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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-12, 14-17 are rejected.
Claim 13 is cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-12, 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 16 and 17 line 1 “a cell as claimed in claim 1” should read “the electrochemical cell as claimed in claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 line 1 “a cell as claimed in claim 7” should read “the electrochemical cell as claimed in claim 7”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 line 1 “a cell as claimed in claim 8” should read “the electrochemical cell as claimed in claim 8”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 line 1 “a cell as claimed in claim 8” should read “the electrochemical cell as claimed in claim 8”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 line 1 “a cell as claimed in claim 11” should read “the electrochemical cell as claimed in claim 11”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 lines 1-2 “A battery assembly comprising multiple cells as claimed in claim 1” should read “a battery assembly comprising multiple electrochemical cells as claimed in claim 1 arranged as a stack”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 line 1 “a battery assembly as claimed in claim 14” should read “the battery assembly as claimed in claim 14”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson et al. (US 20180090726 A1, “Thompson”) in view of Visco et al. (US 20070037058 A1, “Visco”).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses an electrochemical cell comprising two electrode compartments, one being an anode compartment and the other being a cathode compartment (see [0090] “electrochemical cell” & “negative electrode” & “positive electrode”), the anode compartment of the cell when charged containing an alkali metal (see [0090] “alkali metal”), and the cathode compartment of the cell when charged containing a cathodic material that can react reversibly with ions of the alkali metal (see [0089] “the positive electrode can be a cathode during discharge” & see [0094] describes “charged, discharged” which describes reversible reaction), one electrode compartment being defined in part by a first metal plate and the other electrode compartment being defined by a second metal plate (see FIG. 3 “housing 301” & “first (e.g., negative current collector or lead 307 and a second (e.g., positive current collector 308” & “sheets” & “metal”; see [0149] “the negative current collector 307 may be configured as a plate” & “The positive current collector 308 may be configured as part of the housing 301”), and the anode compartment being separated from the cathode compartment by an electrolyte structure (see FIG. 3 “electrolyte 304”; see [0142] “liquid salt electrolyte 304 between the liquid metal electrodes 303, 305) comprising a planar non-permeable sheet of a ceramic that can conduct ions of the alkali metal (see [0104] “ceramic capable of conducting sodium ions” & “solid-ion conducting electrolyte”).
Regarding the limitation wherein the cell also comprises a projecting peripheral sleeve that is spaced from and outside the edge of the peripheral rim of the second metal plate, Thompson discloses in [0084] “sleeve” & in [0298] & FIG. 23 “2310”.
Regarding the limitation and the cell comprises a compression sleeve held within the peripheral sleeve, the compression sleeve having a flat face parallel to the flat rim of the second metal plate to compress the sealing element, and a second face adjacent to the inner face of the peripheral sleeve, Thompson discloses in [0084] “sleeves” & see FIG. 23 “2340”. Thompson discloses wherein the compression sleeve is secured in position by the peripheral sleeve (see FIG. 23 “seal” & “2305” & “2310” & “2340”).
Regarding the limitation wherein the first metal plate is dish-shaped and defines a peripheral rim, the second metal plate is dish shaped and defines a flat rim to mate with the peripheral rim of the first plate, and the cell comprises a sealing element between the peripheral rim of the first plate and the flat rim of the second plate to seal to the periphery of the electrolyte structure, Thompson does not explicitly disclose.
Visco teaches structure of the metal plates (see FIG. 4B describes dish-shaped & FIG. 4A describes “404” & “405”). Visco teaches in [0172] “seal” & “bonded to each other”. Visco teaches seal to enclose and prevent the active metal from deleterious reaction with the environment (see abstract “Protected anode architectures have ionically conductive protective membrane architectures that, in conjunction with compliant seal structures and anode backplanes, effectively enclose an active metal anode inside the interior of an anode compartment. This enclosure prevents the active metal from deleterious reaction with the environment external to the anode compartment, which may include aqueous, ambient moisture, and/or other materials corrosive to the active metal.”).
Thompson and Visco are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely electrochemical cell structures (see Visco [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate metal plates that are dish shaped (see Visco FIG. 4B & FIG. 4A “404” & “405”) as suggested by Visco and seal bonded to each other (see [0172]) as suggested by Visco into the electrochemical cell of Thompson because the “enclosure prevents the active metal from deleterious reaction with the environment external to the anode compartment”, as suggested by Visco (see abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson discloses the cell as claimed in claim 1 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve is secured by the peripheral sleeve by crimping (see [0133] “hermetically sealed” & in [0134] “seal may be made hermetic by one or more methods” & “seal may be subject to relatively high compressive forces” which reads on crimping).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 2 “is secured by the peripheral sleeve by crimping”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 3, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve is secured by the peripheral sleeve, by fixing the compression sleeve to the peripheral sleeve (see FIG. 23 “2340” & “2305” & “2310”).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the projecting peripheral sleeve is integral with and defined by the first metal plate (see [0298] “second metal collar 2320 is joined to a cell lid”).
Regarding claim 5, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the projecting peripheral sleeve is a separate component of generally L-shaped cross-section (see [0084] “sleeve” & see [0298] & FIG. 23 “2310” & FIG. 23 describes “2310” is L-shaped).
Regarding claim 6, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the projecting peripheral sleeve is of thicker material than the first metal plate (see [0186] & [0009] “seal can have a height above a top plate of the container of less than about 2 inches”; see [0010] “the protruding portion can have a thickness that substantially exceeds a thickness of the braze joint”).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve is of metal (see [0216] “metal sleeve”), and the cell also comprises an electrical insulator between the flat face of the compression sleeve and the outer surface of the peripheral flat rim of the second metal plate (see [0011] “ceramic material can … (iv) be electrically insulating” & see FIG. 23 “2305” & see [0298] “ceramic component 2305 is joined with a first metal collar” & “collar 2320 is joined to a cell lid”).
Regarding claim 8, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 7 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve is a sheet having an L-shaped cross section (see FIG. 23 describes “2340” is L-shaped).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve is of thicker material than the first metal plate (see [0186] “seal height may be limited to a given distance above a cell top plate”; see [0009]; see [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve comprises struts to hold the two parts of the L in their relative positions and so to prevent bending of the two parts relative to each other (see [0301] “sleeves can be brazed or welded to other cell components such as the cell lid”; see [0305] “a seal 1520 that can provide structural stability against vibration and mechanical forces during operation, manufacturing and transportation”).
Regarding claim 11, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve is of an electrically-insulating material (see [0335] “at least two metal sleeves (e.g., zirconium or stainless steel sleeves) may be joined to the ceramic component”; see [0106] “an electrically insulating seal (e.g., bonded ceramic ring) may electrically isolate negative potential portions of the cell from positive portions of the container (e.g., electrically insulate the negative current lead from the positive current lead)”).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 11 and further discloses wherein the compression sleeve fills substantially all the space between the peripheral sleeve and the outer surface of the second metal plate (see FIG. 33 “sleeves 3355”).
Regarding claim 14, Thompson discloses the cells of claim 1 and further discloses a battery assembly arranged as a stack (see FIG. 1 & [0120] “the electrochemical cells can be stacked (B) to form a battery (i.e., a compilation of one or more electrochemical cells)” which reads on battery assembly), the periphery of each cell defining a projecting flange (see [0360] “flanges” & see FIG. 4 “402”), wherein a heat transfer fluid is arranged to flow in the gaps defined between such flanges (see [0080] “coolant”).
Regarding the limitation which is thinner than the region of the cell that contains the anode and cathode compartments, Thompson does not explicitly disclose.
Visco teaches a seal structure that changes to form a better seal (see [0075] “compliant seal structure” & “compliant seal structure 104 flexing as the gap between the protective membrane architecture 102 and the anode backplane 106 narrows” & “the anode compartment remains sealed and the anode remains in ionic and electronic communication with the protective membrane and current collector 108 of the backplane 106, respectively”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the seal structure of Visco (see [0075]) into the cell of Thompson because doing so allows for the anode compartment to remain sealed which improves electronic communication, as suggested by Visco (see [0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Thompson discloses the battery assembly of claim 14 and further discloses wherein the stack of cells is arranged within a frame that defines an aperture to locate the stack of cells (see FIG. 28 “2815” & [0368] & see [0361] “groups of cells may be supported by various frames. The frames may provide structural support and/or participate or aid in forming the interconnections (e.g., frames on groups of cells may mate or be connected)”), such that the flanges of the cells in the stack are adjacent a wall of the frame (see [0360] “flanges” & see FIG. 4 “402” & “401” describes the housing; see FIG. 28 describes the frame “2815” & “2825”; see [0368] “negative current terminal of one cell 2825 contacted directly with the housing of another cell”).
Regarding claim 16, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses also comprising a perforated planar sheet of an inert metal immediately adjacent to the sheet of ceramic and in contact with the sheet of ceramic over substantially its entire area, to provide support to the sheet of ceramic, the ceramic sheet either being formed by deposition as a layer onto the perforated metal sheet (see [0346] “seals” & “inert” & see [0167] & see [0185] “seal is able to support”; see [0108] describes deposit materials).
Regarding the method limitations recited in claim 16 “being formed by deposition as a layer onto the perforated metal sheet”, the Office notes that even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F. 2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process). See MPEP § 2113.
Regarding claim 17, Thompson discloses the cell of claim 1 and further discloses also incorporating bite features to apply a localised sealing pressure to each sealing element (see [0160] “cells that are sealed with adhesive dielectric seals, a pressure of less than 1 psi may be sufficient to maintain a gas tight seal”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights