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 .
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara, et al. (JP-2002298803-A in IDS, see machine translation for citation purposes), in view of Inoue et al. (JP-2000164259-A in IDS, see machine translation for citation purposes), hereafter referred to as Ishihara and Inoue, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Ishihara teaches a battery (“present invention relates to a flat-type non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery,” paragraph 1) comprising: an electrode body (2/3/4 in Figs. 1a and 2a); a positive electrode foil provided at one surface of the electrode body; a negative electrode foil provided at another surface of the electrode body (“the positive and negative electrode terminals on the opposing surfaces of the outermost periphery of the wound electrodes,” paragraph 6); a metal exterior body pair formed from a positive electrode metal exterior body that contacts the positive electrode foil and is formed of metal, and a negative electrode metal exterior body that contacts the negative electrode foil and is formed of metal (“the positive and negative electrode terminals are exposed on the opposing outermost surfaces of the wound electrode group and are in contact with the positive electrode case and the negative electrode case,” paragraph 11; 1 and 5 in Figs. 1-4); and an insulating gasket that fixes the electrode body and the metal exterior body pair (6 in Figs. 1-4), wherein outer surfaces of the metal exterior body pair are exposed so as to enable electrical connection with an exterior (Figs. 1a and 2a show that the metal exterior body pair, 1 and 5, are exposed).
Ishihara does not specify that the gasket is made of resin. However, Inoue teaches a battery with a design analogous to Ishihara’s (Fig. 1 of Inoue). Therein, Inoue teaches that the gasket used for sealing/insulation is specifically made of resin (3 in Fig. 1; “placing flat positive and negative electrode cases opposite each other and crimping them together with a resin gasket,” paragraph 13). Inoue notes that resin, specifically polypropylene resin, is widely used as the material for gaskets in coin batteries, such as that in Ishihara and in the instant application: “Polypropylene (PP) is generally used as the resin material for gaskets in non-aqueous electrolyte batteries. This resin is widely used in coin-type lithium batteries and other applications due to its good moldability and low cost,” paragraph 26.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery taught by Ishihara and modify the gasket to be specifically made of resin in order to provide a more easily moldable gasket, as taught by Inoue. Please see MPEP § 2144.07 and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297: “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination.”
Ishihara also does not teach that at least one of the positive electrode metal exterior body or the negative electrode metal exterior body is shaped as a box having a bottom plate that is quadrilateral and four side plates that each share one side with the bottom plate, and accommodates the electrode body at an inner side of the box shape, and wherein the positive electrode metal exterior body, the negative electrode metal exterior body, and side surfaces of the electrode body are respectively insulated by the resin. Therein, Inoue teaches that the metal exterior body is shaped as a box having a bottom plate that is quadrilateral and four side plates that each share one side with the bottom plate (Fig. 2), and accommodates the electrode body at an inner side of the box shape (4/5/6 in Fig. 1), and wherein the positive electrode metal exterior body, the negative electrode metal exterior body, and side surfaces of the electrode body are respectively insulated by the resin (3 in Fig. 1). Inoue explains the benefit of making the exterior as a box shape: “in terms of shape, there is a growing demand for thin, rectangular designs, both from the perspective of making communication devices thinner and from the perspective of making efficient use of space,” paragraph 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery taught by Ishihara and modify the shape of the metal exterior body to be box-shaped to better integrate into certain electronics devices and make more efficient use of space, as taught by Inoue.
Regarding Claim 2, Ishihara modified by Inoue teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein Inoue further teaches that the positive electrode metal exterior body and the negative electrode metal exterior body are both box shaped (Figs. 2a and 2b), the positive electrode metal exterior body and the negative electrode metal exterior body overlap such that sides of the positive electrode metal exterior body and the negative electrode metal exterior body having the side plates face one another (1 and 2 in Fig. 1 shows that the side plates overlap and face one another), and a surface area of one of the bottom plate of the positive electrode metal exterior body or the bottom plate of the negative electrode metal exterior body is larger than another (Fig. 1 shows that the bottom plate of 1 is larger than the bottom plate of 2), and all of the side plates of the metal exterior body at which a surface area of the bottom plate is smaller are accommodated at inner sides of all of the side plates of the metal exterior body at which a surface area of the bottom plate is larger (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Ishihara modified by Inoue teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein Ishihara further teaches the battery is a solid-state battery (“Although the embodiments of the present invention were described using a flat-type non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery with a non-aqueous solvent as the non-aqueous electrolyte, similar effects can be obtained with polymer secondary batteries using a polymer electrolyte as the non-aqueous electrolyte, or with solid electrolyte secondary batteries using a solid electrolyte,” paragraph 28).
Regarding Claim 7, Ishihara modified by Inoue teaches the battery according to claim 1, wherein Ishihara teaches, at the electrode body, a plurality of bipolar electrodes are layered via solid electrolyte layers (“it is possible to use polymer thin films or solid electrolyte membranes instead of resin separators,” paragraph 28; 3 in Figs. 1a and 2a).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Inoue and in further view of Yoon (US-20160028051-A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Ishihara modified by Inoue teaches the battery according to claim 2, but not wherein the battery has, as the resin, a first resin that is interposed between the side surfaces of the electrode body and the side plates of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of 20 the bottom plate is smaller, and a second resin that is interposed between the side plates of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is smaller and the side plates of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is larger, the first resin is a resin that has a better insulating ability than the second resin, and the second resin is a resin that has better moisture permeation resistance than the first resin.
However, Yoon teaches a box-shaped battery with resin located on the periphery of the battery between the two parts of the metal exterior and resin between each metal exterior and the surface of the electrode body (Fig. 3). These are analogous to the instant application’s second resin and first resin; the examiner will refer to them as such moving forward. Therein, Yoon teaches the second resin, located on the periphery, is included solely to prevent moisture permeation [“a water permeation prevention member is attached to a sealing part formed in a pouch case to prevent water permeation from the outside,” paragraph 19; “The water permeation prevention member may include polyethylene terephthalate (PET),” paragraph 24; 170 in Fig. 3]. Yoon also teaches an inner resin layer, analogous to the instant application’s first resin. Yoon’s first resin provides a seal at the periphery and fills in the space between the metal exterior and the electrode body (“The inner resin layer 20c acts to provide sealing with another inner resin layer heat-fused by the heat and pressure applied in a state that the electrode assembly is embedded, and generally, casting polypropylene (CPP) is widely used,” paragraph 17).
Yoon teaches that the first resin made of casting polypropylene, unlike the second resin, “is susceptible to water permeation,” paragraph 18. Thus, Yoon teaches that the second resin has better moisture permeation resistance than the first resin. Yoon does not explicitly teach that the first resin, made of casting polypropylene, has better insulating ability than the second resin, made of PET. However, the instant application lists polypropylene as a material suitable for use as the first resin (paragraph 35). Thus, the first resin disclosed by Yoon is assumed to meet the claim limitation per the instant application’s specification.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery and gasket taught by Ishihara and modified by Inoue and further modify Ishihara’s gasket and its protrusion 6c to be made of two different materials in order to provide enhanced moisture permeation resistance between the side plates and enhanced insulating ability between the side plates and electrode body, as taught by Yoon.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Inoue and in further view of Kano et al. (JP-2005032507-A in IDS, see machine translation for citation purposes), hereafter referred to as Kano.
Regarding Claim 4, Ishihara modified by Inoue teaches the battery according to claim 2, but not wherein the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is larger is the negative electrode metal exterior body. However, Kano teaches a box-shaped battery of analogous design (Figs. 1 and 2). Therein, Kano teaches that the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is larger can be the negative electrode metal exterior body (“it is also possible to swap the positive and negative electrodes and place the negative electrode case as the outer case,” paragraph 68).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the battery taught by Ishihara and modified by Inoue and further modify such that the metal exterior body with the large bottom-plate surface area is the negative electrode as an alternate design choice, as taught by Kano.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishihara in view of Inoue and in further view of Isaka et al. (US-20220181729-A1), hereafter referred to simply as Isaka.
Regarding Claim 5, Ishihara modified by Inoue teaches the battery according to claim 2, wherein Ishihara teaches the resin is filled-in between the side surfaces of the electrode body and the side plates of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is smaller (6c in Fig. 1a), and between the side plates of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is smaller and the side plates of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is larger (6 in Figs. 1a and 2a).
Ishihara does not specify that a distance from the side plate of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is smaller to the side plate of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is larger is from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm, and a distance in a thickness direction of the electrode body from an end, which is at a side opposite the bottom plate, at the side plate of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is smaller to an end, which is at the side opposite the bottom plate, at the side plate of the metal exterior body at which the surface area of the bottom plate is larger is from 1.0 mm to 50.0 mm. However, Isaka teaches a battery with a casing and a resin gasket to provide a seal at the openings where terminal protrude through the metal exterior body (“The copolymer contained in the gasket equipped in the power storage assembly of the present disclosure is a melt-fabricable fluororesin,” paragraph 20; 6/63/62/61 in Figs. 2 and 4). Therein, Isaka teaches that the thickness of the gasket at its various junctures should be between 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm and 1.0 mm to 50.0 mm (“The thickness of the gasket is preferably 0.5 to 2.5 mm,” paragraph 113; “the thickness of the gasket refers to the thickness of parts contributing to the sealing property of the power storage assembly,” paragraph 114; “The thickness d and the thickness e may be different from each other as in the gasket illustrated in FIG. 4, or may be identical. In either the case of the thickness d and the thickness e being identical or the case of being different, it is preferable that the thicknesses of the both are suitably controlled. Then, in consideration of the productivity of the gasket, since that variation in the thicknesses is preferably not large,” paragraph 114; Fig. 4). More generally, Isaka teaches that controlling the thickness of the gasket is routine optimization for enhancing the sealing properties of the battery [“suitably controlling the thickness of the gasket 6, the sealing property of the power storage assembly can be further enhanced,” paragraph 113; “A gasket having a smaller thickness can suppress further more permeation of the electrolytic solution, however, in the case where the thickness of the gasket is too small, sufficient rebound resilience and sufficient sealing property (for example, liquid leakage resistance) cannot be provided,” paragraph 113].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery and gasket taught by Ishihara and modified by Inoue and further modify the gasket both between the side plates and between the side plate and electrode body to both have thicknesses within the range taught by Isaka to satisfy the two respective claim limitations. Furthermore, efforts to optimize the thickness of the respective segments of the gasket would be considered routine experimentation to enhance the sealing properties for the battery, as taught by Isaka. Please also see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/ZACHARY M DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights