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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-31 amended on 11/29/2023 are pending and examined on the merit.
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 1-6, 10-12, 17-21, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113346201 to Huang et al. (cited by Applicant, machine translation provided for citation), in view of WO 2020/202744 to Ueda et al. (English equivalent US 2022/0166094 used for citation).
Regarding claim 1, Huang et al. teaches a battery 2, comprising:
an electrode assembly including a first electrode having a first uncoated portion (e.g. where negative electrode is connected to a negative current collector 6) and a second electrode having a second uncoated portion (e.g. where positive electrode is connected to a positive current collector 5) (Figs. 1-3; [n0053]; [n0056]);
a battery housing or casing 1 configured to accommodate the electrode assembly through an open portion (Figs. 1-3; [n0054]);
a first current collecting plate 6 coupled to the first uncoated portion and located within the battery housing (Fig. 3; [n0053]; [n0056]);
a cap plate or cover plate 4 configured to cover the open portion of the battery housing (Figs. 1-3; [n0054]);
an electrode terminal 3 riveted through a perforated hole formed in a closed portion (labeled “1” in the annotated figure below) provided opposite to the open portion of the battery housing and electrically connected to the second uncoated portion via positive current collector 5 (Fig. 2; [n0052]; [n0056]; [n0058]); and
an insulating gasket or insulating seal 7 interposed between the electrode terminal and the perforated hole (Fig. 2; [n0055]),
wherein the electrode terminal 3 includes:
a body portion inserted into the perforated hole;
an outer flange portion configured to extend along an outer surface of the closed portion from a circumference of one side of the body portion exposed through the outer surface of the closed portion;
an inner flange portion configured to extend from the circumference of the body portion exposed through an inner surface of the closed portion; and
a flat portion provided on an inner side of the inner flange portion (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
Huang et al. does not expressly teach a sealing spacer configured to prevent the electrode assembly from moving.
Ueda et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery 1 comprises a gasket 50 that includes a seal portion 52 between battery case 30 and cap 70 and a cylindrical part 60 extending between electrode group 10 including a current collector and the cap 70 (abstract; Figs. 1 and 2; [0013-15]; [0022]; [0036-47]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a gasket or sealing spacer configured to prevent the electrode assembly from moving in the battery of Huang et al., motivated by the fact that Ueda et al. demonstrates that the seal portion of the gasket accommodates the cap and is crimped with the opening portion of the battery case to seal the battery ([0039]) and the cylindrical part of the gasket functions as a spacer between the cap and the electrode group, which prevents the electrode group from moving or vibrating during use or transportation of the battery ([0036]; [0037]).
Below is annotated Fig. 2 of Huang et al.
PNG
media_image1.png
197
714
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (body portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (outer flange portion)][AltContent: textbox ( inner flange portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox ( flat portion)][AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, Ueda et al. teaches that the gasket or sealing spacer includes: cylindrical portion 60 (a movement preventer) between the first current collecting plate of the electrode group and the cap plate 70; a sealing portion 52 between the battery housing 30 and the cap plate 70; and a connection portion configured to connect the movement preventer and the sealing portion (Figs. 1 and 2; [0036]; [0037]; [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda et al. teaches that the cylindrical portion 60 or movement preventer has a height corresponding to a distance between the first current collecting plate of the electrode group 10 and the cap plate (Fig.1; [0037]).
Regarding claim 4, Ueda et al. teaches that the cylindrical portion 60 or movement preventer is located at a center on a first surface of the electrode assembly (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda et al. teaches that the cylindrical portion 60 or movement preventer has a hollow portion or spacer hole aligned with a winding center hole of the electrode assembly (Fig. 1; [0026]; [0051]).
Regarding claim 6, Ueda et al. teaches that the sealing portion 52 extends along a periphery of an inner circumference of the battery housing (Fig. 1; [0036]; [0039]).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, the flat portion of the electrode terminal and the inner surface of the closed portion are parallel to each other as the flat portion is parallel to a flat part of the closed portion in the annotated figure above, and that makes an angle between the inner flange portion and the inner surface of the closed portion 0 degrees.
Regarding claim 12, a recess portion is provided between the inner flange portion and the flat portion as a cavity is formed between the flat portion and the inner flange portion seen in the annotated figure above.
Regarding claim 17, the insulating gasket or insulating seal 7 includes an outer gasket interposed between the outer flange portion and the outer surface of the closed portion; and an inner gasket interposed between the inner flange portion and the inner surface of the closed portion, wherein the inner gasket and the outer gasket have different thicknesses depending on positions thereof (see labels “7” in the annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 18, a thickness of the insulating gasket or seal 7 in an area interposed between an inner edge of the perforated hole and the inner flange portion is smaller than a remainder of the insulating gasket as the insulating gasket or seal 7 is compressed in that area (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 19, the inner edge of the perforated hole includes an opposing surface facing the inner flange portion as the perforated hole formed in the casing 1 has surfaces facing the inner flange (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 20, the inner gasket 7 extends further from the electrode terminal than the inner flange portion (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 21, a height of the flat portion from the inner surface of the closed portion (the flat part) appears to be equal to a height of an end of the inner gasket (the end of the inner gasket next to the body portion) from the inner surface of the closed portion (see annotated figure above).
Regarding claim 30, Huang et al. teaches a battery pack, comprising: a plurality of batteries according to claim 1; and a pack housing configured to accommodate the plurality of batteries in a case that the battery pack is applied to electric vehicles, energy storage devices, and electric devices ([n0032]).
Regarding claim 31, Huang et al. teaches a vehicle, comprising the battery pack according to claim 30 ([n0032]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. and Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2011/0183195 to Nngai.
Regarding claim 16, Huang et al. does not expressly teach that a thickness of the inner flange portion decreases in a direction extending away from the body portion.
Nngai also relates to a battery comprising a terminal rivet and teaches that the terminal rivet 31 has a base portion 33 (inner flange portion) whose thickness decreases in a direction extending away from a rivet portion 32 (body portion) (Figs. 2 and 3; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention by, for example, using an alternative configuration of the external terminal as demonstrated by Nngai and one skilled in the art would have obtained expected results using a known alternative configuration of the terminal.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. and Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of CN 112909445 to Mao et al. (machine translation provided for citation).
Regarding claim 22, Huang et al. does not expressly teach that a height of the flat portion from the inner surface of the closed portion is greater than or equal to a height of an end of the inner flange portion from the inner surface of the closed portion.
Mao et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery comprises an external terminal 33 having a flat portion whose height from an inner surface of a closed portion (the part of casing 1 through which the external terminal is extending) is the same as a height of an end of an inner flange portion of the external terminal 33 from the inner surface of the closed portion, as the flat portion and inner flange portion appear to be in the same plane (see annotated figure below; [n0048]; [n0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention by, for example, using an alternative configuration of the external terminal as demonstrated by Mao et al. and one skilled in the art would have obtained expected results using a known alternative configuration of the terminal.
Below is annotated Fig. 1 of Mao et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
887
833
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 23-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. and Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2017/0187031 to Kurita et al.
Regarding claim 23, Huang et al. does not expressly teach that an active material layer of the second electrode includes a positive electrode active material containing a single particle, a pseudo-single particle, or a combination thereof, wherein a cumulative volume distribution is as claimed.
Kurita et al. also relates to a battery and teaches a positive electrode of the battery comprising a positive electrode active material containing particles reading on the claimed single particle, a pseudo-single particle, or a combination thereof, where the volume-based 50% cumulative particle size D50 is 1 μm to 10 μm, the volume-based 10% cumulative particle size D10 (Dmin) and the volume-based 90% cumulative particle size D90 (Dmax) are respectively more than 1 μm and within the claimed range of 12 μm to 17 μm (abstract; [0020]; [0170]; Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed positive electrode active material in the positive electrode active material layer of Huang et al., because Kurita et al. demonstrates that such positive electrode active material provides a lithium ion battery capable of high cycle performance and high discharge capacity, especially useful for application in automobiles ([0007-17]). The skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using a known material in a known product. Regarding numerical ranges, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) Furthermore, "[ A ] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP 2144.05[R-5].
Regarding claim 24, Kurita et al. teaches that the positive electrode active material meets the claimed D50, D10 (Dmin), and D90 (Dmax) per claim 23 above, a unimodal particle size distribution showing a single peak in a volume cumulative particle size distribution graph is expected. Further, Kurita et al. teaches that (D90-D10)/D50 is 1.00 to 2.20 ([0048]), falling within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 25, Kurita et al. teaches that the positive electrode active material is included in an amount of 100 wt% based on a total weight of the positive electrode active material included in the active material layer as there seems to be one active material used in the positive electrode ([0089]).
Regarding claim 26, Kurita et al. teaches that the positive electrode active material includes a lithium-nickel-based composite oxide having formula (1): LiaNi1-x-y-zMnxCoyMzO2, wherein a satisfies the following relationship: 0.9≦a≦1.2, x satisfies the following relationship: 0<x<0.4, y satisfies the following relationship: 0<y<0.4, z satisfies the following relationship: 0≦z<0.1, 1-x-y-z satisfies the following relationship 0.5<1-x-y-z≦0.65, and M is at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al and Zr ([0014]; [0020-31]; [0067]). In a case that the subscript of Ni is 0.8 or more, the Ni based on the total number of moles of a transition metal is 80 mol% or more.
Regarding claim 28, Kurita et al. teaches that the positive electrode active material layer contains carbon nanotubes as a conductive material ([0091]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. and Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2001/0031391 to Hironaka et al. and US 6,325,611 to Iwasaki et al.
Regarding claim 27, Huang et al. does not expressly teach that the active material layer of the second electrode has a porosity of 15% to 23%.
Hironaka et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery comprises a positive electrode having a porosity of 20% to 50% (abstract; [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed porosity range, because Hironaka et al. teaches that the porosity of the positive electrode is result-effective in controlling self-conductivity of the electrode and drop in power of the battery ([0040]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05[R-5].
Finally, Huang et al. does not expressly teach that the active material layer of the second electrode contains flake graphite in a weight ratio of 0.05 wt% to 5 wt%.
Iwasaki et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery comprises a positive electrode containing flake-form graphite as a conducting aid in an amount of, for example, 4.5 parts to 92 parts of a positive electrode active material (abstract; column 17, lines 14-15; Example 1; column 19, lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed flake graphite in the positive electrode because Iwasaki et al. demonstrates using flake graphite as a conducting aid (abstract; column 17, lines 14-15; Example 1; column 19, lines 55-58) and one skilled in the art would have optimized the amount of the conducting aid in the electrode in order to obtain the desired electronic conductivity and overall energy capacity.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. and Ueda et al. as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2019/0214637 to Hirose et al.
Regarding claim 19, Huang et al. does not expressly teach that an active material layer of the first electrode includes a silicon-based negative electrode active material and a carbon-based negative electrode active material, and wherein the silicon-based negative electrode active material and the carbon-based negative electrode active material are included in a weight ratio of 1: 99 to 20: 80.
Hirose et al. also relates to a battery and teaches that the battery comprises a negative electrode where a silicon-based active material particle and a carbon-based active material were blended with the mass ratio of 1:9 to obtain the negative electrode active material (abstract; [0081]; [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the claimed active materials for the negative electrode of Huang et al., motivated by the fact that Hirose et al. demonstrates using both active materials in the negative electrode active material layer and the skilled artisan would have obtained expected results using known materials for a known product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 7-9 are directed to a plurality of extension legs in the connection portion of the sealing spacer. The gasket or sealing spacer of Ueda does not include such plurality of extension legs and it would not have been obvious to modify the prior art to arrive at the claimed invention because no teaching or suggestion was found in the search to support such modification.
No prior art was found to teach or suggest making an asymmetric groove in the recess portion between the inner flange portion and the flat portion per claim 13. Accordingly, claims 14 and 15 also contain the allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENG M CHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5859. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 5:30 pm on Monday, 9 am - 3 pm on Tuesday, and 9 am to 1 pm on Wednesday and Thursday.
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, Basia Ridley can be reached at 571-272-1453. 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.
/Heng M. Chan/ Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights