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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 objected to because it presents a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan et al. (US 7,108,942 B1), hereinafter “Gan,” in view of Yun et al. (US 2025/0030035 A1), hereinafter “Yun.”
Regarding claim 1, Gan discloses a battery cell comprising:
a cell casing (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 46);
a negative electrode, in this case the anode electrode (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 32);
a positive electrode, in this case the cathode electrode (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 34; and
at least two insulating layer in a sandwich configuration, in this case the separator sheets (col. line , Fig. 2, ref. no. 36);
where said negative electrode comprises a current collector and a negative electrode material coated thereon, in this case lithium is coated on both sides of the anode current collector (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 40).
Gan does not disclose the outer vertical edge attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches a vertical edge, in this case the electrode uncoated portion (¶ [0190], Figs 22 & 23, ref. no. 41), facing and attached directly to the cell casing, in this case the uncoated portion directly connects to the bottom of the cell can (¶ [0190], Fig. 22, ref. no. 301F). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a configuration would have reduced inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]), thereby facilitating improve battery operation. Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 80% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 80% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 2, Gan does not disclose the outer vertical edge attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches a vertical edge, in this case the electrode uncoated portion (¶ [0190], Figs 22 & 23, ref. no. 41), facing and attached directly to the cell casing, in this case the uncoated portion directly connects to the bottom of the cell can (¶ [0190], Fig. 22, ref. no. 301F). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a configuration would have reduced inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]), thereby facilitating improve battery operation.
Regarding claim 4, Gan does not disclose that at least 90% of the vertical edge’s length is attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches reducing inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 90% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 90% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 5, Gan does not disclose that at least 95% of the vertical edge’s length is attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches reducing inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 95% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 95% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 6, Gan does not disclose that at least 99% of the vertical edge’s length is attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches reducing inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 99% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 99% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 9, Gan does not specify a cylindrical battery cell. However, Yun teaches a cylindrical cell (e.g., ¶ [0002]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have selected the appropriate shape of the battery cell for the application to which it would be applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the cell cylindrical.
Regarding claim 10, Gan does not specify a vehicle. However, Yun teaches a vehicle (¶ [0002]). It is well-known that vehicles require batteries for electrical power. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have installed the battery within a vehicle.
Regarding claim 11, Gan discloses a battery cell comprising:
providing a cell casing (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 46);
providing a negative electrode, in this case the anode electrode (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 32);
providing a positive electrode, in this case the cathode electrode (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 34; and
providing at least two insulating layer in a sandwich configuration, in this case the separator sheets (col. line , Fig. 2, ref. no. 36);
where said negative electrode comprises a current collector and a negative electrode material coated thereon, in this case lithium is coated on both sides of the anode current collector (col. 4, lines 39-51, Fig. 2, ref. no. 40).
Gan does not disclose the outer vertical edge attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches a vertical edge, in this case the electrode uncoated portion (¶ [0190], Figs 22 & 23, ref. no. 41), facing and attached directly to the cell casing, in this case the uncoated portion directly connects to the bottom of the cell can (¶ [0190], Fig. 22, ref. no. 301F). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a configuration would have reduced inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]), thereby facilitating improve battery operation. Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 80% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 80% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 12, Gan further discloses arranging the electrode assembly to form a rolled-up sandwich configuration before placing the assembly into the cell casing, in this case the jellyroll electrode assembly is contacted with the inner casing sidewall (col. 4, lines 52-61).
Regarding claim 14, Gan does not disclose that at least 90% of the vertical edge’s length is attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches reducing inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 90% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 90% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 15, Gan does not disclose that at least 95% of the vertical edge’s length is attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches reducing inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 95% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 95% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 16, Gan does not disclose that at least 99% of the vertical edge’s length is attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches reducing inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]). Furthermore, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that connecting at least 99% of the length of the vertical edge would have further maximized the number of electrical paths, in turn reducing internal resistance and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a vertical edge with at least 99% of its length attached to the cell casing in order to have facilitated improved battery performance.
Regarding claim 17, Gan does not disclose the outer vertical edge attached to the cell casing. However, Yun teaches a vertical edge, in this case the electrode uncoated portion (¶ [0190], Figs 22 & 23, ref. no. 41), facing and attached directly to the cell casing, in this case the uncoated portion directly connects to the bottom of the cell can (¶ [0190], Fig. 22, ref. no. 301F). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such a configuration would have reduced inner resistance by providing a large number of current paths (¶ [0191]), thereby facilitating improve battery operation.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan and Yun as applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2020/0014031 A1), hereinafter “Oh.”
Regarding claim 3, Gan does not disclose the reinforced portion. However, Oh teaches including reinforcing the current collector (¶ [0037], Fig. 2, ref. no. 110) with a distortion-preventing layer (¶ [0037], Fig. 2, ref. no. 130). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a reinforcement would have prevented distortion or curling of the current collector and electrode (see ¶ [0037]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the reinforced portion in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 18, Gan does not disclose the reinforced portion. However, Oh teaches including reinforcing the current collector (¶ [0037], Fig. 2, ref. no. 110) with a distortion-preventing layer (¶ [0037], Fig. 2, ref. no. 130). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a reinforcement would have prevented distortion or curling of the current collector and electrode (see ¶ [0037]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided the reinforced portion in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan and Yun as applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0186659 A1), hereinafter “Lee.”
Regarding claim 7, Gan does not disclose the soldered portion. However, Lee teaches that solder is suitable for welding components and establishing an electrical connection (¶ [0131]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a soldered portion between the vertical edge and cell casing would have securely electrically coupled the uncoated portion to the cell casing (see ¶ [0131]), thereby facilitating battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have connected the vertical edge with the cell casing with solder in order to have facilitated battery operation.
Regarding claim 8, Gan does not disclose the soldered portion. However, Lee teaches the soldered portion as set forth in claim 7 above. Soldering materials typically possess a thermal conductivity of 17 W/m·K to 78 W/m·K as indicated in the table below.1 A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a soldered portion between the vertical edge and cell casing would have securely electrically coupled the uncoated portion to the cell casing (see ¶ [0131]), thereby facilitating battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have connected the vertical edge with the cell casing with solder in order to have facilitated battery operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
372
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Gan does not disclose the soldered portion. However, Lee teaches that solder is suitable for welding components and establishing an electrical connection (¶ [0131]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a soldered portion between the vertical edge and cell casing would have securely electrically coupled the uncoated portion to the cell casing (see ¶ [0131]), thereby facilitating battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have connected the vertical edge with the cell casing with solder in order to have facilitated battery operation.
Regarding claim 20, Gan does not disclose the soldered portion. However, Lee teaches the soldered portion as set forth in claim 7 above. Soldering materials typically possess a thermal conductivity of 17 W/m·K to 78 W/m·K as indicated in the table Above.2 A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a soldered portion between the vertical edge and cell casing would have securely electrically coupled the uncoated portion to the cell casing (see ¶ [0131]), thereby facilitating battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have connected the vertical edge with the cell casing with solder in order to have facilitated battery operation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan and Yun as applied to claim 11, above, and further in view of Shon et al. (US 2024/0186528 A1), hereinafter “Shon.”
Regarding claim 13, Gan does not disclose the stacked configuration. However, Shon teaches that a stacked electrode assembly configuration may be used in the alternative to a wound electrode assembly configuration. One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the stacked electrode assembly configuration for the rolled electrode assembly configuration would have yielded the predictable result of a functioning battery. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the stacked electrode assembly configuration for the rolled electrode assembly configuration in order to yield the predictable result of a functional battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 Available at https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2006/08/thermal-conductivity-of-solders/.
2 Available at https://www.electronics-cooling.com/2006/08/thermal-conductivity-of-solders/.
Prosecution Insights