DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[001] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
[002] Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP-2021-094346, filed on 06/04/2021.
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.
[003] Claim 9 is 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.
[004] Claim 9 recites the limitation "an integrated insulator. Claim 1 previous recites "an integrated insulator As written, this claims an additional singular integrated insulator piece which covers all the side surfaces. However, it maintains the identification tag of the previously mentioned integrated insulator, and it is unclear if this is intended to refer to the same integrated insulator of claim 1. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as being a further limitation on the integrated insulator mentioned in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
[005] 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.
[006] 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.
[007] 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.
[008] 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.
[009] Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al (JP 2017045530 A; Henceforth, Sato), and further in view of Toshiyuki and Takiji (JP 2013025999 A; Henceforth, Toshiyuki).
[010] Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a battery pack comprising: two or more unit cells including a stacked unit consisting of a set of a positive electrode resin current collector, a positive electrode active material layer, a separator, a negative electrode active material layer, and a negative electrode resin current collector stacked sequentially, a stacked body of the two or more unit cells being enclosed in an exterior body; and an integrated insulator (A1) covering across boundaries between the unit cells on at least one of the side surfaces of the stacked body.
[011] Sato teaches a method of manufacturing a stacked lithium-ion battery ([0007]) where the battery is formed by stacking lithium secondary single cells ([0007]). Each lithium secondary single cell is composed of a positive electrode current collector with a positive electrode composition layer containing a positive electrode active material and an electrolyte), a negative electrode current collector with a negative electrode composition layer containing a negative electrode active material and an electrolyte), and a separator disposed in between ([0008]). Sato teaches that it is preferable that the current collectors are resin current collectors ([0009]), and that the stacked cells are housed in a flexible container ([0007]). Sato does not teach the use of an integrated insulator covering across boundaries between the unit cells on at least one of the side surfaces of the stacked body.
[012] Toshiyuki teaches a configuration of a secondary battery ([0010]) comprising of a plurality of sheet like positive and negative electrodes stacked alternately with separators disposed in between, and the use of two adhesive tapes attached along a loop-shaped path perpendicular to the stacking direction of the electrodes ([0010]). The first and second adhesive tapes are positioned to intersect ([0011]; Figure 7, reproduced below), such that the deformation of the electrode stack is restricted, preventing the parallel movement of the sheet electrodes in the stacking plane and in the stacking direction ([0012]). Toshiyuki teaches this configuration minimizes variations in the distance between electrodes caused by displacement in the stacking plane and bulging in the stacking direction of the electrode stack, and a non-aqueous secondary battery configuration with excellent cycle characteristics can be obtained ([0015]). Toshiyuki teaches the adhesive tapes are insulating, and includes polyimide tape ([0039]).
PNG
media_image1.png
325
295
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 7, reproduced from Toshiyuki.
[013] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato with the insulating tapes of Toshiyuki, in the same field of endeavor, to create a secondary battery with integrated insulators covering the boundaries between unit cells in a stacked battery. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Toshiyuki, to include insulating tapes covering the boundaries between multiple stacked unit cells in a battery, in order to minimize variations in the distance between electrodes caused by displacement in the stacking plane and bulging in the stacking direction of the electrode stack ([0015]). Additionally, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation that the inclusion of insulating tapes in the battery of Sato would have been successful, since the tapes would be performing the same function as they had in the battery of Toshiyuki. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
[014] Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, further comprising: insulators (A1) respectively on two opposing side surfaces of the stacked body.
[015] Sato and Toshiyuki teach the battery of claim 1. Toshiyuki teaches the use of insulating tapes wrapping around the battery, with multiple pieces each tape each covering the same two opposing side surfaces of the battery (Figure 5, reproduced below, and [0043]-[0044]). Toshiyuki teaches this configuration also suppresses both displacement in the stacking plane and bulging in the stacking direction ([0045].
PNG
media_image2.png
417
548
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5, reproduced from Toshiyuki.
[016] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato with the insulating tapes of Toshiyuki, in the same field of endeavor, to create a secondary battery with integrated insulators covering the boundaries between two opposing side surfaces of unit cells in a stacked battery, for the same reasons outlined in claim 1, above.
[017] Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Toshiyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Uematsu et al (US 20150162584 A1; Henceforth, Uematsu).
[018] Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, wherein the insulator (A1) is a material with a peeling adhesive strength of 0.5 N/25 mm or more to a PET plate on at least one surface thereof and covers across the boundaries between the unit cells with the surface having the adhesive strength. The examiner notes the instant specification lists Kapton™ tape as an example tape that meets this qualification (Paragraphs 24, 87, and Table 1).
[019] Sato and Toshiyuki teach the battery of claim 1. Toshiyuki teaches the use of insulating tapes wrapping around the battery, but does not teach the peeling adhesive strength of the tape utilized. The examiner notes that Toshiyuki teaches the use of polyimide tape, but does not specify that it is specifically Kapton™-branded.
[020] Uematsu teaches a secondary battery including a container, an electrode structure provided in the container, and an electrolyte, with an insulator disposed in between a positive and negative electrode that further includes an organic fiber layer, which is fixed and supported on at least one of the positive electrode and the negative electrode ([0042]). Uematsu teaches the use of Kapton™ tape can be utilized to cover the end surface of the winding end or start of the electrode structure ([0095] and Figure 19, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image3.png
397
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 19, reproduced from Uematsu.
[021] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato and Toshiyuki, as outlined in claim 1, with the use of to create a secondary battery using insulating tape with peeling adhesive strength of 0.5 N/25 mm or more, as taught by Uematsu in the same field of endeavor. Uematsu establishes precedent in the art to use Kapton™ tape in order to secure the edge of a battery stack, as depicted in Figure 19, above. Since the instant application establishes Kapton™ tape has a peeling strength of 0.5 N/25 mm or more to a PET plate, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that replacing the generic polyimide tape of Toshiyuki with that of Uematsu would not have changed the overall function of the battery, as it would be performing the same function as the tape had previously been demonstrated to perform. See MPEP 2143 (I) B. While Uematsu does not explicitly teach the peeling strength, the Kapton™ tape would be expected by a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the same properties, and thus the tape utilized by Uematsu would have inherently had the same peeling strength as the Kapton™ tape of the instant application, which falls within the range established by the instant claim.
[022] Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Toshiyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hatazawa et al (US 7776465 B1; Henceforth, Hatazawa).
[023] Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, further comprising: a buffering material between the exterior body and the insulator, wherein the buffering material contains gas adsorption particles.
[024] Sato and Toshiyuki teach the battery of claim 1. Neither teaches the use of gas adsorption particles between the exterior body and the insulator.
[025] Hatazawa teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte battery wherein a battery element contained in an outer covering member composed of a laminated film and sealed therein by heat seal, and a gas absorbable material interposed between the outermost layer of said outer covering member and said battery element ([0011]). Hatazawa teaches the gas adsorption material can be zeolite, alumina, molecular sieve, titania, silica gel, and zirconia, and examples of the porous carbon materials may include activated carbon, and carbon molecular sieves ([0017]). Hatazawa teaches, in Figure 8 (annotated below) the gas adsorption particles are disposed between two resin layers made of cast polypropylene ([0045]) in the laminate film that contains the battery assembly ([0011]). The battery assembly is housed, after being encompassed by the laminate material, in an outer housing (Figures 1, reproduced below). Hatazawa further teaches that, with this configuration, since the gas absorbable material is interposed between the outermost layer of the outer covering member and the battery element, even if gas occurs in the battery element when the battery undergoes an abnormal environmental change, for example, an abnormal temperature rise, the gas is absorbed in the gas absorbable material, with a result that the outer covering member is prevented from being swelled by the gas ([0012]).
PNG
media_image4.png
529
1497
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 8, reproduced from Hatazawa, annotated by the examiner.
PNG
media_image5.png
722
672
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1, reproduced from Hatazawa.
[026] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato and Toshiyuki of claim 1, to create a secondary battery with a buffering material containing gas adsorption particles disposed between the insulation layer and the exterior of the battery case, as taught by Hatazawa in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Hatazawa, to include a buffering material containing gas adsorbing material, in order to prevent gas caused by abnormal environmental changes, to prevent swelling of the exterior covering member ([0012]). Hatazawa additionally demonstrates precedent in the art to use gas absorbing particles disposed between a resin layer and the exterior of the battery case. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation that the inclusion of buffering material configuration taught by Hatazawa in the system of Sato and Toshiyuki would have been successful, since the buffering material would be performing the same function as they had in the battery of Hatazawa. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
[027] Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 3, further comprising: an insulator (A2) between the buffering material and the exterior body.
[028] Sato, Toshiyuki and Hatazawa teach the battery of claim 3. Hatazawa teaches the gas adsorbing material is disposed between two layers of resin ([0045] and Figure 8, above). The examiner notes the outer resin layer is located between the buffering material and the external case.
[029] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato and Toshiyuki of claim 1, to create a secondary battery with a buffering material containing gas adsorption particles disposed between the insulation layer and the exterior of the battery case, as taught by Hatazawa in the same field of endeavor, with an additional layer disposed between the gas adsorption layer and the exterior case, for the reasons outlined in claims 1 and 3, above.
[030] Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 3, wherein the gas adsorption particles are one or more selected from the group consisting of activated carbon, zeolites, silica, and alumina.
[031] Sato, Toshiyuki and Hatazawa teach the battery of claim 3. Hatazawa teaches the gas adsorption material can be zeolite, alumina, molecular sieve, titania, silica gel, and zirconia, and examples of the porous carbon materials may include activated carbon, and carbon molecular sieves ([0017]). The examiner notes silica gel is a form of silica.
[032] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato and Toshiyuki of claim 1, to create a secondary battery with a buffering material containing gas adsorption particles disposed between the insulation layer and the exterior of the battery case, as taught by Hatazawa in the same field of endeavor, where the gas adsorption material is made of silica, alumina, activated carbon, or zeolite, for the reasons outlined in claims 1 and 3, above.
[033] Regarding claim 6, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 3, wherein the gas adsorption particles have a content of 40 to 120 mg/cm2 per unit area of the buffering material. The examiner notes the instant specification teaches the amount of gas adsorption material in the buffering material is 50% or more by weight, depending on the material (paragraph 73).
[034] Sato, Toshiyuki and Hatazawa teach the battery of claim 3. None of the authors explicitly teach the gas adsorption particles have a content of 40 to 120 mg/cm2 per unit area of the buffering material. However, Hatazawa teaches the use of the same gas adsorption particles ([0017]), and the weight percent of the gas adsorption particles is between 0.1 wt% and 95 wt% ([0034]). Hatazawa additionally teaches that since the kind and amount of gas occurring in a battery element are largely dependent on the combination of constituent materials of a battery, the amount of the gas absorbable material may be desirable to be suitably selected for each actual battery ([0035]).
[035] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato and Toshiyuki of claim 1, to create a secondary battery with a buffering material containing gas adsorption particles disposed between the insulation layer and the exterior of the battery case, as taught by Hatazawa in the same field of endeavor, where the gas adsorption material has a loading of 40 to 120 mg/cm2 per unit area of the buffering material. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Hatazawa, to optimize the amount of has absorbable material for a particular battery setup, since the kind and amount of gas occurring in a battery element are largely dependent on the combination of constituent materials of a battery ([0035]). Given that Hatazawa teaches the use of the same materials and a weight percentage range that encompasses that of the instant application, with a similar level of specificity to the instant application, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation that the amount of gas adsorption material needed would be the result of routine optimization in the art. It has been held that " […] a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions" (In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)) and that a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent" (Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874)). See MPEP 2144.05 (II) A.
[036] Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato, Toshiyuki and Hatazawa as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mitsuru et al (WO 2021005812 A1; Henceforth, Mitsuru).
[037] Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 3, wherein the gas adsorption particles have a volume average particle diameter of 500 μm to 2 mm.
[038] Sato, Toshiyuki and Hatazawa teach the battery of claim 3. None of the authors explicitly teach the gas adsorption particles have a volume average particle diameter of 500 μm to 2 mm.
[039] Mitsuru teaches an energy storage device structure comprising an energy storage device with a gap, wherein a flammable gas absorbent having the ability to absorb flammable gas that may be generated from the energy storage device is placed in the gap between the energy storage device and the casing ([0010]). Mitsuru teaches that the flammable gas absorbent is a carbon-based porous material having an average particle size of 0.1 to 5.0 mm ([0046]), and is included to reduce the risk of fire in the event of abnormalities such as damage to the energy storage device or overcharging ([0001]). Additionally, Mitsuru teaches that if the particle size is 0.1 mm or less, the contact efficiency with flammable gas decreases, resulting in a reduced combustion prevention effect, and, if the particle size exceeds 5.0 mm, combustion gases may pass through the gaps between the particles of the carbon-based porous material, which could reduce the combustion prevention effect and is therefore undesirable ([0046]). Mitsuru teaches an example (Example 1, [0056]) that uses a carbon-based porous material with a pellet-like particle size of 0.7 to 1.0 mm. While the examiner notes the listed range in [0046] is not explicitly a volume average particle size, the range from [0056] can be used to calculate a volume-average particle diameter that would lie within the range of the instant claim and therefore anticipates it. Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). See MPEP 2131.
[040] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato, Toshiyuki, and Hatazawa of claim 3, to create a secondary battery with a buffering material containing gas adsorption particles with a volume average particle diameter of 500 μm to 2 mm, as taught by Mitsuru in the same field of endeavor. Mitsuru demonstrates precedent in the art for using gas absorbing particles between a battery cell and the exterior case, wherein the carbon-based porous material has a pellet-like particle size of 0.7 to 1.0 mm ([0056]). The substitution of the gas absorbing particles of Hatazawa for that of Mitsuru is a simple substitution of one known element in the art for another, and a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had the reasonable expectation that the substitution for one set of gas absorbing particles for another would have been successful, as it would be performing the same function in the battery of Sato, Toshiyuki, and Hatazawa, as taught in claim 3, as it would have in the system of Mitsuru. See MPEP 2143 (I) B.
[041] Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato and Toshiyuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seiji et al (JP 2002198098 A; Henceforth, Seiji).
[042] Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the battery pack according to claim 1, further comprising: an integrated insulator (A1) on all side surfaces of the stacked body.
[043] Sato and Toshiyuki teach the battery of claim 1. Toshiyuki teaches the use of insulating tapes wrapping around the battery, with each tape each covering two opposing side surfaces of the battery (Figure 7, above), but does not teach the use of one piece of insulating tape to wind along all the side surfaces of the battery.
[044] Seiji teaches a sheet-type laminated battery with a tape wrapped around the outer circumference of the laminated structure, such that the tape does not come into contact with the side surfaces of the electrode assembly ([0008]). Seiji teaches that this configuration is designed to allow an electrolyte solution to penetrate into the laminated battery structure ([0007]), since previous configurations known in the art have used tape to wrap around almost every surface of the laminated structure to securely fasten and bind the multiple sheet electrodes that make up the laminated structure together ([0005]), such that electrolyte could not flow into the battery structure ([0006]). The examiner notes that the only way, with solid current collectors, this would be possible is if the tape covers the entirety of each side surface of the lamination, and this problem only exists when using a liquid electrolyte.
[045] Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the battery of Sato with the insulating tapes of Toshiyuki, in the same field of endeavor, to create a secondary battery with an integrated insulator covering all the side surfaces of an electrode stack. Seiji teaches that there is precedent in the art to cover all the side surfaces in a laminated electrode stack with tape, such that a liquid electrolyte could barely penetrate the electrode stack ([0006]), in order to securely fasten and bind the multiple sheet electrodes that make up the laminated structure together ([0005]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that wrapping a piece of insulating tape of Toshiyuki around each side surface of the laminated battery of Sato would have improved the structure, since it would be performing the same function that Seiji teaches is known in the art. See MPEP 2143 (I) C.
Conclusion
[046] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: JP 2010080324 A (Henceforth, Toshio), US 10367225 B2 (this is equivalent to WO 2017033420 A1, cited in the IDS; Henceforth, Miyazaki) and US 20170141433 A1 (Henceforth, Yoshima).
[047] Both Toshio and Miyazaki separately teach batteries with an electrode stack (Toshio: Abstract; Miyazaki: Abstract) wherein tape is disposed on multiple side surfaces of the battery, extending from the base plate to the top plate such that the tape extends along the stacking direction of the battery (Toshio: Figure 5; Miyazaki: Figure 2).
[048] Yoshima teaches a non-aqueous battery with a bipolar electrode, with positive and negative electrode active material disposed on opposing sides of the electrode, and a non-aqueous electrolyte (Abstract). Figure 11 depicts an insulator around the electrode system, while [0094] and [0095] states there is a thermoplastic resin film disposed on the interior of the battery base. The examiner notes this would surround all of the side surfaces of the electrode assembly.
[049] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
[050] 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.
[051] If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
[052] 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights