DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Storage Device with Excess Liquid Electrolyte to Prevent Lithium Deposition”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: In paragraph [0011], it should read “batteries” not “butteries”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Iguchi (US-10797355 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Iguchi teaches a lithium-ion secondary battery with a stack-type electrode body having a first and second electrode (Figure 6, column 3, lines 32-36, lines 59-64), a liquid organic electrolyte (column 3, lines 24-25), and a case that accommodates both the electrode body and electrolyte (Figure 6, 101) with lithium metal ions that move to generate electrical flow (column 6, lines 49-56). It teaches a plurality of electrode tabs forming a group that protrude from both the ends (Figure 6, column 3, lines 59-64) and a case with two pairs of two opposing walls extending from the bottom (Figure 6, 102), and an opening opposite the bottom that is sealed with a sealing plate (Figure 6, 103). Iguchi also teaches an arrangement of the electrode tab groups at the sides of two second sidewalls and a liquid level of excess electrolyte present between case and electrode body that is located closer to the sealing plate than a portion of the first electrode tab group that is closest to the bottom wall (Figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Iguchi teaches all elements of claim 1 and teaches five electrolyte levels, all which shows the level reaches less than half the height of the exterior container or less (Figures 1-5, example 1, comparative examples 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, Iguchi teaches all elements of claim 1 and provides description of a portion of the electrode tab being located closer to the bottom wall that half the height of the electrode (Figure 6). Regarding claim 6, Iguchi teaches all elements of claim 1 and teaches uncoated, raised tabs protruding from the electrode sheets that the current collectors grab on to (Figure 6.).
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, 3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Fujii (US-20140014419-A1) in view of Iguchi (US-10797355 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fujii teaches a power storage device with an electrode body having a first and second electrode (Figure 2A, 2B, 2C 34, paragraph [0051]), a liquid electrolyte (paragraph [0051]), and a case that accommodates both the electrode body and electrolyte (Figure 5, paragraph [0010]) with metal ions that move to generate electrical flow (paragraph [0051]). It teaches a plurality of electrode tabs forming a group that protrude from both the ends (Figures 2C and 6, paragraph [0053]) and a case with two pairs of two opposing walls extending from the bottom (1a), and an opening opposite the bottom that is sealed with a sealing plate (1b). Fujii also teaches an arrangement of the electrode tab groups at the sides of the two second sidewalls and a liquid level of excess electrolyte present between case and electrode body that is located closer to the sealing plate than a portion of the first electrode tab group that is closest to the bottom wall (Figure 5, paragraph [0081-0082]). Fujii does not specifically teach the electrolyte is organic nor that the metal ion used is lithium.
Iguchi teaches a stack electrode lithium-ion battery with tabs and varying levels of aprotic organic electrolyte at varying states of charge.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have could have substituted one known element for another and modified the design of Fujii to substitute the generic electrolyte and metal ion for the teachings of Iguchi’s lithium ion and aprotic organic electrolyte to obtain the predictable result of a working battery. (MPEP2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 3, Fujii modified with Iguchi teaches all elements of claim 1 and states electrolyte level reaches roughly half the height of the exterior container or less (paragraph [0051], Figure 5).
Iguchi teaches a stack electrode battery with tabs and varying levels electrolyte at varying states of charge, including example 1, which shows no electrolyte touching the electrode tabs, only the separators at the lowest tested SOC of 10% and the highest SOC of 85% (Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the design of Fujii to incorporate the teachings of Iguchi to follow the design incentive of “improved in resistance against precipitation of Li by suppression of variation in resistance of an electrode and improved in high-rate performance by suppression of dry-up or change in concentration of salt of an electrolyte solution in an electrode array” for the purposed as stated by Iguchi (column 1, lines 56-61).
Regarding claim 5, Fujii modified with Iguchi teaches all elements of claim 1 and provides description of a portion of the electrode tab being located closer to the bottom wall that half the height of the electrode ([0051], Figure 5). Regarding claim 6, Fujii modified with Iguchi teaches all elements of claim 1 and teaches uncoated, raised tabs protruding from the electrode sheets that the current collectors grab on to (paragraph [0053], Figure 6.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (US-20140014419-A1) and further in view of Iguchi (US-10797355 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Choo (WO-2018016773-A1).
Regarding claim 2, Fujii modified with Iguchi and teaches all the elements of claim 1, but fails to teach the explicit ratio of the length of electrode tab group to the length of the electrode being 0.1 to 0.5.
Choo teaches a wound electrode with an uncoated tab protruding from the electrode body and a tab width that is one-fourth or less the width of the electrode body (claim 6, Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Fujii to substitute in the tab size of Choo. Whether the tab is narrow, as taught by Choo, or wide, the tab would still be functional in transporting current no matter the change in size and is thus not patentable (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iguchi (US-10797355 B2).
Regarding claim 4, Iguchi teaches a lower state of charge (SOC) ranging from 10% to 20% (Column 10, line 8 and column 4, lines 59-67-column 5, lines 1-4) where the electrolyte level is closer to the bottom of the case than a portion of the electrode tab group (Comparative Example 3, Figure 4). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the range in teachings of Iguchi to choose a SOC limit of 15% and that also has the electrolyte level closer to the bottom. (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamada (US-20220140453-A1) teaches a storage device assembly with restricted size of electrode tab and a similar construction to the presented invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Jacob Williams whose telephone number is (571)270-7712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am- 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)272-1307. 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.
/M.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 4 August 2026
Prosecution Insights