DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/427675, “BATTERY CELL AND BATTERY PACK”, was filed with the USPTO on 1/30/24 as the Continuation of a PCT application and claims priority from a foreign application filed on 12/1/21.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 5/27/25.
Official Notice
In order to improve the conciseness, this Office action may include instances wherein the examiner has relied on Official Notice of facts not in the record, asserting that certain limitations in one or more dependent claim are old, common knowledge or well-known expedients in the art without presenting documentary evidence in support of the assertion. The facts relied on are intended only to fill gaps which might exist in the evidentiary showing to support the ground of rejection applied to the one or more dependent claim. See MPEP 2144.03 for more information regarding USPTO policy on Official Notice.
Each reliance on Official Notice is marked in the body of this Office Action by the tag “[OFFICAL NOTICE]” so as to create a clear record as to which elements or limitations of the invention are addressed utilizing Official Notice. Additionally, a basis for the taking of Official Notice is includes in each instance so as to present science and/or technical reasoning to support the assertion.
Applicant may challenge any assertion of Official Notice. To adequately traverse such a finding, applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.
In the event that applicant adequately traverses the assertion of Official Notice, the examiner is required to provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. If the examiner adds a reference in the next Office action after applicant’s rebuttal, and the newly added reference is added only as directly corresponding evidence to support the prior common knowledge finding, and it does not result in a new issue or constitute a new ground of rejection, the Office action may be made final. If no amendments are made to the claims, the examiner must not rely on any other teachings in the reference if the rejection is made final.
If applicant does not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or applicant’s traverse is not adequate, the examiner should clearly indicate in the next Office action that the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant either failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice or that the traverse was inadequate. If the traverse was inadequate, the examiner should include an explanation as to why it was inadequate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Howard (US 2024/0097176).
Regarding claim 1, Howard teaches a battery cell (Figs. 1, 2), comprising:
a housing (illustrated as 102,104; see also Fig. 2 and paragraph [0083]); and
at least one bare cell located in an inner cavity of the housing (Fig. 1, paragraph [0058, 0083]; Fig. 37);
wherein the bare cell has at least two opposite extension ends and a middle region located between the two opposite extension ends of the bare cell, and the two opposite extension ends of the bare cell are lower than the middle region of the bare cell in a height direction (see Fig. 1 where the two ends are lower than the middle in the height direction [taken as left to right direction in Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 2, Howard remains as applied to claim 1. Howard further teaches wherein the bare cell comprises a positive electrode plate, a separator, and a negative electrode plate; the positive electrode plate, the separator, and the negative electrode plate are stacked together in sequence (paragraph [0058]); and an edge position of the bare cell in a circumferential direction extends downward in the height direction (Fig. 1; see also Fig. 4, 21 and other Figures which show other bending configurations).
Regarding claim 4, Howard remains as applied to claim 1. Howard further teaches wherein the bare cell is in an arched shape, and the housing has a shape that fits the bare cell (Fig. 1, 4, 21, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Howard remains as applied to claim 1. Howard further teaches wherein the bare cell further comprises a positive tab and a negative tab, and the positive tab and the negative tab are located at the two opposite extension ends of the bare cell respectively or located at a same extension end of the bare cell (see Fig. 2).
Claims 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Howard (US 2024/0097176).
Claims 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Howard (US 2024/0097176) and Aida (US 2012/0177986) or Horiuchi (US 2021/0210789).
Regarding claim 7-9, Howard remains as applied to claim 1 or 2. Howard further teaches wherein an electrolyte solution is disposed in the housing (paragraph [0083]), and wherein the positive electrode plate, the separator, and the negative electrode plate of the bare cell are stacked together in sequence to form a prismatic structure; and the bare cell comprises four edges in the circumferential direction, the four edges extend downward relative to the middle region of the bare cell (best seen in Fig. 4).
Howard does not explicitly teach that the at least two opposite extension ends of the bare cell are immersed in the electrolyte solution or that the at least the four edges of the bare cell are immersed in an electrolyte solution.
However, the purpose of the electrolyte solution in such a battery is to facilitate ion transport between the positive and negative electrode plates or active materials thereof [OFFICIAL NOTICE]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to fill the battery housing with the electrolyte solution, such that the ends and edges of the electrodes are immersed in the electrolyte solution, so that no capacity is lost by inactive electrode portions that are not immersed with electrolyte.
Claim 9 further requires that the bare cel comprises a circular edge on its periphery, which is different from Howard which teaches a periphery comprised of straight edges for the cell (see Figs. 3-5 which teach rectangular type circumferential perimeters for the batteries, having straight edges instead of circular edge).
However, a skilled artisan at the time of invention would have found it to be a matter of obvious design choice to create the cell to have a round periphery rather than a straight edged periphery. For example, in the battery art, Aida teaches that batteries may be configured to have square-like perimeter, elongated rectangular perimeter, or circular perimeter as obvious variants (Figs. 5-7 and paragraph [0134, 0157-0158, 166]; paragraph [0150] clarifies that the teachings of Aida are pertinent to the battery art, such as for lithium-ion batteries). Alternatively, in the battery art, Horiuchi teaches that the plates of a battery may be made rectangular or circular among other shapes (paragraphs [0026]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to configure the battery of Howard such that the downwardly extending edge is a circular edge, as circular batteries are a known alternative to the rectangular type batteries generally illustrated by Howard.
Claims 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Howard (US 2024/0097176) and Maeng (US 2010/0316905).
Regarding claim 10, Howard remains as applied to claim 1. Howard does not appear to teach wherein the housing comprises a housing body and an end cap, and the end cap fits and covers an opening of the housing body to isolate an internal environment of the battery cell from components in an external environment, and wherein a pressure relief mechanism is further disposed on the end cap and configured to release an internal pressure when the internal pressure or an internal temperature of the battery cell reaches a threshold.
In the battery art, Maeng teaches a battery comprising a housing wherein the housing comprises a housing body and an end cap, and the end cap fits and covers an opening of the housing body to isolate an internal environment of the battery cell from components in an external environment, and wherein a pressure relief mechanism is further disposed on the end cap and configured to release an internal pressure when the internal pressure or an internal temperature of the battery cell reaches a threshold for the benefit of improving the safety of the battery (Fig. 1, paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the housing of Howard such that the housing comprises a housing body and an end cap, and the end cap fits and covers an opening of the housing body to isolate an internal environment of the battery cell from components in an external environment, and wherein a pressure relief mechanism is further disposed on the end cap and configured to release an internal pressure when the internal pressure or an internal temperature of the battery cell reaches a threshold for the benefit of improving the safety of the battery as taught by Maeng.
Claims 12, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Howard (US 2024/0097176), Ohmura (US 2021/0098816) and Howard’905 (USP 11688905).
Regarding claim 12, 14 and 16, Howard remains as applied to claim 1. Howard teaches a curved battery cell (Fig. 1), but does not appear to teach the curved batteries stacked together in the height direction to form a stack, the stack further constrained between two constraint portions that fit the shape of the battery cells.
In the battery art, Ohmura teaches that it is convention to stack individual battery cells in the height direction thereby forming a stack, and to a stack and provide end plates on the ends of the stack to apply a predetermined load to the stack and/or restrain the stack (paragraphs [0003, 0008]; Fig. 1A,1B).
In the battery art, Howard’905 further teaches that the curved battery may be provided with constraint portions having a curved shape to match a curved battery on one or both sides of the curved battery portion for the purpose of resisting a tendence of the curved battery to flatten (Figs. 8-11, especially Fig. 10; c7:27-c9:21).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to stack at least two of the Howard battery cells together to form a stack, and to further provide constraining endplates on the stack, as taught by Ohmura, for the benefit of providing a battery pack having increased capacity and output compared to only a single battery. Moreover, since the battery cells are individually curved, it would have been obvious to utilize matching curved constraint portions for the benefit of maintaining the curved shape of the battery cells as taught by Howard’905.
As to claim 14 and 16, the “extension direction” of the battery cells may be taken as one of the long directions of the battery. Therefore, the “direction perpendicular to an extension direction” may be the same as the height direction, thus the battery cells are stacked in the direction perpendicular to the extension direction and in the height direction [which may be the same direction], and the claims are taught as previously described with respect to claim 12,
Claims 13, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Howard (US 2024/0097176), Ohmura (US 2021/0098816) and Howard’905 (USP 11688905) and Kim (US 2022/0149485).
Regarding claim 13, 15 and 17, Howard remains as applied to claim 12, 14 or 16. The cited art teaches a stack of battery cells, but does not expressly teach connection of positive electrode post and negative electrode post of adjacent cells by a current collecting plate to connect the adjacent battery cells in series.
In the battery art Kim teaches that a battery stack may be connected in a series connection by use of current collecting plates [bus bars] (paragraph [0006]; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a series connection by connecting opposite posts of adjacent batteries as taught by Kim, since this is the basic electric circuit design.
Claims 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hu (US 2021/0159562).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches a battery cell (Fig. 1-4), comprising:
a housing (items 10,14); and
at least one bare cell (item 12) located in an inner cavity of the housing;
wherein the bare cell has at least two opposite extension ends and a middle region located between the two opposite extension ends of the bare cell, and the two opposite extension ends of the bare cell are lower than the middle region of the bare cell in a height direction (see Fig. 2 where the two ends are lower than the middle in the height direction [taken as top to bottom direction in Fig. 2]) .
Regarding claim 3, Hu remains as applied to claim 1. Hu further teaches wherein the bare cell comprises a positive electrode plate, a separator, and a negative electrode plate; the positive electrode plate, the separator, and the negative electrode plate are wound together; and two ends in a direction perpendicular to a winding direction of the bare cell are the two extension ends (paragraphs [0048-0049; Figs. 2-4 with Figs. 11, 12 clarifying that the tabs extend parallel to the axis of winding, thus the curvature of Figs. 2-4 provides the lowered ends having the required orientation).
Claims 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Slocum (US 2015/0140371).
Regarding claim 1, Slocum teaches a battery cell (Fig. 1-2), comprising:
a housing (items 11,12); and
at least one bare cell (items 35 and 45 are each stacks comprised of multiple cells) located in an inner cavity of the housing (see Figs. 1f, 1g);
wherein the bare cell has at least two opposite extension ends and a middle region located between the two opposite extension ends of the bare cell, and the two opposite extension ends of the bare cell are lower than the middle region of the bare cell in a height direction (e.g. Fig. 2c where the two ends are lower than the middle in the height direction [taken as bottom left to top right direction in Fig. 2c]) .
Regarding claim 5, Slocum remains as applied to claim 1. Slocum further teaches wherein the battery cell comprises at least two bare cells disposed in the housing, and the at least two bare cells are connected in parallel (paragraph [0076]).
Claims 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over the combination of Slocum (US 2015/0140371) and Maeng (US 2010/0316905)).
Regarding claim 10, Slocum remains as applied to claim 1. Slocum does not appear to teach wherein the housing comprises a housing body and an end cap, and the end cap fits and covers an opening of the housing body to isolate an internal environment of the battery cell from components in an external environment, and wherein a pressure relief mechanism is further disposed on the end cap and configured to release an internal pressure when the internal pressure or an internal temperature of the battery cell reaches a threshold.
In the battery art, Maeng teaches a battery comprising a housing wherein the housing comprises a housing body and an end cap, and the end cap fits and covers an opening of the housing body to isolate an internal environment of the battery cell from components in an external environment, and wherein a pressure relief mechanism is further disposed on the end cap and configured to release an internal pressure when the internal pressure or an internal temperature of the battery cell reaches a threshold for the benefit of improving the safety of the battery (Fig. 1, paragraph [0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the housing of Slocum such that the housing comprises a housing body and an end cap, and the end cap fits and covers an opening of the housing body to isolate an internal environment of the battery cell from components in an external environment, and wherein a pressure relief mechanism is further disposed on the end cap and configured to release an internal pressure when the internal pressure or an internal temperature of the battery cell reaches a threshold for the benefit of improving the safety of the battery as taught by Maeng.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Li (CN 105322236) battery with complex curved shape;
Lee (US 2015/0255763) curved battery for a watch;
Liu (US 2021/0408628) curved wound cell.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights