DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. Information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted February 9, 2024, has been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
4. All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1, 5, 11, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
6. Claim 1 twice recites “retainer being to ignite and expand” but this language is awkward. The limitations should recite “retainer igniting and expanding”. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 5 recites “structure” at the end of the claim but this should be “structures” since the pair is multiple plates and is previously referred to as “structures”. Appropriate correction is required.
8. Claims 11 and 19 recite “the pair of plate structures is to press the ignition device” but the use of “to press” is awkward. The limitations should recite “the pair of plate structures presses the ignition device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
10. Claim 2 recites A “a pair of opposing assembly short sides and a pair of assembly long sides” and B “a pair of opposing case short sides and a pair of case long sides” then recites C “one assembly short side and one case short side” and D “the other assembly short side and the other case short side”. Since limitations C and D are not directly linked to the previously claimed limitations A and B, the limitations C and D lack antecedent basis. The Office suggests the following amendments: C “one assembly short side of the pair of opposing assembly short sides and “one case short side of the pair of opposing case short sides and an analogous amendment for D. Please ensure that Claims 3-5 and 13 are amended in a similar way because they have analogous language. Claims 3-20 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
11. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US PG Publication 2011/0117402 in view of Park KR20050042620.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 102a comprising a positive electrode plate 112 and a negative electrode plate 113, a positive electrode current collector plate 115 electrically connected to the positive electrode plate 112, a negative electrode current collector plate 116 electrically connected to the negative electrode plate 113, a case 110 accommodating the electrode assembly 102a, the positive electrode current collector plate 115, and the negative electrode current collector plate 116, and in interpretation A, Kim discloses positive electrode retainer 401 (para 0072) in a gap between the positive electrode current collector plate 15 and the case 110 and a negative electrode retainer 402 in a gap between the negative electrode current collector plate 16 and the case 110 (the skilled artisan would understand that 401 would extend across the length of the electrode assembly 102b to the opposing end, opposite the end shown in Fig. 4, where 116 is disposed and would have a configuration analogous to that of 401 shown in Fig. 4) (see entire disclosure and especially Figs 2-6B; paras 0044-0051, 0059-0075).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
470
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In an alternative interpretation B, Kim teaches a bottom retainer 400 in a gap between an assembly bottom of the electrode assembly and a case bottom of the battery case 110 but fails to specifically disclose positive and negative electrode retainers in gaps between the respective positive and negative current collector plates and the case, and fails to specifically disclose for either interpretation A or B, wherein the positive and negative electrode retainers are capable of igniting and expanding upon external impact.
However, in the same field of endeavor of secondary battery design with support and protection between the battery assembly and case, Park discloses a secondary battery having a plate-shaped inert gas generator 4 (inspired by car airbag technology where an inert gas generator is activated by a spark to inflate an airbag, p. 9) disposed over the outside surface of an electrode assembly in a gap between the assembly and the battery case (packaging material) such that e.g. a short circuit caused by external impact (e.g. nail penetration) allows for damage of the inert gas generator 4 such that the element ignites and expands (since gas forms and the substance expands/spreads out) in order to improve safety (see entire disclosure and especially e.g. highlighted portions of pp 8-12, most especially pp 11-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Kim such that the bottom retainer is capable of igniting and expanding upon external impact, and further, obvious to include the positive and negative electrode retainers on side surfaces of the battery assembly (including current collectors) since Park teaches that this positioning is beneficial* and such that the positive and negative the retainers of Kim are capable of igniting and expanding upon external impact because Park teaches that this reactivity improves battery safety when a battery experiences potentially harmful conditions such as external impact, piercing, or short circuit. Although modified Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the positive and negative electrode retainers are positioned in a gap between the positive and negative current collector plates
PNG
media_image2.png
285
485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
*The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the electrode assembly 102 comprises a pair of opposing assembly short sides and a pair of assembly long sides connected to the pair of assembly short sides (see annotated Fig 2), the case comprises a pair of opposing case short sides and a pair of case long sides connected to the pair of case short sides (see annotated Fig 2), the positive electrode current collector is near the end of the assembly short side and case short side and the negative electrode current collector plate is near to the other assembly short side (of the respective pair) and other case short side (of the respective pair). The Office notes that the case and assembly short sides include the short end surface and a portion of the case and respectively assembly extending inward toward the middle of the case and assembly (see boxed portions in annotated Fig. 2). The positive current collector plate 115 is between the short side of the electrode assembly and the short side of the case (as would be the case with the analogous configuration of the negative electrode current collector plate).
Regarding Claim 3, given the configuration disclosed in the rejections of Claims 1-2, the skilled artisan would understand that modified Kim discloses wherein the positive electrode retainer 401 is between the positive electrode current collector plate 115 and the one case short side and the negative electrode retainer 402 is between the negative electrode current collector plate and the other case short side.
PNG
media_image3.png
528
751
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, as described in the rejection of Claim 1, Kim modified by Park discloses wherein the electrode assembly further comprises an assembly bottom connecting the pair of assembly short sides and the pair of assembly long sides, the case further comprises a case bottom connecting the pair of case short sides and the pair of case long sides, and a bottom retainer in a gap between the assembly bottom and the case bottom, the bottom retainer being able to ignite and expand upon external impact.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 5-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 5 and 13 recites wherein each of the positive electrode retainer and negative electrode retainer comprises an ignition device, a pair of plate structures outside the ignition device, one plate structure facing the electrode assembly and the other plate structure facing the case, and a gas generating agent around the ignition device inside the pair of plate structures. Park (cited above) does draw on air bag technology as a reason to form a retainer such that it ignites and expands, but adding the limitations of Claim 5 is too great of a leap in to be obvious. Fukahori JPH02186844 discloses wherein an airbag design specifically includes the following features: when impact is received by the object needing the protective benefit of the retainer/airbag, a sensor detects the impact and moves against a piezoelectric element which ignites the gas generating agent surrounding it (see highlighted portions, pp 3-5). Fukahori does not disclose the pair of plate structures surrounding the gas generating device and ignition device, per se, but given the closest prior art combination of Kim in view of Park, the skilled artisan would simply not find a reasonable way to connect the claimed paired plate structure with Kim and Park, even in view of Fukahori’s ignition device, without a specific teaching to do so. Claims 6-12 and 14-20 depend on Claims 5 and 13 and are allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang US PG Publication 2016/0133884 discloses a secondary battery having a pouch case inner layer 21/31 and an electrode assembly 25/35 and when the battery case is subject to external impact and a crack is formed in the case, the inner layer’s foaming activator material 23 forms a protective inert gas such as N2 which forms protective layer 34 to seal the inner layer 21/31 of the case to protect the battery (Figs 1-3; paras 0037-0044). The skilled artisan would not find it obvious to include the claimed retainer since this element does not “ignite” for expansion and is part of the case itself.
PNG
media_image4.png
301
416
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Park US PG Publication 2010/0021801 discloses a secondary battery having a pin in the center of the cylindrical cell wherein the pin contains a gas generating substance (e.g. a hydrazide) and the safety mechanism is activated when external impact is applied to the battery such that short circuits are created which heats the pin and activates the generation of gas using e.g. (Fig. 7; paras 0030-0033, 0043-0058, 0066, 0103). This element is not applicable to positioning between collectors and a case, and does not involve ignition/expansion.
Han KR20080064916 discloses a secondary battery with an inert gas generator 132 disposed on the electrode assembly 120 between the assembly and the inner surface of the pack case where e.g. a short circuit caused by external impact/force allows for damage of the inert gas carrier/generator to improve safety (see e.g. highlighted portions of pp 8-12). This design does not include retainer that ignites and expands.
PNG
media_image5.png
131
457
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
455
321
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Kim KR20190088802 has a retainer or shock absorbing member such as plate spring 330 to protect battery from external impact (Fig 3; para 0082) but this element is not obviously combinable with an element that ignites and expands.
Guan CN106654354 has an airbag 4 filled with nitrogen gas between the electrode assembly and the casing and when external pressure is applied, the nitrogen is released. but it’s a test bladder used to test leak-tightness and not obvious to include in a battery that has a design for ignition/expansion upon impact, per se.
PNG
media_image7.png
321
238
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Chen CN105810854 discloses a battery pack in a vehicle, where the battery pack has a collision detection unit, an airbag assembly, where the inner layer shell of the battery pack wraps the pack body, the outer layer shell is outside of the inner layer shell, and a collision detection unit is arranged between the shells and has multiple collision sensors (they indicate impact, para 0025), and where there are safety airbags that inflate via gas generators and this would protects the battery pack by restraining it (Fig 1, paras 0009-0014, 0024-0025, 0044). It is not immediately obvious that this configuration would be applicable to retaining individual electrodes in a battery (as opposed to being general protection for a whole battery pack).
Kanbe JP2002319436 also has a gas generating capsule 3 that releases inert gas into a cell when pressure in the cell gets too high (abstract, fig. 1) but this teaching does not readily link to external impact and does not have a member that retains electrodes.
DO KR20150089225 discloses a NaN3/Fe2O3 capsule inside a battery that makes N2 when the battery overheats; safety vent is thereby activated (para 0012). This teaching does not readily link to external impact and does not have a member that retains electrodes.
Chen CN202067872 discloses a battery having a trigger type security protection mechanism having crash sensor connected with an ignitor or a gas generator such that collisions sensors are installed on the battery casing and when the casing is subjected to impact, the sensors trigger the ignitor, instantly filling the battery system with nitrogen gas (generated via NaN3 and KNO3) so that the battery does not burn or explode (paras 0009, 0018-0020, 0025). However, the device is not inside the casing and there is not a retainer in a gap between either current collector and the case.
Muraoka US PG Publication 2008/0254355 discloses an expandable element 53/63 between an electrode active material and its current collector that is a shutoff element, i.e. it cuts off current when abnormal conditions arise (paras 0053-0057). This is not applicable between a casing and a current collector.
Jang US PG Publication 2024/0128556 discloses an expanding/restraining member inside a battery module that expands when heat is applied to fill empty space and e.g. plug a vent hole to prevent fire or thermal propagation (paras 0011-0025).
Sughiara US PG Publication 2024/0258663 discloses a retaining (thermally expanding) member 11 arranged between a top wall of a battery casing and the electrode assembly (Fig. 10, para 0062). There is no reason to apply more than one retainer since they use a bunch of thermal contraction members in conjunction with this retainer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA S PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3597. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6-3; Alt Fri 6-3.
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, Ula Tavares-Crockett can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/LISA S PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights