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
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 says, “the battery unit of any claim 1.” Examiner assumes that ‘any’ was unintentionally included. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US-20110020679-A1), hereafter referred to as Kobayashi.
Regarding Claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a battery unit (Fig. 1), comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate that have opposite polarities (38 and 39 in Figs. 2-4 and 7), and a separator separating the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate (“a wound power generation element formed by interposing a first separator in one interspace between a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate,” Abstract; 31 and 35 in Figs. 2-4, 6, and 7); and a support component, the electrode assembly being wound around an outer periphery of the support component (20 in Figs. 2-4); wherein an outer peripheral wall surface of the support component comprises a first arc surface and a second arc surface (21 and 25 in Figs. 4 and 5), a first end of the first arc surface is connected to a first end of the second arc surface, and a second end of the first arc surface is spaced apart from a second end of the second arc surface so as to form a step region on the outer peripheral wall surface, the step region being configured to accommodate at least part of the electrode assembly (“between an outer peripheral surface 23 of the inside clamp portion 21 facing radially outward of the axial line AX and an inner peripheral surface 26 of the outside clamp portion 25 facing radially inward of the axial line AX, a first clamped portion 32 located on a start end side of the first separator 31 and a second clamped portion 36 located on a start end side of the second separator 35, both portions 32 and 35 being near the fold line BP, are clamped,” paragraph 78; Figs. 3 and 4 show at least part of the electrode assembly is accommodated within the step region).
Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the battery unit of claim 1, wherein the second end of the first arc surface is spaced apart from the second end of the second arc surface in a radial direction of the support component to form the step region [“This center pin 20 includes an arc-shaped inside clamp portion 21 located relatively inside and an arc-shaped outside clamp portion 25 located radially outside of the inside clamp portion 21 relative to the axial line AX (see FIGS. 4 and 5),” paragraph 77; 21 and 25 in Figs. 4 and 5].
Regarding Claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the battery unit of claim 1, wherein a central angle corresponding to the second arc surface is in a range of 10° to 180° (21/25 in Figs. 4 and 5, where the two arc surfaces are integrally connected on one end. Thus, the exact location of the connecting ends of each arc can be defined such that they satisfy the claim).
Regarding Claim 4, Kobayashi teaches the battery unit of claim 1, wherein the first arc surface is configured as an equal- diameter arc surface, the second arc surface is configured as a variable-diameter arc surface, the first arc surface comprises a first end portion and a second end portion, the second arc surface comprises a third end portion and a fourth end portion, the first end portion and the third end portion are connected, the second end portion and the fourth end portion are spaced apart from each other, the first end portion and the third end portion have an equal diameter, and a diameter of the fourth end portion is smaller than a diameter of the second end portion (21 and 25 in Figs. 4 and 5).
Regarding Claim 8, Kobayashi teaches the battery unit of claim 1, wherein: the separator is one of two separators (“first separator 31 and a second separator 35,” paragraph 69) of the battery unit; one of the two separators, the positive electrode plate, another one the two separators, and the negative electrode plate are sequentially stacked and wound to form the electrode assembly; and winding starting ends of the two separators, a winding starting end of the positive electrode plate, and a winding starting end of the negative electrode plate are located in the step region (“winding a strip-shaped positive electrode plate 38 and a strip-shaped negative electrode plate 39 while interposing a first separator 31 and a second separator 35 therebetween,” paragraph 69; “the first separator 31, the positive electrode plate 38, the second separator 35, and the negative electrode plate 39 are laminated in this order,” paragraph 71; Figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Kobayashi teaches a power consuming device, comprising the battery unit of claim 1 (“With the recent popularization of portable electronic devices such as cellular phones, notebook-size personal computers, and video camcorders and also vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles, there is an increasing demand for batteries to be used as drive power sources of the above devices and vehicles. Those batteries include a winding type battery produced by winding a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate while interposing a separator therebetween,” paragraphs 3-4, indicating Kobayashi is clearly disclosing their battery for use within a power consuming device).
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR-20080025435-A, see machine translation), hereafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding Claim 1, Kim teaches a battery unit (“The invention provides a jelly-roll type electrode assembly manufactured using the same and a lithium secondary battery including the same,” paragraph 7), comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate that have opposite polarities, and a separator separating the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate [“a jelly-roll type electrode assembly (jelly-roll) by winding a laminated sheet having an anode/separator/cathode structure,” paragraph 7]; and a support component (“a center pin is directly fixed to a winder,” paragraph 7; 100 in Figs. 4 and 5), the electrode assembly being wound around an outer periphery of the support component (“the laminated sheet is wound onto the center pin which is rotated by the winder,” paragraph 7); wherein an outer peripheral wall surface of the support component comprises a first arc surface and a second arc surface, a first end of the first arc surface is connected to a first end of the second arc surface (Figs. 4 and 5 show two arcs that are connected at one end), and a second end of the first arc surface is spaced apart from a second end of the second arc surface so as to form a step region on the outer peripheral wall surface (Figs. 4 and 5 show that a gap exists between the two second ends to form a step region), the step region being configured to accommodate at least part of the electrode assembly [“the width between the two ends (110, 111) of the plate material into which the end of the laminated sheet (200) is inserted,” paragraph 17; 200 in Fig. 6b].
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Hong et al. (US-20150171462-A1), hereafter referred to as Hong.
Regarding Claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the battery unit of claim 4, but not wherein the second arc surface is configured as an elliptical surface. However, Hong teaches an electrode assembly that is wound. Therein, Hong teaches that the winding shape need not be circular (“the roll structure may have any of various cross-sectional shapes, e.g., an elliptical shape,” paragraph 88). Hong teaches that the benefit is that “shape of the roll structure may be designed to be accommodated in various forms of batteries,” paragraph 88.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery unit taught by Kobayashi and modify the second arc surface to have an elliptical surface in order to produce a wound electrode assembly in a non-circular shape and accommodate non-circular forms of batteries, as taught by Hong.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Takayama (JP-H0935738-A, see machine translation), hereafter referred to as Takayama.
Regarding Claim 6, Kobayashi teaches the battery unit of claim 1 wherein a diameter of the first arc surface is greater than a diameter of the second arc surface (Figs. 4 and 5 indicate that one arc surface’s diameter is greater than the other arc surface’s diameter), but not wherein the first arc surface and the second arc surface are configured as equal-diameter arc surfaces. However, Takayama teaches a battery unit with a supporting member around which an electrode assembly is wound. Therein, Takayama teaches two arc surfaces where the first arc surface and the second arc surface are configured as equal-diameter arc surfaces, and the diameter of the first arc surface is greater than a diameter of the second arc surface (1 in all 4 embodiments of Fig. 2, which shows both arc surfaces have equal-diameter surfaces, and the diameter of one arc surface is greater than the other’s diameter). Takayama teaches the purpose of the configuration: “the starting end of the electrode sheet is brought into contact with a partially exposed flat surface based on differences in diameter (width), thereby eliminating or reducing the cause of step formation,” paragraph 12. This is the same purpose for Kobayashi’s tapered configuration with differing diameters: “Consequently, the above configuration can further reduce a step occurring between the separators or substantially eliminate the step in such portion,” paragraph 24.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the battery unit taught by Kobayashi and substitute the variable-diameter arc surface with an equal-diameter surface, where the results of the simple substitution would have been predictable: reducing the step formation in the wound electrode assembly.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Kobayashi.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim teaches the battery unit of claim 1, wherein a total thickness E of the separator, the positive electrode plate, and the negative electrode plate and a depth H of the step region satisfy: 0.8 <H/E< 1.2 (because Kim teaches that the separator, positive electrode plate, and negative plate are all laminated as a single unit then tightly inserted into the step region, H≈E and H/E≈1). Kim does not teach that the separator is one of two separators of the battery unit. However, Kobayashi teaches that the separator is one of two separators (“first separator 31 and a second separator 35,” paragraph 69).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to take the winding battery unit taught by Kim and modify the electrode assembly laminate to include a second separator, as taught by Kobayashi, in order to additionally separate the electrodes as the assembly winds around the supporting member.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kobayashi.
Regarding Claim 9, Kobayashi teaches the battery unit of claim 1 but not a battery comprising said battery unit. However, duplicating the battery unit disclosed by Kobayashi to create a battery is considered an obvious design choice to increase battery capacity. Please see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B): “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN P WILKERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/JORDAN P WILKERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights