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 .
Claim Interpretation
The first and second direction as recited in the claims is interpreted to mean a direction (X,Y,Z) perpendicular to the crease of the folded or bent portion.
Claim 2 recites “a tab of the first electrode plate is located at an edge of the first electrode plate except for a bent portion” which is understood to mean that the tab is located at an edge and is not located in the bent portion.
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.
Claims 3-5, 8, 10, 14 and 18-19 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the tab of the first electrode plate” and “the tab of the second electrode plate” in line 1 which both lack antecedent basis in the claim. The claim is dependent on claim 1, but tabs are not introduced until claim 2.
Claim 5 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the surface of the bent portion facing away from the first electrode plate” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the surface of the inert zone” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “the edge of the second electrode plate that is provided with no tab” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites “the shell” and “the bent portion” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 19 recites “the edge of the second electrode plate that is provided with no tab” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamafuku et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019096466A) in view of Okuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2013143225A).
Regarding claim 1, Yamafuku et al. discloses a battery cell (storage element 1, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), comprising: a shell (case 3 and/or insulating member 6, Figs. 1-2 and 5); and an electrode assembly arranged in the shell (Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
779
1215
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate (first electrode 21) and a second electrode plate (second electrode 22) having an opposite polarity to the first electrode plate (para. [0027]); the first electrode plate is repeatedly folded in a first direction such that the first electrode plate comprises a plurality of first stack sections connected and stacked in sequence, and the second electrode plate is folded once in a second direction such that the second electrode plate comprises two second stack sections connected to each other, the second direction being perpendicular or parallel to the first direction (is parallel, Fig. 6 and Fig. 12) as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
836
980
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yamafuku et al. discloses the second stack sections and the first stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6).
Yamafuku et al. does not expressly disclose a bent portion of the second electrode plate is in contact with an inner wall of the shell.
However, Okuda et al. discloses a battery cell with a shell (case 20) and teaches placing bent portions (bent portions 31 and 32) in contact with the shell (para. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein a bent portion of the second electrode plate is in contact with an inner wall of the shell.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to place the bent portion in contact with the inner wall of the shell in order to allow for conductive heat transfer to keep the battery cell cool (Okuda et al., para. [0032]).
Regarding claim 2, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein a tab of the first electrode plate is located at an edge of the first electrode plate except for a bent portion; and/or (and) a tab of the second electrode plate is located at an edge of the second electrode plate except for the bent portion (Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
790
1063
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Yamafuku et al. discloses the second direction is parallel to the first direction (shown above for claim 1), the tab of the first electrode plate is located at the edge of the first electrode plate adjacent to the bent portion (Fig. 4, shown above for claim 2), and the tab of the second electrode plate is located at the edge of the second electrode plate adjacent to the bent portion (Fig. 4, shown above for claim 2).
It is noted that Yamafuku et al. does not expressly disclose the first optional limitation: “the second direction is perpendicular to the first direction, the tab of the first electrode plate is located at the edge of the first electrode plate adjacent to the bent portion, and the tab of the second electrode plate is located at the end of the second electrode plate away from the bent portion”.
Regarding claim 4, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the tab of the first electrode plate and the tab of the second electrode plate are located on the same side or on two opposite sides (same side – Fig. 4 as shown above for claim 2, all the tabs are located on the uppermost side).
Regarding claim 5, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the tab of the first electrode plate and the tab of the second electrode plate are located on the same side (Fig. 4, as shown above for claim 2), and the tab of the first electrode plate and the tab of the second electrode plate are arranged staggered in the first direction (the positive tabs 224 are arranged on the left side in the first/folding direction and the negative tabs 235 are arranged on the right side in the first/folding direction, Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
711
980
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein at least one of the two second stack sections of the second electrode plate is provided with a tab.
Regarding claim 7, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the bent portion of the second electrode plate is insulated from or electrically connected (Yamafuku et al. discloses it is insulated) to the inner wall of the shell in that Yamafuku et al. discloses the bent portion comprises a separator section (separator 25) which has an insulating property (para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the second electrode plate has an inert zone (containing no active material), the inert zone comprises the bent portion of the second electrode plate, and the inert zone is coated with no active material (the active layer 222 is not present in the bent portion, Fig. 5, para. [0050], the bent portion is part of a separator which is made from an insulating material, pars. [0053]-[0054]) as indicated below (Fig. 5):
PNG
media_image5.png
572
996
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the surface of the inert zone of the second electrode plate facing the first electrode plate is provided with an insulating material (the active layer 222 is not present on either side of the bent portion, Fig. 5, para. [0050], the bent portion is part of a separator which is made from an insulating material, pars. [0053]-[0054]) as indicated below (Fig. 5):
PNG
media_image6.png
406
810
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the first electrode plate is a negative electrode plate (para. [0027]), and the second electrode plate is a positive electrode plate (para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 16, Yamafuku et al. discloses a battery (para. 104) comprising:
a packaging box (Fig. 23); and the battery cell of claim 1 (see discussion of claim 1 above),
wherein the battery cell is arranged in the packaging box (Fig. 23) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
344
560
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18, Yamafuku et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a battery cell (storage element 1, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2), comprising: providing a first electrode plate (first electrode 21), and repeatedly folding the first electrode plate (para. [0001]) in a first direction such that the first electrode plate comprises a plurality of first stack sections connected and stacked in sequence (Fig. 12) as shown above for claim 1; providing a second electrode plate (second electrode 22) having an opposite polarity to the first electrode plate (para. [0027]), and folding the second electrode plate once in a second direction (para. [0019]) such that the second electrode plate comprises two second stack sections connected to each other (Fig. 12 and as shown above for claim 1), the second direction being perpendicular or parallel to the first direction (parallel as shown above for claim 1); inserting the second electrode plate into the first electrode plate (as indicated by arrows in Fig. 4) such that the second stack sections and the first stack sections are stacked alternately in sequence (Figs. 4-5 and 12) as shown below:
PNG
media_image8.png
832
1013
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Yamafuku et al. discloses obtaining an electrode assembly comprising the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3); and assembling the electrode assembly into the shell (Fig. 2).
Yamafuku et al. does not expressly disclose making the bent portion of the second electrode plate in contact with an inner wall of the shell.
However, Okuda et al. discloses a battery cell with a shell (case 20) and teaches placing bent portions (bent portions 31 and 32) in contact with the shell (para. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein the method includes making the bent portion of the second electrode plate in contact with an inner wall of the shell.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to place the bent portion in contact with the inner wall of the shell in order to allow for conductive heat transfer to keep the battery cell cool (Okuda et al., para. [0032]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamafuku et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019096466A) in view of Okuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2013143225A) as applied to claim 1 above and with or without Kitaoka et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP H0917441A) or Ju et al. (US 20240097177A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the surface of the bent portion of the second electrode plate facing away from the first electrode plate faces the direction of gravity in that the cell or battery could be positioned or installed such that the surface faces the direction of gravity to meet the claim limitation.
Otherwise, Kitaoka et al. discloses a battery cell having first and second electrode plates (cathode plate 1A and anode plate 1B) and Kitaoka et al. discloses folding the electrodes such that they are perpendicular and wherein a bent portion of one electrode (electrode 1A) facing from the other electrode (electrode 1B) faces the direction of gravity (Fig. 1) such as at locations circle below:
PNG
media_image9.png
711
947
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein the electrodes are folded in directions which are perpendicular to each other resulting in the surface of the bent portion of the second electrode plate which faces away from the first electrode plate facing in the direction of gravity.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to utilize perpendicular folding as an efficient manufacturing process (Kitaoka et al., para. [0015]).
Otherwise, Ju et al. discloses an electrode assembly (Abstract) having first and second electrode plates (first electrode 110 and second electrode 120, either of which may be positive or negative, para. [0046]) and Ju et al. teaches folding the electrodes such that they are perpendicular (Fig. 9) and where the assembly may be arranged such that a bent portion (non-coating portion 121 or 111) of either electrode faces the direction of gravity as indicated below:
PNG
media_image10.png
1066
1758
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein the electrodes are folded in directions which are perpendicular to each other resulting in the surface of the bent portion of the second electrode plate which faces away from the first electrode plate facing in the direction of gravity.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a known configuration for an electrode assembly.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamafuku et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019096466A) in view of Okuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2013143225A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Zhang et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 113571762A) and Song et al. (US 20110151323A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamafuku et al. does not explicitly discloses wherein the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate are/is provided with a folding guide portion.
However, Zhang et al. discloses a battery cell (para. [0001]) having first and second electrodes (unit 1 and unit 2, Fig. 3) and Zhang et al. teaches a folding guide portion (crease 102, Fig. 1, crease 202, Fig. 2).
Further, Song et al. discloses a battery with positive and negative electrodes (Abstract) and further teaches using a folding guide portion (fold lines 215, 225 and/or 225a, Fig. 2 and Fig. 8, para. [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate are/is provided with a folding guide portion, for guiding the folding of the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include a folding guide portion in order to facilitate folding such as to reduce instances of misfolding during manufacture.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 11 disclose wherein the folding guide portion comprises a crease or an indentation (Zhang et al., crease 102, Song et al., Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 13, Yamafuku et al. does not expressly disclose a folding guide.
However, Zhang et al. or Song et al. who both teach a folding guide as discussed above for claim 11, further teach the folding guide portion is perpendicular to a width direction of the electrode plate as shown below:
PNG
media_image11.png
752
1250
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein the folding guide portion is perpendicular to a width direction of the first electrode plate and/or the second electrode plate.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to place the folding guide directly along the fold resulting in the folding guide portion being perpendicular to a width direction.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamafuku et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019096466A) in view of Okuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2013143225A) as applied to claim 1 or claim 18 above and in further view of Yanagi et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2015185359A).
Regarding claim 14, Yamafuku et al. does not expressly disclose separators which are separate from the electrode plates.
However, Yanagi et al. teaches a battery cell (para. [0011]) wherein the electrode assembly comprises separators (separator 44, Fig. 11) where the separators separate from electrode plates (positive electrodes 20 and negative electrodes 30) and are turned over and enclose the edge of an electrode plate which is provided with no tab (the edges enclosed by the separator are free from tabs, the edge with tab 21a is not enclosed, Fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein the electrode assembly comprises separators, each separator separates the first electrode plate from the second electrode plate, and two separators on two opposite sides of the same second electrode plate in a thickness direction are both turned over and enclose the edge of the second electrode plate that is provided with no tab.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use separators to prevent short-circuiting and to enclose the electrode plates on edges which lack a tab in order to prevent the tab from being covered.
Regarding claim 19, Yamafuku et al. does not expressly disclose separators which are separate from the electrode plates.
However, Yanagi et al. teaches a battery cell (para. [0011]) wherein the electrode assembly comprises separators (separator 44, Fig. 11) where the separators separate electrode plates (positive electrodes 20 and negative electrodes 30) and are turned over and enclose the edge of an electrode plate which is provided with no tab (the edges enclosed by the separator are free from tabs, the edge with tab 21a is not enclosed, Fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein before the second electrode plate is folded once in the second direction, two separators are provided on two opposite sides of the second electrode plate in a thickness direction, and the two separators on the two opposite sides of the same second electrode plate in the thickness direction are both turned over and enclose the edge of the second electrode plate that is provided with no tab.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use separators to prevent short-circuiting and to enclose the electrode plates on edges which lack a tab in order to prevent the tab from being covered.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamafuku et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019096466A) in view of Okuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2013143225A) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Zhang et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed CN 113571762A).
Regarding claim 17, Yamafuku et al. in view of Okuda et al. discloses the battery of claim 16.
Yamafuku et al. does not explicitly disclose a power consuming device.
However, Okuda et al. further teaches a power consuming device comprising a body (a vehicle equipped with the power storage device, para. [0001], such as a forklift or a hybrid vehicle, para. [0017]) and a battery wherein the battery supplies electric energy for the body (para. [0017]).
Likewise, Zhang et al. discloses a battery cell (para. [0001]) having first and second electrodes (unit 1 and unit 2, Fig. 3) and Zhang et al. teaches using the battery cell in a power consuming device comprising a body (electric vehicles, para. [0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Yamafuku et al. wherein the battery is used in a power consuming device, comprising: a body; and the battery of claim 16, wherein the battery supplies electric energy for the body.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use a battery in a body for supplying energy to the body such as by powering drive wheels (hybrid or electric vehicle).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 16 and 18-19 of copending Application No. 18/242547 hereinafter “’547” in view of Okuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2013143225A).
Regarding claims 1-6, 8-15 and 18-19, the subject matter of the claims is claimed by ‘547 except that ‘547 does not claim a bent portion of the second electrode is in contact with an inner wall of the shell. However, Okuda et al. discloses a battery cell with a shell (case 20) and teaches placing bent portions (bent portions 31 and 32) in contact with the shell (para. [0032]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘547 wherein a bent portion of the second electrode is in contact with an inner wall of the shell in order to allow for conductive heat transfer away from the electrode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 7 and 16-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-8, 11, 16 and 18-19 of copending Application No. 18/242547 hereinafter “’547” in view of Okuda et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2013143225A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Yamafuku et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed JP 2019096466A).
Regarding claim 7, ‘547 does not expressly claim the limitation of claim 7 and insomuch as the electrode would not be either electrically connected to or insulated from the wall of the shell; Yamafuku et al. discloses wherein the bent portion of the second electrode plate is insulated from the inner wall of the shell in that Yamafuku et al. discloses the bent portion comprises a separator section (separator 25) which has an insulating property (para. [0053]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘547 wherein the bent portion of the second electrode plate is insulated from the inner wall of the shell.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 16, ‘547 does not claim a battery.
However, Yamafuku et al. discloses a battery cell (storage element 1, Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) for use in a battery (para. [0104]) with a packaging box (Fig. 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘547 wherein the electrode assembly and battery cell is used in a battery comprising a packaging box wherein the battery cell is arranged in the packaging box.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 17, ‘547 does not claim a power consuming device.
However, Okuda et al. further teaches a power consuming device comprising a body (a vehicle equipped with the power storage device, para. [0001], such as a forklift or a hybrid vehicle, para. [0017]) and a battery wherein the battery supplies electric energy for the body (para. [0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the claimed invention of ‘547 wherein the battery is used in a power consuming device, comprising: a body; and the battery of claim 16, wherein the battery supplies electric energy for the body.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kretschmar et al. (US 20140272537) discloses a battery cell having first and second electrode plates (electrodes 402 and 406) and teaches folding the electrodes such that they are perpendicular (Fig. 4) as shown below:
PNG
media_image12.png
596
850
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Jiang et al. (US 20150342050) teaches a system for folding and which may be used for battery cells (para. [0054]) and which comprises a crease as a folding guide (origami crease, Fig. 6, connection member 14, Fig. 7, para. [0043]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774