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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Ibaragi (US-20170162836-A1) is newly applied in combination with Yamamoto (US-20220149463-A1).
Applicant has amended claims 1, 13, and 19 to provide a first and second tensile strengths. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
The material and thickness of the current collector provided by Yamamoto corresponds to a tensile strength as described in the instant specification, which provides a first tensile strength S1. Ibaragi further modifies Yamamoto to provide a tensile strength for the stainless steel metal foil, thus providing S2. The combination of Yamamoto with Ibaragi provides a S1/S2 ratio that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2 to 0.5.
Applicant submits that Yamamoto cannot provide a first tensile strength S1 under inherency. Applicant argues that Yamamoto does not disclose the grade, temper, or processing history, or other characteristics of its copper foil that may affect its mechanical strength. However, the instant specifications do not provide a grade, temper, or processing history of the current collector material. The instant specifications only provide that the current collectors are made of copper, and provide the thickness of the material, both of which Yamamoto provides. Therefore, Yamamoto provides all of the structural similarities of the current collector as in the instant specifications, and therefore Yamamoto provides a tensile strength S1 by inherency.
Applicant argues that the claimed range S1/S2 provides criticality, referring to the results provided in table 1 of the instant specification. However, firstly, comparative embodiment 1 which has a S1/S2 ratio of 0.185 has an impact passing rate of 61%, which is very close to embodiment 4 which has a S1/S2 within the claimed range at 0.5 and having an impact passing rate of 63%. That is, by the provided data, the claimed S1/S2 range of 0.2-0.5 does not provide a significant jump in improvement of impact passing rate. Moreover, the instant specifications does not define a specific metric for the impact passing rate as used in table 1. That is, impact passing rate is undefined. The instant specification only describe an impact test, which discuses that “observation was performed for 6 h.” There is no description as to what specific observations were performed, or if any particular values were measured. Furthermore, the new combination of Yamamoto with Ibaragi provides a S1/S2 range that closely overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2-0.5. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
Applicant’s arguments regarding motivation to combine Yamamoto and Frohlich are moot because Frohlich is no longer used as a reference.
Applicant argues that the office action provides inconsistent mapping of the claimed electrode structures. In the rejection below, the mapping of the electrodes to the claims are clarified. The at least one inner electrode plate is the at least one negative electrodes that are positioned in the stacked structure, which also have a thickness of 10 μm. The two outer electrode plates are also negative electrodes with a thickness of 10 μm as provided by Yamamoto. Therefore, regarding claims 3-4 and 9, the same material with the same thicknesses would have the same tensile strength and elongation properties.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not provide the claimed elongation ratios. However, as the same regarding claim 1, modified Yamamoto provides that the material and thickness of the first current collector is the same as that provided in the instant specifications, and the material and material property of tensile strength of the metal layer in the packaging is also the same as that provided in the instant specification. Moreover, the material property of elongation of a material has a inverse relationship with the tensile strength of the material. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting property of the two materials would correspond with the claimed ratio between a first elongation δ1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second elongation δ2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ δ1/δ2 ≤ 0.5. As above regarding the inherency of claim 1, modified Yamamoto provides the same material and thickness of the structure as claimed and described in the instant specification. As before, the instant specifications do not provide a grade, temper, or processing history of the current collector material. The instant specifications only provide that the current collectors are made of copper, and provide the thickness of the material, both of which modified Yamamoto provides. Therefore, modified Yamamoto provides all of the structural similarities of the current collector as in the instant specifications, and therefore Yamamoto provides a elongation ratio as claimed by inherency.
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(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US-20220149463-A1), and in further view of Ibaragi (US-20170162836-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly and a packaging bag (see e.g., Yamamoto; figs. 1-2, [0324]-[0328] regarding example 1 with the outer packaging film), the electrode assembly being contained in the packaging bag (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 2, [0088], regarding outer packaging 10), the electrode assembly comprising first electrode plates and second electrode plates mutually stacked in a first direction (see e.g., Yamamoto; figs. 1-2, [0077], which shows the electrode assembly comprises of a plurality of layered electrodes, and [0308]-[0320] regarding examples such as example 1 of a layered electrode body, [0319] wherein the first electrode plates may be the negative electrode and the second electrode plates may be the positive electrodes), and separators disposed between the first electrode plates and the second electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], regarding the separators disposed between electrode layers), and each of the first electrode plates comprising a first current collector (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0204], regarding negative electrode current collector), wherein, the first electrode plates comprise two outer electrode plates and at least one inner electrode plate (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], regarding wherein the outermost layers on both sides were both negative electrodes with negative electrode terminals which correspond to two outer electrode plates, and there are negative electrodes positioned inside the stack which correspond with at least one inner electrode plate); in the first direction, the two outer electrode plates are disposed on two outermost sides of the electrode assembly respectively (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319]), the at least one inner electrode plate is disposed between the two outer electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319]), and the second electrode plates are disposed between the two outer electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], wherein the positive electrode are stacked inside); and the packaging bag comprises a metal layer (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 3, [0017], [0326], regarding the metal layer 12).
Yamamoto discloses wherein the metal layer in the packaging layer is preferably steel (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0175]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stacked electrode body and copper foil current collector, such as provided in example 1, to have a stainless steel foil as the metal packaging layer as disclosed by Yamamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent water vapor from infiltrating the interior of the lithium-ion battery from the outside (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0174]).
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a ratio between a first tensile strength S1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second tensile strength S2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.5.
The instant specifications discloses in tables 1-3 that the current collector made of copper and having a thickness of 5-20 μm has a tensile strength of 171-425 N/mm2. Yamamoto discloses that the negative electrode may have a current collector of 10 μm thick copper foil (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0310]). Therefore, because the material and thickness are the same, the current collector disclosed by Yamamoto necessarily has a tensile strength within the range of 171-425 N/mm2.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the tensile strength S2 of the steel packaging layer. However, Ibaragi discloses a stainless steel packaging layer for a power storage device container wherein the tensile strength of the steel foil is 200-1200 MPa (see e.g., Ibaragi; [0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the steel packaging layer of Yamamoto with a tensile strength within a range of 200-1200 MPa as disclosed by Ibaragi, such that a ratio between a first tensile strength S1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second tensile strength S2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.5 as claimed in order to provide sufficient strength and have good handling (see e.g., Ibaragi; [0111]). A thickness of 10 μm of the copper foil would further fall within a tensile strength of 254-340 N/mm2 or MPa as shown in embodiments 2-3 of table 1 which have thicknesses of 8 μm and 16 μm of the instant specifications. If the tensile strength S1 of the copper foil of 10 μm were about 300 MPa, a tensile strength of S2 selected within a range of 600-1200 MPa would result in a S1/S2 ratio of 0.25-0.5, which matches the claimed range of 0.2-0.5. If the tensile strength S1 of the copper foil of 10 μm is to be closer to the tensile strength of embodiment 2 of the instant specification of 254 N/mm2, which has a close thickness of 8 μm, a selection of the steel foil of tensile strengths in a range of 500-1200 MPa results in a S1/S2 ratio of about 0.2-0.5.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the tensile strength S1/S2 overlaps with the claimed range of 0.3 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.4 (see above regarding claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Modified Yamamoto does not provide that there is a strength measurement of the material that is different from the first strength. That is, the first current collector provided by modified Yamamoto is a copper current collector with uniform thickness, so a first tensile strength at a point along the current collector and a third tensile strength at a different point along the current collector are the same. Therefore, modified Yamamoto provides that S1=S3, which corresponds with the claimed a ratio between the first tensile strength S1 and a third tensile strength S3 of the first current collector in the at least one inner electrode plate satisfies: 1 ≤ S1/S3 ≤ 1.5.
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 3, wherein 1 ≤ S1/S3 ≤ 1.2 (see above regarding claim 3).
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. As above regarding claim 1, modified Yamamoto provides that the material and thickness of the first current collector is the same as that provided in the instant specifications, and the material and material property of tensile strength of the metal layer in the packaging is also the same as that provided in the instant specification. Moreover, the material property of elongation of a material has a inverse relationship with the tensile strength of the material. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting property of the two materials would correspond with the claimed ratio between a first elongation δ1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second elongation δ2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ δ1/δ2 ≤ 0.5.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 5. As above regarding claim 5, modified Yamamoto provides that the material and thickness of the first current collector is the same as that provided in the instant specifications, and the material and material property of tensile strength of the metal layer in the packaging is also the same as that provided in the instant specification. Moreover, the material property of elongation of a material has a inverse relationship with the tensile strength of the material. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting property of the two materials would correspond with the claimed ratio between a first elongation δ1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second elongation δ2 of the metal layer satisfies: wherein 0.3 ≤ δ1/δ2 ≤ 0.4.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 5. Yamamoto does not provide that there is an elongation of the current collector material that is different from a first elongation. That is, the first current collector provided by modified Yamamoto is a copper current collector with uniform thickness, so a first elongation at a point along the current collector and a third elongation at a different point along the current collector are the same. Therefore, modified Yamamoto provides δ1= δ3, which corresponds with the claimed ratio between the first elongation δ1 and a third elongation δ3 of the first current collector in the at least one inner electrode plate satisfies: 1 ≤ δ1/δ3 ≤ 1.5.
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 7, wherein 1 ≤ δ1/δ3 ≤ 1.2 (see above regarding claim 7).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1. Yamamoto does not provide that a thickness d1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates is different from a second thickness d2 of the first current collector in the at least one inner electrode plate. That is, Yamamoto provides d1=d2, which corresponds with the claimed relationship between a first thickness d1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates, and a second thickness d2 of the first current collector in the at least one inner electrode plate satisfies: d2 ≤ d1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the first current collector is made of copper (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0310]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the metal layer is made of steel (see above regarding claim 1, wherein the embodiment of Yamamoto is modified by the disclosure of Yamamoto to provide a steel metal layer in the packaging layer).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode plate further comprises a first active material layer disposed on the first current collector (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0309]-[0310], regarding the example wherein negative electrode slurry was coated on the current collector); in the two outer electrode plates, the first active material layer is applied on a surface of the first current collector facing the at least one inner electrode plate (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0309]-[0310], regarding the coating on the current collector on both sides, one side which may face the at least one inner electrode plate that is the positive electrode); and in the at least one inner electrode plate, the first active material layers are applied on two surfaces of the first current collector, the two surfaces being opposite to each other in the first direction (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0309]-[0313], regarding the coating on both sides of the negative current collector, which would be sandwiched with the positive electrode and opposite to each other in the direction of stacking, corresponding to a first direction).
Regarding claim 13, Yamamoto discloses a battery comprising a battery cell, wherein the battery cell comprises an electrode assembly and a packaging bag (see e.g., Yamamoto; figs. 1-2, [0324]-[0328] regarding example 1 with the outer packaging film), the electrode assembly being contained in the packaging bag (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 2, [0088], regarding outer packaging 10), the electrode assembly comprising first electrode plates and second electrode plates mutually stacked in a first direction (see e.g., Yamamoto; figs. 1-2, [0077], which shows the electrode assembly comprises of a plurality of layered electrodes, and [0308]-[0320] regarding examples such as example 1 of a layered electrode body, [0319] wherein the first electrode plates may be the negative electrode and the second electrode plates may be the positive electrodes), and separators disposed between the first electrode plates and the second electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], regarding the separators disposed between electrode layers), and each of the first electrode plates comprising a first current collector (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0204], regarding negative electrode current collector),
the first electrode plates comprise two outer electrode plates and at least one inner electrode plate (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], regarding wherein the outermost layers on both sides were both negative electrodes with negative electrode terminals which correspond to two outer electrode plates, and there are negative electrodes positioned inside the stack which correspond with at least one inner electrode plate); in the first direction, the two outer electrode plates are disposed on two outermost sides of the electrode assembly respectively (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319]), the at least one inner electrode plate is disposed between the two outer electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319]), and the second electrode plates are disposed between the two outer electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], wherein the positive electrode are stacked inside); and
the packaging bag comprises a metal layer (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 3, [0017], [0326], regarding the metal layer 12).
Yamamoto discloses wherein the metal layer in the packaging layer is preferably steel (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0175]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stacked electrode body and copper foil current collector, such as provided in example 1, to have a stainless steel foil as the metal packaging layer as disclosed by Yamamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent water vapor from infiltrating the interior of the lithium-ion battery from the outside (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0174]).
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a ratio between a first tensile strength S1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second tensile strength S2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.5.
The instant specifications discloses in tables 1-3 that the current collector made of copper and having a thickness of 5-20 μm has a tensile strength of 171-425 N/mm2. Yamamoto discloses that the negative electrode may have a current collector of 10 μm thick copper foil (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0310]). Therefore, because the material and thickness are the same, the current collector disclosed by Yamamoto necessarily has a tensile strength within the range of 171-425 N/mm2.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the tensile strength S2 of the steel packaging layer. However, Ibaragi discloses a stainless steel packaging layer for a power storage device container wherein the tensile strength of the steel foil is 200-1200 MPa (see e.g., Ibaragi; [0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the steel packaging layer of Yamamoto with a tensile strength within a range of 200-1200 MPa as disclosed by Ibaragi, such that a ratio between a first tensile strength S1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second tensile strength S2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.5 as claimed in order to provide sufficient strength and have good handling (see e.g., Ibaragi; [0111]). A thickness of 10 μm of the copper foil would further fall within a tensile strength of 254-340 N/mm2 or MPa as shown in embodiments 2-3 of table 1 which have thicknesses of 8 μm and 16 μm of the instant specifications. If the tensile strength S1 of the copper foil of 10 μm were about 300 MPa, a tensile strength of S2 selected within a range of 600-1200 MPa would result in a S1/S2 ratio of 0.25-0.5, which matches the claimed range of 0.2-0.5. If the tensile strength S1 of the copper foil of 10 μm is to be closer to the tensile strength of embodiment 2 of the instant specification of 254 N/mm2, which has a close thickness of 8 μm, a selection of the steel foil of tensile strengths in a range of 500-1200 MPa results in a S1/S2 ratio of about 0.2-0.5.
Regarding claim 14, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery according to claim 13, wherein 0.3 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.4 (see above regarding claim 13).
Regarding claim 15, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery according to claim 13. Modified Yamamoto does not provide that there is a strength measurement of the material that is different from the first strength. That is, the first current collector provided by modified Yamamoto is a copper current collector with uniform thickness, so a first tensile strength at a point along the current collector and a third tensile strength at a different point along the current collector are the same. Therefore, modified Yamamoto provides that S1=S3, which corresponds with the claimed a ratio between the first tensile strength S1 and a third tensile strength S3 of the first current collector in the at least one inner electrode plate satisfies: 1 ≤ S1/S3 ≤ 1.5.
Regarding claim 16, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery according to claim 15, wherein 1 ≤ S1/S3 ≤ 1.2 (see above regarding claim 15).
Regarding claim 17, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery according to claim 13. As above regarding claim 13, modified Yamamoto provides that the material and thickness of the first current collector is the same as that provided in the instant specifications, and the material and material property of tensile strength of the metal layer in the packaging is also the same as that provided in the instant specification. Moreover, the material property of elongation of a material has a inverse relationship with the tensile strength of the material. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the resulting property of the two materials would correspond with the claimed ratio between a first elongation δ1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second elongation δ2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ δ1/δ2 ≤ 0.5.
MPEP 2112 I. states ‘“[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.’
Regarding claim 18, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery according to claim 17, wherein 0.3 ≤ δ1/δ2 ≤ 0.4 (see above regarding claim 17).
Regarding claim 19, Yamamoto discloses an electric device comprising a battery (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0308], figs. 1-2), wherein the battery cell comprises an electrode assembly and a packaging bag (see e.g., Yamamoto; figs. 1-2, [0324]-[0328] regarding example 1 with the outer packaging film), the electrode assembly being contained in the packaging bag (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 2, [0088], regarding outer packaging 10), the electrode assembly comprising first electrode plates and second electrode plates mutually stacked in a first direction (see e.g., Yamamoto; figs. 1-2, [0077], which shows the electrode assembly comprises of a plurality of layered electrodes, and [0308]-[0320] regarding examples such as example 1 of a layered electrode body, [0319] wherein the first electrode plates may be the negative electrode and the second electrode plates may be the positive electrodes), and separators disposed between the first electrode plates and the second electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], regarding the separators disposed between electrode layers), and each of the first electrode plates comprising a first current collector (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0204], regarding negative electrode current collector), wherein, the first electrode plates comprise two outer electrode plates and at least one inner electrode plate (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], regarding wherein the outermost layers on both sides were both negative electrodes with negative electrode terminals which correspond to two outer electrode plates, and there are negative electrodes positioned inside the stack which correspond with at least one inner electrode plate); in the first direction, the two outer electrode plates are disposed on two outermost sides of the electrode assembly respectively (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319]), the at least one inner electrode plate is disposed between the two outer electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319]), and the second electrode plates are disposed between the two outer electrode plates (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0319], wherein the positive electrode are stacked inside); and the packaging bag comprises a metal layer (see e.g., Yamamoto; fig. 3, [0017], [0326], regarding the metal layer 12).
Yamamoto discloses wherein the metal layer in the packaging layer is preferably steel (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0175]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stacked electrode body and copper foil current collector, such as provided in example 1, to have a stainless steel foil as the metal packaging layer as disclosed by Yamamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent water vapor from infiltrating the interior of the lithium-ion battery from the outside (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0174]).
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose a ratio between a first tensile strength S1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second tensile strength S2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.5.
The instant specifications discloses in tables 1-3 that the current collector made of copper and having a thickness of 5-20 μm has a tensile strength of 171-425 N/mm2. Yamamoto discloses that the negative electrode may have a current collector of 10 μm thick copper foil (see e.g., Yamamoto; [0310]). Therefore, because the material and thickness are the same, the current collector disclosed by Yamamoto necessarily has a tensile strength within the range of 171-425 N/mm2.
Yamamoto does not explicitly disclose the tensile strength S2 of the steel packaging layer. However, Ibaragi discloses a stainless steel packaging layer for a power storage device container wherein the tensile strength of the steel foil is 200-1200 MPa (see e.g., Ibaragi; [0111]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the steel packaging layer of Yamamoto with a tensile strength within a range of 200-1200 MPa as disclosed by Ibaragi, such that a ratio between a first tensile strength S1 of the first current collector in at least one of the two outer electrode plates and a second tensile strength S2 of the metal layer satisfies: 0.2 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.5 as claimed in order to provide sufficient strength and have good handling (see e.g., Ibaragi; [0111]). A thickness of 10 μm of the copper foil would further fall within a tensile strength of 254-340 N/mm2 or MPa as shown in embodiments 2-3 of table 1 which have thicknesses of 8 μm and 16 μm of the instant specifications. If the tensile strength S1 of the copper foil of 10 μm were about 300 MPa, a tensile strength of S2 selected within a range of 600-1200 MPa would result in a S1/S2 ratio of 0.25-0.5, which matches the claimed range of 0.2-0.5. If the tensile strength S1 of the copper foil of 10 μm is to be closer to the tensile strength of embodiment 2 of the instant specification of 254 N/mm2, which has a close thickness of 8 μm, a selection of the steel foil of tensile strengths in a range of 500-1200 MPa results in a S1/S2 ratio of about 0.2-0.5.
Regarding claim 20, modified Yamamoto teaches the electric device according to claim 19, wherein 0.3 ≤ S1/S2 ≤ 0.4 (see above regarding claim 19).
Regarding claim 21, modified Yamamoto teaches the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode plates are negative electrode plates and the second electrode plates are positive electrode plates (see above regarding claim 1).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights