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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 02/13/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received on 02/13/2024 were reviewed and are acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 02/13/2024 was reviewed and is acceptable.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 08/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 (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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20150255772 A1) in view of Iwata et al. (US 20200335760 A1).
Regarding claim 1, modified Jung discloses a battery cell (0002) comprising an anode (0003), a cathode (0003), and a separator made of a first electrically insulating material compressed between the anode and the cathode to form an anode overlap configuration in which the cathode is recessed into the separator (0042). Jung does not disclose a separator having cracks around the edge of the cathode. Iwata teaches cracks on the surface of a layer of a separator referred to as “layer B” (0129), and Iwata teaches a separator having cracks around an edge of the cathode (0199), and a second electrically insulating material along the edge of the cathode and penetrating the cracks in the separator (0034). Jung and Iwata both pertain to an electrochemical cell. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the separator cracking as taught by Iwata, into the separator disclosed in Jung, because Iwata discloses improved heat resistance and initial battery characteristics by controlling cracks within the separator of a battery (0008). When the separator disclosed in Jung incorporates the surface cracks as taught by Iwata, the separator will necessarily have cracks around the edge of the cathode.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20150255772 A1) in view of Iwata et al. (US 20200335760 A1), as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Sato et al. (US 6589690 B1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jung discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above. Modified Jung does not disclose a battery cell of claim 1 wherein the second electrically insulating material is a gel. Sato discloses an adhesive polymer which gels in the presence of electrolyte to improve the ionic conductivity of the positive electrode (Column 21, Lines 36-48). Modified Jung and Sato both pertain to an electrochemical cell. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the adhesive polymer into the battery to inhibit the generation of internal short-circuit and to improve the safety of the battery (Column 14 Lines 1-20).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jung discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above. Modified Jung does not disclose a battery cell of claim 2 wherein the gel has a solvent with a different polarity than a binder of the separator. Sato discloses an adhesive polymer using polyvinylidene fluoride (PVdF) (0142), and a separator made of polyethylene (0067). Jung and Sato both pertain to an electrochemical cell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that PVDF is polar and polyethylene is nonpolar, thus teaching the gel having a solvent with a different polarity than the binder of the separator. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the adhesive polymer into the battery to suppress the generation of internal short-circuit (0072), and to improve the conductivity of the positive electrode (0142). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the polyethylene separator into the battery to improve the safety of the battery (0067).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (US 20150255772 A1) in view of Iwata et al. (US 20200335760 A1), as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Zhao et al. (US 20150056491 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jung discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above. Modified Jung does not disclose the battery cell of claim 1 wherein the second electrically insulating material is a resin. Zhao discloses the use of an epoxy resin as an adhesive in a composite porous separator (0024). The surfaces of a polyolefin porous substrate (0067) were coated in an epoxy resin mixture (0066). Jung and Zhao both pertain to an electrochemical cell. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to apply a resin adhesive to a separator, because the resin greatly improved the adhesiveness between the electrode plates and thereby inhibited the thermal expansion of the battery (0084).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jung discloses all of the claim limitations set forth above. Modified Jung does not disclose the battery cell of claim 1 wherein the second electrically insulating material is a resin. Zhao discloses the use of an epoxy resin as an adhesive in a composite porous separator (0024). The surfaces of a polyolefin porous substrate (0067) were coated in an epoxy resin mixture (0066). Jung and Zhao both pertain to an electrochemical cell. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant application to apply an epoxy resin adhesive to a separator, as the epoxy resin greatly improved the adhesiveness between the electrode plates and thereby inhibited the thermal expansion of the battery (0084).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE WOLFE STONE FENNELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7:30am - 5:30pm 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/G.W.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights