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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al. (JP 2003288895 A) in view of Yamashita (JP 2001160501 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kamimura teaches A method for manufacturing a battery comprising ("The present invention relates to a method for producing a power generating element"; P. 0001):
first cutting of cutting a laminate at a first cutting position to form a first cut surface, the
laminate including at least one battery cell having a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer located between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer ("As a method of cutting such a laminated block, as shown in FIG. 6, it has been proposed to use a cutting blade 41 such as a rotary blade or a razor, and to cut by moving the cutting blade 41 from one side of the laminated block 58 to the other side"; P. 0004; and "is formed by sequentially stacking and integrating the positive electrode 13, electrolyte layer 17, negative electrode 16, electrolyte 17, and positive electrode 13 in this order to form a laminate 18"; P. 0017; Kamimura).
However, Kamimura is silent regarding a method that involves second cutting of cutting the laminate cut in the first cutting at a second cutting position inside the first cutting position to form a second cut surface, wherein Rz1 < W < 5Rz1 is satisfied in the second cutting, where W denotes a distance between the first cut surface and the second cut surface to be formed and Rz1 denotes a surface roughness of the first cut surface.
Yamashita teaches a method for manufacturing a battery where second cutting of cutting the laminate cut in the first cutting at a second cutting position inside the first cutting position to form a second cut surface ("In order to achieve the above-mentioned object, the laminate of the present invention is constructed by cutting a sheet consisting of an arbitrary laminate of resin and metal with a first press punch and a second press punch having a wider cutting width than the first press punch"; P. 0009; Yamashita), wherein
Yamashita further teaches choosing a width of the second cut in order to remove the fracture surface and burs created by the first cut in order to create a flat cut surface without burrs (i.e. surface with a lower surface roughness). ("The dimensional difference between the first press-punch 20 and the second press-punch 23 may be such that a width is sufficient to punch out the fracture surface 22 formed on the cut surface in the first punching"; P. 0020, and "since the fracture surface generated on the cut surface of the resin by the first press punching is punched out by the second press punching, the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained"; P. 0010; Yamashita). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure the width of the second cut was large enough to remove any surface imperfections, such as a fracture surface or excess roughness, and small enough to not remove too much of the remaining battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the second cutting operation taught by Yamashita to the first cutting operation of Kamimura in order "to prevent the ends of the metal at the cut surface of the laminate from sagging in the cutting direction, and the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained" (P. 0009; Yamashita). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to choose the distance between the first cut surface and the second cut surface (W) to provide the desired flatness of the surface area, including a range of Rz1 < W < 5Rz1, as a matter of optimization of a result effective variable (wherein the width of the 2nd cut is identified as an variable which affect the flatness which is related to surface area).
Regarding claim 2, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1. Kamimura further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the W is less than or equal to three times a thickness of the laminate ("The cutting width of the cutting edge of the die is preferably at least 1/3 the thickness of the laminated block"; P. 0014; Kamimura).
Regarding claim 3, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1.
However, Kamimura in view of Yamashita, as modified, is silent regarding a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the first cutting and the second cutting are performed continuously as a series.
Yamashita further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the first cutting and the second cutting are performed continuously as a series ("In this manner, in the first press punching, the cut surface has a shape in which the shear surface 21 and the fracture surface 22 are mixed. Next, a second press punch 23 having a cutting width about 0.1 mm wider than that of the first press punch 20 used in the first press punching is used to press punch"; P. 0020; Yamashita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the second cutting operation taught by Yamashita to the first cutting operation of Kamimura in order "to prevent the ends of the metal at the cut surface of the laminate from sagging in the cutting direction, and the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained" (P. 0009; Yamashita).
Regarding claim 4, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1, Kamimura further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery wherein when a position of the laminate is set as a reference, a first direction in which cutting of the laminate at the first cutting position proceeds ("to cut by moving the cutting blade 41 from one side of the laminated block 58 to the other side"; P. 0004; Kamimura).
However, Kamimura in view of Yamashita, as modified, is silent regarding a second direction, different than the first, in which cutting of the laminate at the second cutting position proceeds.
Yamashita further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery where there is a second direction, different than the first direction taught by Kamimura, in which cutting of the laminate at the second cutting position proceeds ("a first press punch and a second press punch having a wider cutting width than the first press punch"; P. 0009; Yamashita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the second cutting operation taught by Yamashita to the first cutting operation of Kamimura in order "to prevent the ends of the metal at the cut surface of the laminate from sagging in the cutting direction, and the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained" (P. 0009; Yamashita).
Regarding claim 5, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 4, Kamimura further teaches a first cut in a direction that is side to side ("to cut by moving the cutting blade 41 from one side of the laminated block 58 to the other side"; P. 0004; Kamimura).
However, Kamimura in view of Yamashita, as modified, is silent regarding a second cut in a second direction.
Yamashita further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the second cut is in the vertical direction, perpendicular to the first cut taught by Kamimura ("a first press punch and a second press punch having a wider cutting width than the first press punch"; P. 0009; Yamashita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the second cutting operation further taught by Yamashita to the first cutting operation of Kamimura in order "to prevent the ends of the metal at the cut surface of the laminate from sagging in the cutting direction, and the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained" (P. 0009; Yamashita).
Regarding claim 6, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 4, Kamimura further teaches cutting in a direction perpendicular to a laminating direction of the laminate ("As a method of cutting such a laminated block, as shown in FIG. 6, it has been proposed to use a cutting blade 41 such as a rotary blade or a razor, and to cut by moving the cutting blade 41 from one side of the laminated block 58 to the other side"; P. 0004; Kamimura).
Regarding claim 7, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1, Kamimura further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the at least one battery cell includes a plurality of battery cells ("is formed by sequentially stacking and integrating the positive electrode 13, electrolyte layer 17, negative electrode 16, electrolyte 17, and positive electrode 13 in this order to form a laminate 18"; P. 0017; Kamimura), and the plurality of battery cells are laminated ("is formed by sequentially stacking and integrating the positive electrode 13, electrolyte layer 17, negative electrode 16, electrolyte 17, and positive electrode 13 in this order to form a laminate 18"; P. 0017; Kamimura).
Regarding claim 8, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1.
However, Kamimura in view of Yamashita, as modified, is silent regarding a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the laminate is cut by a shearing process in each of the first cutting and the second cutting.
Yamashita further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the laminate is cut by a shearing process in each of the first cutting and the second cutting ("In order to achieve the above mentioned object, the laminate of the present invention is constructed by cutting a sheet consisting of an arbitrary laminate of resin and metal with a first press punch and a second press punch having a wider cutting width than the first press punch"; P. 0009; Yamashita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the second cutting operation further taught by Yamashita to the first cutting operation of Kamimura in order "to prevent the ends of the metal at the cut surface of the laminate from sagging in the cutting direction, and the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained" (P. 0009; Yamashita).
Regarding claim 11, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1.
However, Kamimura in view of Yamashita, as modified, is silent regarding a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the second cut surface is flat.
Yamashita further teaches a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the second cut surface is flat ("is punched out by the second press punching, the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained; P. 0021; Yamashita).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to include the second cutting operation further taught by Yamashita to the first cutting operation of Kamimura in order "to prevent the ends of the metal at the cut surface of the laminate from sagging in the cutting direction, and the cut surface does not become a fracture surface, and a flat cut surface without burrs or resin adhesion can be obtained" (P. 0009; Yamashita).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (JP 2003288895 A) in view of Yamashita (JP 2001160501 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryan (US 2003/0192583 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1.
However, Kamimura in view of Yamashita is silent regarding a method for manufacturing a battery wherein the laminate is cut with an ultrasonic cutter in the second cutting.
Ryan teaches laminate being cut with an ultrasonic cutter in the second cutting ("The invention relates generally to the field of photovoltaic devices, and more specifically to a method of utilizing ultrasonic slitting to cut and seal flexible, photovoltaic cells and modules"; P. 0002; Ryan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the cutting device taught by Ryan as the second cutter in the method taught by Kamimura in view of Yamashita in order to "cut and seal the leading and trailing edges" of the battery, "thus forming a leak-free, air-tight module" (P. 0004; Ryan).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura (JP 2003288895 A) in view of Yamashita (JP 2001160501 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiyo et al. (US 2021/0057777 A1) and Kawamura et al. (US 2020/0083563 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kamimura in view of Yamashita teaches the method for manufacturing a battery according to claim 1.
However, Kamimura in view of Yamashita is silent regarding a surface roughness of the second cut surface being less than or equal to a thickness of the solid electrolyte layer.
It is well understood in the art that surface roughness is typically measured in nanometers whereas the thickness of the electrolyte layer in measured in micrometers, showing that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the surface roughness of the second cut is smaller than the thickness of the electrolyte layer as evidenced by Sugiyo ("the positive electrode layer, the solid-electrolyte layer, and the negative electrode layer are formed so as to be as thin as approximately several tens of µm to a hundred and several tens of µm"; P. 0071; Sugiyo) and Kawamura ("However, when a maximum grain of the crystal grains of the solid electrolyte acting as a main component of the solid electrolyte layer 30 is not excessively small, the surface roughness of the solid electrolyte layer 30 may be degraded and the short may occur. And so, in the embodiment, a D50% grain diameter and a D90% grain diameter of the crystal grains of the solid electrolyte acting as the main component of the solid electrolyte layer 30 have an upper limit. In concrete, the D50% grain diameter is 0.5 µm or less, and the D90% grain diameter is 3 µm or less. In this case, the maximum grain diameter of the crystal grains is sufficiently small. Therefore, the surface roughness of the solid electrolyte layer 30 is favorable. And it is possible to suppress occurrence of the short"; P. 0024; Kawamura).
Furthermore, Kawamura teaches that a smaller value of surface roughness will suppress the occurrence of a short circuit (P. 0024; Kawamura).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to reduce the surface roughness to a value as low as possible in order to reduce the occurrence of short circuits (P. 0024; Kawamura).
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record for claim 1 is improper as the Examiner combines multiple embodiments of Kamimura without rationale. The Examiner disagrees, due to the broadness of the language of the limitations of claim 1 which does not require specific structure for performing the claimed first and second cuts both of the embodiments taught by Kamimura and referenced in the prior art rejection of record are applicable to the instant claim and as the limitations. In other words, the limitations are so broad that they are generic to both the embodiments of Kamimura as the limitations describe performing a cut to a laminate comprising layers which is taught by both embodiments of Kamimura. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant further asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record for claim 1 is improper as the applicant contends that Kamimura teaches away from performing a second cut. The Examiner disagrees, the fact that the specific configuration taught by Kamimura is meant to prevent chips, increase accuracy resulting in higher energy density, and increasing productivity is not evidence that a person of ordinary skill would not have performed a second cut. It is, instead, evidence that a person of ordinary skill is in pursuit of such improvements and it should be understood that a worker in the art may seek to improve battery manufacturing in a specific way at the determent of other improvements. As such, if a second cut may further reduce chipping or improve the method in some other way such a modification would be desirable. As Yamashita teaches that a second cut would be desirable to further prevent the development of a burr and prevent adhesion of resin to the blade such a modification would not teach away from Kamimura. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant further asserts that the Examiner assertions that “Rz1 < W < 5Rz1” is a matter of optimization of a result effective variable is incorrect. The Examiner disagrees. First, Yamashita teaches that it is desirable to perform a first and second cut and for these cuts to be spaced by a width and for this width to encompass an area where the surface of the battery is undesirable either due to a burr or a drooping surface. This shows that while the prior art of record does not specifically teach a range or specific variables for the surface roughness and the width are known in the art. Second, Yamashita teaches why such a second cut is desirable, so that the cut surface of the laminate is flat such that the resin does not adhere to the metal of the laminate. As such, Yamashita teaches the result of such variables, to produce a flat cut surface without a fractured surface (P. 0044; Yamashita). As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
As the Examiner has found all of the applicant’s assertions unpersuasive the Examiner thus maintains the 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness type prior art rejection of record for claim 1 and the dependent claims 2-11.
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 Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights