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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “bonded portion (16)” [¶ 0079]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6-8, and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawase (JP-2017183024-A).
Claim 1: Kawase ‘024 teaches an all-solid-state secondary cell {battery} (10) comprising a temporary battery body {first battery element} (7), another temporary battery body {second battery element} (7) laminated on the first battery element and electrically coupled with the first battery element [FIG. 2] in parallel [¶ 0024; FIG. 2], and a first lead terminal electrically coupled with the temporary battery bodies [¶ 0024; FIG. 2].
Kawase ‘024 further teaches the first lead terminal having a bonding material {non-contact portion} (9) that is not in contact with any of the first or second battery elements [FIG. 2]. Furthermore, a number of pits {second embossed shape} are etched onto the positive electrode current collector (1) [¶ 0029], and the bonding material (9) is plastically deformed and caught in the uneven portion of the outer surface of the positive electrode current collector (1) [¶ 0021].
It is understood that the first lead terminal as illustrated in FIG. 2 is composed of a contact element – positive electrode current collector (1) – and a non-contact element – bonding material (9). It is further understood that by having solder within the positive electrode current collector assembly as depicted in FIG. 2 that is plastically deformed during the close contact with the roughened surface of the current collector as identified in paragraph 0021, the shape of the number of pits of the positive electrode current collector would be imparted onto the solder on at least a part of a surface.
For clarity of the record, an annotation of FIG. 2 of Kawase ‘024 has been provided.
PNG
media_image1.png
833
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the first lead terminal having a positive electrode current collector {contact portion} (1) [¶ 0021], and that the first lead terminal has a second embossed shape on at least part of a surface [¶ 0015].
Claim 7: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the positive electrode current collector first embossed shape is arranged in an outer edge part of the first lead terminal [¶ 0015, 0021]. FIG. 2 shows various “outer edge parts” on which the embossing is present. An annotation of FIG. 2 is provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
833
918
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Kawase ‘024 further teaches that the bonding material (9) may be solder [¶ 0031] and that the negative electrode current collector(s) (5) are made of a metal [¶ 0013].
It further teaches the battery according further comprising: a second lead terminal electrically coupled with the first battery element; and a third lead terminal electrically coupled with the second battery element, wherein the second lead terminal, the first battery element, the first lead terminal, the second battery element, and the third lead terminal are arranged in this order in a laminating direction of the first battery element and the second battery element. See annotation of FIG. 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
833
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 11: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. It further teaches the second lead terminal having a same shape as the third lead terminal in plan view [FIG. 2].
It is understood that because both the second and third lead terminals – as identified in the annotation provided in Claim 8 – are each negative electrode current collectors (5) [¶ 0015] and are not differentially referenced in FIG. 2 (ie. 5a/5b or 5’/5”), the second and third lead terminals are the same shape and would maintain said same shape in plan view.
Claim 12: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the battery being an all-solid state secondary battery (10) [¶ 0010].
Claim 13: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the depth of the pits may be 20 µm [¶ 0029].
Claim 14: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the depth of the pits may be 2 µm [¶ 0029].
Claim 15: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the first lead terminal being between the first and second battery elements [FIG. 2]. The annotation of FIG. 2 as applied to Claims 1 & 8 is provided below for clarity.
PNG
media_image1.png
833
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 16: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the first lead terminal having a contact portion in contact with at least one of the first and second battery element [¶ 0032; FIG. 2]. The annotation of FIG. 2 as applied to Claims 1, 8, & 15 is provided below for clarity of the record.
PNG
media_image1.png
833
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase (JP-2017183024-A) as applied to claim 8 above.
Claim 9: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. It does not explicitly teach the second and third lead terminals partially overlapping in plan view. However, there are configurations of Kawase ‘024 in which the second and third lead terminals would partially overlap in plan view while still satisfying the explicitly taught embodiment of FIG. 2. An example is provided below for clarification of the record.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Kawase ‘024 to have the second and third lead terminals partially overlap through routine experimentation. For more on matters of optimization through routine experimentation, see MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
PNG
media_image3.png
965
965
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 10: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. It does not explicitly teach the second and third lead terminals not overlapping in plan view. However, there are configurations of Kawase ‘024 in which the second and third lead terminals would not overlap in plan view while still satisfying the explicitly taught embodiment of FIG. 2. An example is provided below for clarification of the record.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Kawase ‘024 to have the second and third lead terminals not overlap through routine experimentation. For more on matters of optimization through routine experimentation, see MPEP § 2144.05 (II).
PNG
media_image4.png
948
948
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawase (JP-2017183024-A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uematsu (JP-2006172773-A).
Claim 2: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches the pits may have a consistent shape and depth [¶ 0029; FIGs. 8, 9], and that the purpose of their invention is to prevent bending of used current collectors [¶ 0005].
It does not teach the number of pits {second embossed shape} being periodic in structure and repeatedly arranged at predetermined intervals.
Uematsu ‘773 teaches a thin battery and that at least one of the positive and negative electrode current collector are embossed [¶ 0008-0009]. It further teaches that these embossings may be convex or concave [¶ 0018, 0023], that the embossings are formed to have a constant shape, depth, and period [¶ 0012], and that by making embossings this way stress is more likely to be uniformly applied such that the formation of large wrinkles is prevented [¶ 0012].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify the pits of Kawase ‘024 to have a consistent period as in Uematsu ‘773 prior to the filing date of the present application in order to prevent large wrinkles from forming on the current collectors due to stress, as suggested by Uematsu and intended by Kawase.
Claim 3: Kawase ‘024 and Uematsu ‘773 teach the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above.
Kawase ‘024 does not teach the predetermined intervals being greater than or equal to a thickness of the first lead terminal.
Uematsu ‘773 teaches a presence of embossings to be at least one for any placement of two imaginary perpendicular lines [¶ 0011] and that in doing so large wrinkle formation is suppressed [¶ 0011].
It is understood that to have the minimal embossing density disclosed by Uematsu, the placement of embossings must be greater than or equal to the thickness of the positive electrode current collector the embossings are present on. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify Kawase ‘024 to have the embossing spacing/placement of Uematsu ‘773 in order to suppress large wrinkle formation, as suggested by Uematsu.
Claim 4: Kawase ‘024 teaches the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It further teaches that the applied embossing may be acute peak-valley portions [¶ 0029, FIG. 10], and that the purpose of their invention is to prevent bending of used current collectors [¶ 0005].
Kawase ‘024 does not explicitly teach the first embossed shape including a plurality of linear embossed shapes.
Uematsu ‘773 further teaches mountain lines and valley lines in a parallel and alternating arrangement [¶ 0016, 0038] and that by making embossings this way stress is more likely to be uniformly applied such that the formation of large wrinkles is prevented [¶ 0012].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art to modify the acute peak-valley portions of Kawase ‘024 to be the parallel mountain-valley arrangement of Uematsu ‘773 prior to the filing date of the present application in order to prevent large wrinkles from forming on the current collectors due to stress, as suggested by Uematsu and intended by Kawase.
Claim 5: Kawase ‘024 and Uematsu ‘773 teach the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above.
A combination of the features as identified above for the parent claim, Claim 4, would result in the linear embossed shapes extending in a direction intersecting with the outer edges of the first and second battery elements in plan view.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL G MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights