 and the side surface members 3 and the laminate 1 are welded via the resin films 4 (Fig. 1 above).
As to claim 5, the side surface resin members 9 is separate from and does not include the resin film 4 as the two elements are shown as discrete elements (Fig. 1 above).
As to claim 7, the electrode body 7 includes at least one electrode unit body formed by a positive electrode collector, positive active material (para. [0028], electrolyte layer separator (para. [0031]), negative electrode layer and a current collector (para. [0029] layered in that order (Figs. 1).
As to claim 8, the side surface members 13 are terminals and having inner facing edge surfaces that face side surfaces of the electrode body 7 and the facing surface are electrically connected to the electrode body (Fig. 3).
Shioda does not teach of the side surface members 13/23 disposed at side surfaces (plural, claims 1 and 8) or the terminals face one another via an intervening electrode body (claim 9).
As shown in Figs. 1-2 above, the side surface members (terminals) 13 and 23 are disposed on the same side surface of the battery.
Modifying the side surface members/terminals 13 and 23 to be on different side surfaces (claims 1, 8) where the terminals would face each other via the intervening electrode body 1/3/2 would have been of routine skill in the art.
The battery cell still retains the majority of the structure requisite in Shioda, merely repositioning the terminals shown in Figs. 1 and 2 from the same side to opposite sides would have been an obvious and predictable packaging and electrical layout choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Placement of terminals are determined by conventional connection requirements of the cell. Thus starting from the known cell of Shioda above having both terminals on one side, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had routine knowledge to route one terminal to the opposite side where doing so provided any number of recognized benefits including, but not limited to, polarity separation of terminals, accessibility and connection requirements between the cell and electronic device to which the cell is electrically connected to, packaging integration, avoidance of terminal crowding.
Even further position the terminals from the same side to opposite sides would have been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine design choice because the placement of the terminals does not alter the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Shioda. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Otohata recognized that film cased batteries were conventionally recognized to have terminals on either the same side of the electrode body (Figs. 3-4, for example) but equally known to be provided on opposite sides of the electrode body (Fig. 11) and that a laminate cell can readily take on either terminal orientation and still effectively provide for equivalent battery designs. This design provides for terminals (side surface members) on side surfaces (plural surfaces, claims 1 and 8) and further disposed on opposite sides of the electrode body (claim 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal placement of Shioda to be on opposite sides of the electrode body as taught by Otohata since the placement of the terminals to different sides of the electrode body represented a conventionally recognized simple rearrangement of terminals from a laminate battery. Furthermore, the placement of the terminals would not have altered the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Shioda. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda et al. (JP 2000208111A) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Taguchi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0133910).
Shioda does teach of a resin film 4 between the side surface members (terminals) and laminate as discussed above.
Modified-Shioda dos not teach of an inner side excess portion of the resin films 4 projecting out from the ends which are at the electrode body sides of the side surface members (terminals).
Taguchi, is drawn to the same field of endeavor laminate or battery pouch designs where the resin film 33 between the terminal 30 and laminate housing includes inner side excess portion of the resin films projecting out from the ends which are at the electrode body sides of the side surface members (Fig. 3). Taguchi disclosed that portion 33a provided for improve insulation properties and improve resistance to deterioration and corrosion.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resin film of Modified-Shioda to include inner side excess portions of the resin films projecting out from the ends which are at the electrode body sides of the side surface members as taught by Taguchi since it would have predictably improved insulation properties and improved resistance to deterioration and corrosion.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shioda et al. (JP 2000208111A) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0054239).
Modified-Shioda does not teach the plural batteries stacked along a direction parallel to the side surfaces of each electrode body and a plurality of inter-battery connecting terminals that are electrically connected to the terminals to connect the plurality of laminate batteries in series.
Arranging a plurality of discrete cells in identical orientation (e.g. a battery module or pack of cells) and electrically connecting them together requires routine skill in the art. Aligning terminals for a series connection would have resulted in a battery stack/module/pack having a desired power output (series connection provides for obtaining an increased voltage).
For example, Watanabe, drawn to thin film batteries, shows that it was readily known in the art to stack plural cells 10 and connect the cells in series using an array of bus bars (inter-battery connecting terminals) that are connected to the terminals 4b of the cell (paras. [0046], [0077], Fig. 8). Arranging cells in desired stacking and electrical connection was understood to provide for an assembled battery having suitable voltage as a whole to power a desired load requirement.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the batteries of Modified-Shioda to be a stack of cells, stacked along a direction parallel to the side surfaces of each electrode body and a plurality of inter-battery connecting terminals that are electrically connected to the terminals to connect the plurality of laminate batteries in series as taught by Watanabe since it would have provided for an assembled battery module/pack/stack having a desired power output (such as a desired voltage output resulting from a series connection).
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu et al. (KR 10-2008-0087192) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611).
As to claim 1, Yu discloses a laminated battery comprising:
an electrode body 30;
side surface members 40-41(200) disposed at side a surface of the electrode body 30;
a laminate sheet 20 covering the electrode body 30; and
side surface resin members 122 provided to side surfaces, which are at side surface member side of the laminate sheet 20,
wherein the side surface members 40-41(200) and the laminate sheet 20 are welded,
the laminate sheet 20 has a middle metal layer 20b, and
the side surface resin member 122 covers the metal layer 20b of the side surfaces of the laminate sheet 1 (Fig. 5).
The resultant end product of claim 1, welds the periphery of the cell enclosure causing members there to effectively weld together. While the elements prior to welding may be discrete, the resultant welded product causes elements to fuse together. As a result the welded product of claim 1 and the welded product of Yu are structurally identical.
PNG
media_image3.png
292
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
359
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
326
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
217
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, a resin film 120 is disposed between the side surface members 40/41(200) and the laminate 20 and the side surface members 40/41(200) and the laminate 20 are welded via the resin films 120 (Figs. 4 and 5).
As to claim 4, the side surface resin members 122 includes the resin film 120 (Figs. 4-5 above).
As to claim 8, the side surface members 40/41(200) are terminals and having inner facing edge surfaces that face side surfaces of the electrode body 30 and the facing surface are electrically connected to the electrode body (Figs 1-5).
Yu does not teach of the side surface members 40/41(200) disposed at side surfaces (plural, claims 1 and 8) or the terminals face one another via an intervening electrode body (claim 9).
As shown in Figs. 1-5 above, the side surface members (terminals) 40/41(200) are disposed on the same side surface of the battery.
Modifying the side surface members/terminals 40/41 (200) to be on different side surfaces (claims 1, 8) where the terminals would face each other via the intervening electrode body 30 would have been of routine skill in the art.
The battery cell still retains the majority of the structure requisite in Yu, merely repositioning the terminals shown in Figs. 1 and 2 from the same side to opposite sides would have been an obvious and predictable packaging and electrical layout choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Placement of terminals are determined by conventional connection requirements of the cell. Thus starting from the known cell of Yu above having both terminals on one side, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had routine knowledge to route one terminal to the opposite side where doing so provided any number of recognized benefits including, but not limited to, polarity separation of terminals, accessibility and connection requirements between the cell and electronic device to which the cell is electrically connected to, packaging integration, avoidance of terminal crowding.
Even further position the terminals from the same side to opposite sides would have been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine design choice because the placement of the terminals does not alter the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Yu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Otohata recognized that film cased batteries were conventionally recognized to have terminals on either the same side of the electrode body (Figs. 3-4, for example) but equally known to be provided on opposite sides of the electrode body (Fig. 11) and that a laminate cell can readily take on either terminal orientation and still effectively provide for equivalent battery designs. This design provides for terminals (side surface members) on side surfaces (plural surfaces, claims 1 and 8) and further disposed on opposite sides of the electrode body (claim 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal placement of Yu to be on opposite sides of the electrode body as taught by Otohata since the placement of the terminals to different sides of the electrode body represented a conventionally recognized simple rearrangement of terminals from a laminate battery. Furthermore, the placement of the terminals would not have altered the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Yu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR 10-2008-0087192) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0105014).
Yu teaches of the battery including a positive electrode layer, separator and negative electrode layer (see pages 4-7 of the machine translation of Yu, for example).
Modified-Yu does not explicitly teach of the electrode body including respective current collectors with electrode layers as recited in claim 7.
Shin is drawn to the same field of endeavor, to laminate or pouch battery designs. Shin shows a conventional electrode body design shown in Figs. 1-3 which was known to include a positive electrode collector, positive electrode plate, separator, negative electrode plate and negative electrode collector layered in that order. It was highly conventional in the art to stack battery elements in such an arrangement and further include current collectors as an art-recognized component for support a respective electrode and providing a conductive pathway from the battery cell to the terminals and outward to a corresponding load.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode body of Modified-Yu to include a similar stack design as in Shin including respective current collectors as it would have provided a stack design having support a respective electrode and providing a conductive pathway from the battery cell to the terminals and outward to a corresponding load. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). MPEP § 2144.07.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR 10-2008-0087192) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0054239).
Modified-Yu does not teach the plural batteries stacked along a direction parallel to the side surfaces of each electrode body and a plurality of inter-battery connecting terminals that are electrically connected to the terminals to connect the plurality of laminate batteries in series.
Arranging a plurality of discrete cells in identical orientation (e.g. a battery module or pack of cells) and electrically connecting them together requires routine skill in the art. Aligning terminals for a series connection would have resulted in a battery stack/module/pack having a desired power output (series connection provides for obtaining an increased voltage).
For example, Watanabe, drawn to thin film batteries, shows that it was readily known in the art to stack plural cells 10 and connect the cells in series using an array of bus bars (inter-battery connecting terminals) that are connected to the terminals 4b of the cell (paras. [0046], [0077], Fig. 8). Arranging cells in desired stacking and electrical connection was understood to provide for an assembled battery having suitable voltage as a whole to power a desired load requirement.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the batteries of Modified-Yu to be a stack of cells, stacked along a direction parallel to the side surfaces of each electrode body and a plurality of inter-battery connecting terminals that are electrically connected to the terminals to connect the plurality of laminate batteries in series as taught by Watanabe since it would have provided for an assembled battery module/pack/stack having a desired power output (such as a desired voltage output resulting from a series connection).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (KR 10-2008-0087192) in view of Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0175611) and Otohata et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0194103, hereafter referred to as Otohata-103).
Yu discloses a method of manufacturing a laminated battery comprising:
an electrode body 30;
side surface members 40-41(200) disposed at side a surface of the electrode body 30;
a laminate sheet 20 covering the electrode body 30; and
side surface resin members 122 provided to side surfaces, which are at side surface member side of the laminate sheet 20,
the side surface resins members 122 include resin films 120 disposed between the side surface members 40-41(200 and the laminate sheet 20 (Figs. 4-5);
wherein the side surface members 40-41(200) and the laminate sheet 20 are welded,
the laminate sheet 20 has a middle metal layer 20b, and
the side surface resin member 122 covers the metal layer 20b of the side surfaces of the laminate sheet 1 (Fig. 5).
The resultant end product welds the periphery of the cell enclosure causing members there to effectively weld together. While the elements prior to welding may be discrete, the resultant welded product causes elements to fuse together. As a result the welded product and the welded product of Yu are structurally identical.
The method comprising:
Placing the resin films 120 on the side surface members 40/41(200) such that the resin films have projecting portions that project out from side surfaces of the laminate sheet 20 (Fig. 4),
Welding the side surface members 40/41(200) and the laminate sheet 20 via the resin films 120 via heat welding;
Deforming the projections by utilizing residual heat of the resin films 120 at a time then the side surface members 40/41(200) and the laminate sheet 20 are welded to form the side surface resin members 122 (Figs. 4-5 and corresponding disclosure).
PNG
media_image3.png
292
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
359
404
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
326
446
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
217
459
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Yu does not teach of the side surface members 40/41(200) disposed at side surfaces (plural) or of welding the side surface members 40/41(200) and the laminae 20 by a heat bar.
As to the side surface members 40/41(200) disposed at side surfaces (plural):
As shown in Figs. 1-5 above, the side surface members (terminals) 40/41(200) are disposed on the same side surface of the battery.
Modifying the side surface members/terminals 40/41 (200) to be on different side surfaces (claims 1, 8) where the terminals would face each other via the intervening electrode body 30 would have been of routine skill in the art.
The battery cell still retains the majority of the structure requisite in Yu, merely repositioning the terminals shown in Figs. 1 and 2 from the same side to opposite sides would have been an obvious and predictable packaging and electrical layout choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Placement of terminals are determined by conventional connection requirements of the cell. Thus starting from the known cell of Yu above having both terminals on one side, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had routine knowledge to route one terminal to the opposite side where doing so provided any number of recognized benefits including, but not limited to, polarity separation of terminals, accessibility and connection requirements between the cell and electronic device to which the cell is electrically connected to, packaging integration, avoidance of terminal crowding.
Even further position the terminals from the same side to opposite sides would have been recognized by a person of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of routine design choice because the placement of the terminals does not alter the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Yu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to welding the side surface members and the laminate sheet by a heat bar.
Yu teaches of sealing the laminate using heat fusion in general. A conventional method for heat fusing the peripheral seal region of a laminate housing battery included welding the elements together using a heat bar.
Otohata recognized that film cased batteries were conventionally recognized to have terminals on either the same side of the electrode body (Figs. 3-4, for example) but equally known to be provided on opposite sides of the electrode body (Fig. 11) and that a laminate cell can readily take on either terminal orientation and still effectively provide for equivalent battery designs. Otohata-103 also recognized that terminals can be readily disposed on the same side or opposite sides of a laminate battery (para. [0080]). These designs provides for terminals (side surface members) on side surfaces (plural surfaces, claims 1 and 8) and further disposed on opposite sides of the electrode body (claim 9).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal placement of Yu to be on opposite sides of the electrode body as taught by Otohata and/Otohata-103 since the placement of the terminals to different sides of the electrode body represented a conventionally recognized simple rearrangement of terminals from a laminate battery. Furthermore, the placement of the terminals would not have altered the underlying chemistry or basic battery performance of Yu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had sufficient skill to select either layer according to known application-specific considerations including enclosure constraints, available electrical designs and connection requirements, separation of opposite polarity terminals and manufacture with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. JP 2006-286741A discloses a laminate battery wherein a portion of the laminate housing is heated to form an integral edge seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGG CANTELMO whose telephone number is (571)272-1283. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7am to 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/GREGG CANTELMO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights