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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 19 December 2023 and 18 October 2024 were considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara et al. (JP2011249243A, cited on IDS, hereafter Kuwabara) in view of Shimamori et al. (JP2007109548A, cited on IDS, hereafter Shimamori).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuwabara teaches a cell laminate [0017] including a plurality of laminated cells which are laminated (21, [0017]-[0018]) wherein each laminated cell includes a sealing portion on a peripheral edge (FIGS. 1 – 3, portion between labeled element 21 and 22). Kuwabara teaches the cell laminate being configured such that a tab lead (22) extends from the sealing portion, but it does not specifically teach the lamination direction nor the sealing tab lead extending from the sealing portion in a direction that is perpendicular to the lamination direction. However, it would have been obvious to try having the lamination direction be perpendicular to the direction of the extending tabs because this orientation is one of a number of finite possibilities that could be practiced with a reasonable expectation of success.
Kuwabara does not explicitly teach that tab leads of at least four laminated cells among the plurality of laminated cells are electrically connected to each other via a conductive member having a plate shape. However, it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the number of cells in the plurality of cells to be any number as desired based on the end result.
Kuwabara teaches each tab lead connected to the conductive connection member has a linear portion that extends linearly in the direction perpendicular to the lamination direction from the sealing portion to a tip end (FIGS. 1 – 3, 22).
Kuwabara does not teach a connection portion at an inner side of the conductive connection member. However, Shimamori teaches a battery cell wherein tabs are inserted into slits [0010], which necessitates the tabs being connected to the inner portion of the conductive connection member (FIGS. 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cell laminate of Kuwabara with the tab location of Shimamori. One would have been motivated to combine the inventions in this way because doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Kuwabara teaches a member in the lamination direction among portions where the tip ends of the tab leads and the conductive connection member are electrically connected, and the tip ends are bonded in close contact with the conductive connection member by a surface, which is parallel to an extension direction of the tab leads, of surfaces of the conductive connection member (FIGS. 4 and 5, 22 connects to 23).
Regarding Claim 2, Kuwabara and Shimamori teach all the limitations of Claim 1, and Shimamori further teaches the conductive connection member is provided with a plurality of slits where the tip ends are being inserted into the respective slits ([0010], FIGS. 5-7).
Kuwabara also teaches the tip ends of the tab leads are bonded in close contact with the conductive connection member on both surfaces perpendicular to the lamination direction by surfaces which constitute the slits and are parallel to the extension direction of the tab leads ([0017], FIGS. 1-3, 22 connects to 23 on both surfaces).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cell laminate of Kuwabara with the tab locations of Shimamori. One would have been motivated to combine the inventions in this way because doing so would be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding Claim 3, Kuwabara in view of Shimamori teaches all the limitations of Claim 2, and Kuwabara further teaches the cell laminate wherein the conductive connection member is configured such that a length in the longitudinal direction of each portion located on the outer sides of the slits is shorter than a length of the portion in the lamination direction between the adjacent slits (FIG. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kuwabara in view of Shimamori teaches all the limitations of Claim 2, and Kuwabara further teaches the entrances of each slit being chamfered [0023].
Regarding Claim 5, Kuwabara in further view of Shimamori teaches all the limitations of Claim 2, and Kuwabara further teaches one end in a longitudinal direction of each slit is open and the other end of the slit is closed (FIG. 1, 23/23a).
Regarding Claim 6, Kuwabara in further view of Shimamori teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, and Kuwabara further teaches the cell laminate wherein the conductive connection member includes a first conductive connection member, a second conductive connection member, and a third conductive connection member (FIG. 1, 23a, 23). The multiple prongs of the comb-shaped busbar (23) are at least the first and second connection members, and the top surface of the busbar (23a) is the third connection member that connects at least the first and second conductive connection members.
Kuwabara does not expressly teach a plurality of laminated cells including a plurality of first laminated cells that are adjacent in the lamination direction and electrically connected in parallel, and a plurality of second laminated cells. However, it has been held that the duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention to include any number of desired laminated cells.
Kuwabara teaches laminated cells being adjacent in the lamination direction and are electrically connected in parallel, the tip ends of the tab leads of the plurality of first laminated cells are bonded in close contact with the first conductive connection member by a surface, which is parallel to the extension direction of the tab leads, of surfaces of the first conductive connection member, the tip ends of the tab leads of the plurality of second laminated cells are bonded in close contact with the second conductive connection member by a surface, which is parallel to the extension direction of the tab leads, of surfaces of the second conductive connection member, and the first conductive connection member and the second conductive connection member are electrically connected to each other via the third conductive connection member (FIG. 3, laminated cells 22 are parallel and connect to busbar 23, the cells are connected to separate limbs of the busbar, the busbar has a top surface, 23a, that connects the limbs of the busbar).
One would have been motivated to modify the invention because in the background section of the reference, it discusses the state of the art and an invention that teaches the tab leads extending into respective slits. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts so as to teach the claimed invention limitations. It was held that the rearrangement of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)).
Regarding Claim 7, Kuwabara in further view of Shimamori teaches all the limitations of Claim 6, and Kuwabara further teaches the first conductive connection member, the second conductive connection member and the third conductive connection member being made of the same kind of metal material [0023].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuwabara (JP2011249243A) in view of Shimamori et al. (JP2007109548A, cited on IDS, hereafter Shimamori) and further view of Okamoto et al. (JP2015056342A, cited on IDS, Machine Translation and Figures via EPO, hereafter Okamoto).
Regarding Claim 8, Kuwabara in view of Shimamori teaches all the limitations of Claim 7 above, but the references do not teach the first conductive connection member, second conductive connection member and third conductive connection member being made of aluminum.
However, Okamoto teaches a laminate type battery where the conductive connection member can be made of aluminum [0021]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the invention of Claim 8 wherein the metal material of the conductive members is aluminum.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify these inventions in this way because the reference teaches the same element being made of this material and it being able to perform the function in the manner described.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
WO20180660941A: Teaches a redox flow battery with a plurality of laminated cell frames.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAXIMILIAN D BAGILEO whose telephone number is (571)270-5460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/M.D.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/LAURA C POWERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights