DETAILED ACTION
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
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 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 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya (US 20070152235 A1), Ariga et al (US 20220231343 A1), Choi et al (US 20200343608 A1), and Xu et al (CN 217239697 U).
Hosoya teaches a pack battery as a laminated cell that is a stacked electrode assembly comprising pole plates of opposite polarities sealed by lamination sheets. Each cell is connected in parallel to obtain a desired current capacity and the electrode terminals being connected in series to obtain a required voltage (See Par. 2). Said cells are a plurality of laminated unit cells that are stacked (See 106 in Par 7 and Fig. 13). The plurality of unit cells are series connected packs that are connected in parallel to obtain a desired voltage and current capacity (See Pars. 7 and 9). Said parallel groups would necessarily be adjacent to one another and connected in parallel. Hosoya does not teach the tabs of the first or second group of cells extending through the seal orthogonally, the leads being bent in the lamination direction, and the second plurality of tab leads being longer than that of the first. Additionally, Hosoya does not teach a bent portion of a plurality of tab leads overlapping the closest lead belonging to another plurality of tab leads, and each of the bent portions of a plurality of tab leads overlap and are directly joined to at least one bent portion of the lead of another plurality of tab leads.
Ariga et al teaches a solid-state battery cell comprising a laminate having at least one positive electrode with a positive electrode current collector and positive electrode active material layer as well as at least one negative electrode with a negative electrode current collector and a negative electrode active material layer. Additionally, there is a resin casing made of a thermosetting resin or thermoplastic resin that adheres to and covers the cell (See Abstract and Par 10). The positive and negative electrode current collector tabs are positioned orthogonally to and extend away from the laminating direction of the cell (see 110, 120, 130, in Pars. 30 and 38 and Figs. 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to modify a pouch type cell taught by Hosoya with leads that extend orthogonally away from the laminating direction of the cell as taught by Ariga as having electrode tabs that extend through the lamination of a cell orthogonally to the lamination direction is a known feature in the art and implemented to preserve the lamination seal which separations the intervals of the cell from the external environment while allowing the cell to have a means to make direct electrical connects to other cells and/or devices. Hosoya and Ariga do not teach the electrode leads being bent, said leads overlapping the closest lead belonging to another plurality of tab leads, one lead being longer than another lead, and each of the bent portions of a plurality of tab leads overlap and are directly joined to at least one bent portion of the lead of another plurality of tab leads.
Choi et al teaches a cell-tab-cooling type battery that can include a plurality of battery cells which have tabs for electrical connection from each other. The tabs of the cells extend from the cells and are bent at 90 degrees and directly joined to at least one other tab of the same structure via overlapping (See 111 in Par. 53 and annotated Fig. 4). Choi et al also teaches one electrode tab being longer than the other. (See 111 in annotated Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hosoya in view of Ariga with L-shaped leads that overlap as taught by Choi to have a greater amount of contact between the electrode tabs that are to be electrically connected. It would have been further obvious to modify Hosoya in view of Ariga with terminal leads of unequal length to distinguish between pluralities of cells as it is a well-known feature in the art for one terminal lead to be longer than another to easily distinguish between categorical features such as the polarities of the leads. However, Hosoya, Ariga, and Choi do not teach each of the bent portions of a plurality of tab leads overlap and are directly joined to at least one bent portion of the lead of another plurality of tab leads.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xu et al teaches a battery monomer and electric device where the battery monomer comprises; a shell body, at least one winding core arranged in the shell, each of the winding core has pole ear, at least one end of the tab shape is the kneading plane covering the end face of the winding core; pole; and an adapter connecting the pole and the tab of the at least two cores (See Abstract). Xu also teaches the poles being of two pluralities of poles with each of the bent portions of one plurality of poles being overlapped and joined directly with at least one bent portion of the other plurality (see annotated Fig. 5 below). Xu also teaches a tab comprising a first tab disposed at a first end of the roll core and a second tab disposed at a second end of the roll core; the first tab is the first kneading plane covering the end face of the first end, and/or the second non-coating area is lapped along the outer part of the winding core to the center sequentially kneading, the second tab shape is the second kneading plane covering the end face of the second end, it can effectively reduce the occupation of the battery space by the full tab (See Par 8 and Annotated Fig. 5 below).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hosoya in view of Ariga and Choi with the teachings of Xu as the modifications would reduce the space occupied by the battery as taught by Xu.
As to Claim 2, Xu et al teaches the pole leads of the right group of poles (herein considered the first plurality, See Fig. 5) do not overlap one another. The pole leads overlap the closest lead of the left group of poles (herein considered the second plurality, See Fig. 5). Therefore, it is a known feature in the art for a group of terminal leads to be in contact with the closest lead of a second group via overlapping while simultaneously not overlapping another terminal lead of the first group as taught by Xu et al.
PNG
media_image2.png
568
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Xu et al teaches the bent portions of the second plurality of pole leads overlap the bent portion of the pole lead of the first plurality that is closest to the second plurality (See annotated Fig. 5).
As to Claim 4, Xu et al teaches the number of leads of the second plurality of poles that overlap the closest lead of the first plurality of poles being greater than the number of leads of the second plurality of poles that overlap the farthest lead of the first plurality of poles (See annotated Fig. 5).
As to claim 6, Hosoya teaches a first electrode terminal made of aluminum with a thickness of 15 micrometers and a second electrode terminal made of copper with a thickness of 10 micrometers (See 71 and 72, Fig.1 in Par. 55). Two terminal electrodes made of two different materials would have differing conductive capabilities.
As to claim 7, Hosoya, which also teaches the first electrode terminal and second electrode terminal being made of different materials (See Par. 11). Any electrodes that are made of different materials will inevitably have different densities resulting in one terminal being of lowest density than the other.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosoya (US 20070152235 A1), Ariga et al (US 20220231343 A1), Choi et al (US 20200343608 A1), and Xu et al (CN 217239697 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yagi (JP 2019145476 A).
As to Claim 5, Hosoya, Ariga, Choi , and Xu teach all of the limitations of the claims except the electrical connections being made via welding of adjacent terminals. Yagi teaches a laminated battery module in which a plurality of laminated battery cells are stacked and electrically connected. These electrical connections are made by welding adjacent terminals of opposite polarities to make them electrically connected (see 24 and 32 in Par 16 and Fig.3). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaches of Hosoya in view of Ariga, Choi , and Xu with the teachings of Ariga in order to have a plurality of tab ends that are electrically connected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from this examiner should be directed to WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1910. The examiner can be normally reached M-W 10:00am – 10:00pm, T 10:00am – 2:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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 more information about filing 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.
WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights