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
Claim 1 is 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 1 is also objected to for omitting the article in front of the first instance of the term “core portion.” For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to recite “a core 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 6, 7, 9, and 16-18 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.
Claims 6 recites the limitation “said electrode substrate” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, recites “a positive electrode substrate” in line 2 and “a negative electrode substrate” in line 3 but provides no basis for the term “electrode substrate.” It is thus unclear if the recitation of “said electrode substrate” in claim 6 refers to the positive electrode substrate, the negative electrode substrate, or both. For the purposes of examination, claim 6 will be interpreted to recite “wherein said positive and negative electrode substrates are conductive substrates...”
Claim 9 recites the limitation “said electrode substrate or electrode” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, upon which claim 6 depends, recites “a positive electrode substrate” and “a negative electrode substrate” but provides no basis for the term “electrode substrate.” It is thus unclear if the recitation of “said electrode substrate or electrode” in claim 9 refers to the positive electrode substrate or positive electrode, the negative electrode substrate or negative electrode, or both. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted to recite “wherein said positive and negative electrode substrates are conductive substrates...”
Claim 16 recites the limitation “said substrate material” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12, upon which claim 16 depends, recites “a positive substrate material” and “a negative substrate material” in but provides no basis for the term “substrate material.” It is thus unclear if the recitation of “said substrate material” in claim 16 refers to the positive substrate material, the negative substrate material, or both. For the purposes of examination, claim 16 will be interpreted to recite “wherein said positive and negative electrode substrate materials are conductive substrates...”
Claim 17 recites the limitations “said conductive substrate” and “said electrode” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 12, upon which claim 17 depends, recites “a positive electrode” and “a negative electrode.” It is thus unclear if the recitation of “said electrode” refers to the positive electrode, the negative electrode, or both. Furthermore, claim 12 is wholly devoid of any support for the limitation “said conductive substrate.” For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted to recite “wherein said positive electrode or negative electrode...”
Claim 18 recites the limitation “said inner portion” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted to recite “said core portion,” which is properly introduced in claim 12, upon which claim 18 depends.
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 1-5, 9-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2024/0313364 A1), hereinafter “Lee.”
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a battery cell comprising:
a wound electrode assembly (¶ [0089], Fig. 1, ref. no. 10) arranged in a cell casing, in this case the battery can (¶ [0146], Fig. 10, ref. no. 110);
wherein the wound electrode assembly comprises:
a positive electrode substrate on which a positive electrode active material is coated, in this case the positive electrode active material layer is coated on the sheet-shaped positive electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 12b);
a negative electrode substrate on which a negative electrode active material is coated, in this case the negative electrode active material layer is coated on the sheet-shaped negative electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 14b);
a separator positioned between and insulates the positive and negative electrode substrates, (¶ [0089], Fig. 1, ref. no. 16); and
a core portion of the wound electrode assembly comprising a through hole extending in a vertical direction of the battery cell, in this case the cavity formed in the winding center of the electrode assembly (¶ [0148] & [0190], Figs. 11-13, ref. no. H1).
Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter to 4 mm to 7 mm.
Regarding claim 2, Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter to 4.5 mm to 6.5 mm.
Regarding claim 3, Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter to 5 mm to 6 mm.
Regarding claim 4, Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter of 5.5 mm.
Regarding claim 5, Lee further discloses a cylindrical battery cell (¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 9, Lee does not disclose the thickness of the positive and negative electrode substrates or the positive and electrodes. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the positive and negative electrode’s thicknesses to be 50 μm to 100 μm.
Regarding claim 10, Lee does not disclose the thickness of the negative electrode substrate or the negative electrode and is silent as to the diameter of the core portion. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the negative electrode thicknesses to be 50 μm and the core portion diameter to be 5.5 mm.
Regarding claim 11, Lee does not disclose the thickness of the negative electrode substrate or the negative electrode and is silent as to the diameter of the core portion. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the negative electrode thicknesses to be 100 μm and the core portion diameter to be 5.5 mm.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches a battery cell manufacturing method comprising:
providing a negative electrode material onto a negative substrate material to form a negative electrode, in this case the negative electrode active material layer is coated on the sheet-shaped negative electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 14b);
providing a positive electrode material onto a positive substrate material to form a positive electrode, in this case the positive electrode active material layer is coated on the sheet-shaped positive electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 12b);
providing at least one separator layer (¶ [0089], Fig. 1, ref. no. 16);
arranging said negative electrode, said positive electrode, and said insulating layer to form an electrode assembly having a sandwich configuration such that the insulating layer is arranged at least between said negative and positive electrodes (see Fig. 1, ref. nos. 12, 14, and 16);
winding the electrode assembly to for a cylindrical electrode assembly (¶ [0089]; Fig. 1) with a core portion having a through hole extending in a vertical direction, in this case the cavity formed in the winding center of the electrode assembly (¶ [0148] & [0190], Figs. 11-13, ref. no. H1); and
placing the cylindrical electrode assembly in a casing to form a battery cell, in this case the battery can (¶ [0146], Fig. 10, ref. no. 110).
Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter to 4 mm to 7 mm.
Regarding claim 13, Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter to 4.5 mm to 6.5 mm.
Regarding claim 14, Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter to 5 mm to 6 mm.
Regarding claim 15, Lee does not specify the through hole’s diameter. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole’s diameter of 5.5 mm.
Regarding claim 16, Lee further discloses that the electrode substrate is a conductive substrate in this case it is a sheet-shaped positive electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 12b) or a sheet-shaped negative electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 14b).
Regarding claim 17, Lee does not disclose the thickness of the positive and electrodes. However, 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, the battery disclosed by Lee would not have performed any differently than the battery cell recited in the claims. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to size the battery and its components to achieve the desired form factor (see ¶ [0163]-[0165]) and the desired power output. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the positive and negative electrode’s thicknesses to be 50 μm to 100 μm.
Regarding claim 19, Lee further discloses a vehicle (¶ [0001]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee further discloses an electric vehicle (¶ [0002]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Tsunoda (US 2024/0387912 A1).
Regarding claims 6, Lee further discloses that the electrode substrate is a conductive substrate in this case it is a sheet-shaped positive electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 12b) or a sheet-shaped negative electrode current collector (¶ [0090], Fig. 1, ref. no. 14b), but does not specify the material of construction of these substrates. However, Tsunoda teaches a battery comprising an aluminum foil as the positive electrode current collector (¶ [0018]) and a copper foil as the negative electrode current collector (¶ [0021]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such metal foils as the electrode substrate would have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided metal foils as the positive and negative electrode substrates in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery.
Regarding claim 7, Lee does not disclose the metal foil. Tsunoda teaches the metal foil as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, above, and also teaches that aluminum foil as the positive electrode current collector (¶ [0018]) and copper foil as the negative electrode current collector (¶ [0021]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such metal foils as the electrode substrate would have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided metal foils as the positive and negative electrode substrates in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 1 and 12, above, and further in view of Kwon et al. (US 2024/0039134 A1), hereinafter “Kwon.”
Regarding claim 8, Lee does not disclose the tubular sleeve. However, Kwon teaches inserting a tubular sleeve, in this case a tube-shaped support (¶ [0096], Fig. 4, ref. no. 150). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a tubular sleeve would have reinforced the electrode assembly’s core and prevented collapse, thereby preventing increases in internal resistance and reducing internal short circuits (see ¶ [0042]) and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a tubular sleeve at the core portion in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 18, Lee does not disclose the tubular sleeve. However, Kwon teaches inserting a tubular sleeve, in this case a tube-shaped support (¶ [0096], Fig. 4, ref. no. 150). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a tubular sleeve would have reinforced the electrode assembly’s core and prevented collapse, thereby preventing increases in internal resistance and reducing internal short circuits (see ¶ [0042]) and facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a tubular sleeve at the inner portion in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
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
Prosecution Insights