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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2: “cooling sheet body” should be “cooling sheet main body”.
Claim 6, line 4: “the anode” should be “an anode”
Claim 13, lines 3 and 7: “the each battery cell” should be “each battery cell”
Claims 14-15 are objected to because they are dependent from claim 13.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
The term “close” in claim 2, line 2, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This term renders the limitation of "one surface of the cooling sheet body is in close contact with one surface of the electrode assembly" indefinite. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this limitation as "one surface of the cooling sheet body is in contact with one surface of the electrode assembly".
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (EP 2840644 A1, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a battery cell, comprising:
a case (Fig. 2, 172, [0059]);
an electrode assembly accommodated inside the case (Fig. 2, 150, 160); and
a cooling sheet including a cooling sheet main body (Fig. 2, 180) and an extension extending from the cooling sheet main body (Fig. 2, 181),
wherein the cooling sheet main body is accommodated inside the case and is in direct contact with the electrode assembly ([0022], [0059]), and the extension of the cooling sheet is configured to protrude to an outside of the case (Fig. 2, 181).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 1, wherein one surface of the cooling sheet body is in close contact with one surface of the electrode assembly [0022].
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 1, wherein a horizontal width of the extension of the cooling sheet is smaller than that of the cooling sheet main body (Fig. 3, 181, 180).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 3, wherein the horizontal width of the extension of the cooling sheet has 10% or more to 30% or less of that of the cooling sheet main body [0028]. This falls withing the claimed range of 1/10 to 1/3.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 3, wherein the extension of the cooling sheet is disposed at a horizontal center of the cooling sheet main body (Fig. 3, 181, 180).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 1, wherein the electrode assembly includes a first electrode assembly (Fig. 2, 150) and a second electrode assembly (Fig. 2, 160), and the cooling sheet is disposed between the first electrode assembly and the second electrode assembly (Fig. 2, 180).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 9, wherein one surface of the cooling sheet main body is in close contact with one surface of the first electrode assembly, and the other surface thereof is in close contact with one surface of the second electrode assembly [0022].
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 1, wherein the case is a pouch film ([0034], pouch-shaped case).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that an area of the cooling sheet main body is greater than or equal to that of a cathode of the electrode assembly and is less than or equal to that of the anode of the electrode assembly. However, Lee teaches that the size of the cooling sheet main body is equivalent to 50 % or more the width of the electrode assembly [0027], which falls within the claimed value of 100% area coverage for the electrode assembly. This means that the cooling sheet main body area is equal to that of the cathode and anode. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F. 2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 1, wherein a surface of the cooling sheet is coated with a metal [0038], but does not specifically teach that the metal does not react with an electrolyte filled inside the case. However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cooling sheet coating so that it does not react with the electrolyte in order to not decrease the life cycle and efficiency of the cell.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Eo (US 20110256436 A1, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the battery cell of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that a sealing film is interposed between the case and the extension of the cooling sheet.
Eo, however, teaches of a battery with a cooling sheet that includes an extension portion (Abstract). Eo also teaches that a sealing film is interposed between the case and the extension of the cooling sheet (Fig. 2, 40 [0055]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Lee battery to include a sealing film between the case and the extension, as taught in Eo, in order to prevent leakage of an electrolyte solution (Eo [0009]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Lee (US 11557808 B2), hereinafter Lee 2.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a battery module to which the battery cell of claim 1 is applied, comprising: a cell stack in which the battery cells are stacked in plurality (Fig. 7, 700, [0065]), but does not specifically teach a module case accommodating the cell stack.
Lee 2, however, teaches a cell stack and a module case accommodating the cell stack (Col 3, lines 64-67).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the cell stack so it includes a module case because it is common to have a module case to protect and support the battery stack inside (Lee 2, Col. 1, lines 41-45).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. in view of Lee 2 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 10476116 B2), hereinafter Lee 3.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches the battery module of claim 12, wherein each of the plurality of battery cells is disposed so that extensions of the cooling sheets of each battery cell protrude downward (Lee Fig. 2, 181), but does not specifically teach that a thermal adhesive is applied to a lower part of the cell stack, but is locally applied around the extensions of the cooling sheets of each battery cell.
Lee 3, however, teaches of a battery module including a plurality of battery cells (Abstract). Lee 3 also teaches that a thermal adhesive is applied to a lower part of the cell stack, but is locally applied around the bottom ends of each battery cell (Fig. 7, B; Col. 15, lines 62-64).
Since the claimed extensions are located at the bottom ends of each battery cell, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the modified Lee battery module so that a thermal adhesive is applied on locally around the extensions. This is because the coupling force is reinforced by the adhesive and the heat transfer may be improved, since an air layer between the secondary battery and the cartridge may be removed or eliminated by filling the adhesive B thereby enhancing the overall cooling performance. (Lee 3, Col. 15, lines 32-40).
Regarding claim 14, further modified Lee teaches the battery module of claim 13, wherein when one of the plurality of battery cells is called a first battery cell, and the other one adjacent to the first battery cell is called a second battery cell, the thermal adhesive applied around an extension of a cooling sheet of the first battery cell and the thermal adhesive applied around an extension of a cooling sheet of the second battery cell are spaced apart from each other (Lee 3, Fig. 7, B; Fig. 5, 100; Col. 15, lines 41-44). Since the battery cells are separated by a wall, the thermal adhesives will therefore be spaced apart.
Regarding claim 15, further modified Lee teaches the battery module of claim 13, further comprising: a cooling plate disposed on the lower portion of the cell stack (Lee, Fig. 7, 610, [0066]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oh et al. (US 20240258605 A1) teaches a battery module with cooling fins disposed between the batteries, with extensions extending out of the battery cases (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights