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 .
Drawings/Specification Objected to for New Matter
The amendment filed 7/23/25 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. New Figure 5 received on 7/23/25 added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the shape and position of the positive electrode terminal, the position of the negative electrode terminal, the footprint of the lithium-ion secondary battery with respect to the circuit board, the unlabeled layer between the lithium-ion secondary battery and the circuit board, and the relative thicknesses of the lithium-ion secondary battery with respect to the circuit board.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura et al. (WO2019/221139A1) (hereafter Yura) in view of Tutorial: Soldering Li-ion Battery Cells (hereafter Liang). Note that citations to Yura have been made with respect to US2021/0043919A1, which is the English equivalent of WO2019/221139A1.
With respect to claim 1, Yura teaches a method for producing a circuit board assembly, comprising connecting a lithium ion secondary battery to a circuit board by reflow soldering, and wherein the lithium ion secondary battery comprises: a positive electrode layer (12); a negative electrode layer (16); a separator (20) interposed between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer; an electrolyte (20); and an exterior body (24) having a closed space accommodating the positive electrode layer, the negative electrode layer, the separator and the electrolyte (paragraph 57; and figure 1).
With respect to claims 1-3, Yura does not teach the lithium-ion secondary battery has been subjected to at least initial charging and discharging; and wherein the lithium ion secondary battery has been subjected to at least initial charging and discharging, and wherein the lithium ion secondary battery has a state of charge (SOC) of 3 to 29%, 3 to 28%, and 3 to 20% during the reflow soldering.
However, Liang teaches discharging an initially charged lithium-ion secondary battery (but not fully discharging) before soldering to reduce danger while maintaining the life span of the battery (page 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discharge the battery to a state of charge (SOC) of 3 to 29%, 3 to 28%, and 3 to 20% before soldering, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value or a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The artisan would have been motivated to ischarge the battery to a state of charge (SOC) of 3 to 29%, 3 to 28%, and 3 to 20% before soldering by the reasoned expectation of significantly reducing the danger of the soldering process while maintaining the lifespan of the battery. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955)).
Thus, at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to discharge the battery to a state of charge (SOC) of 3 to 29%, 3 to 28%, and 3 to 20% in order to maintain the life span of the battery while performing the soldering in a less potentially dangerous situation.
With respect to claim 4, Yura teaches wherein reflow heating in the reflow soldering is performed at 180 to 270° C (paragraphs 12 and 31).
With respect to claim 5, Yura teaches the exterior body comprises a positive electrode can (24a); a negative electrode can (24b); and a gasket (24c), wherein the positive electrode can and the negative electrode can are crimped with the gasket interposed therebetween to form the closed space (figure 1; and paragraph 57).
With respect to claim 7, Yura teaches wherein the positive electrode layer is a ceramic positive electrode plate (paragraphs 33, 36, and 60; and claim 1).
With respect to claim 8, Yura teaches wherein the ceramic positive electrode plate is a lithium complex oxide sintered plate (paragraphs 33, 36, and 60; and claim 1).
With respect to claim 9, Yura teaches wherein the lithium complex oxide is lithium cobaltate (paragraphs 33, 36, and 60; and claim 1).
With respect to claim 10, Yura teaches wherein the negative electrode layer is a ceramic negative electrode plate (paragraphs 30, 46, and 48).
With respect to claim 11, Yura teaches wherein the ceramic negative electrode plate is a titanium-containing sintered plate (paragraphs 30, 46, and 48).
With respect to claim 12, Yura teaches wherein the titanium-containing sintered plate comprises lithium titanate or niobium titanium complex oxide (paragraph 46; and claim 11).
With respect to claim 13, Yura teaches wherein the separator is made of cellulose, polyimide, polyester, or ceramics selected from the group consisting of MgO, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, ZrO.sub.2, SiC, Si.sub.3N.sub.4, AlN, and cordierite (paragraph 54; and claim 14).
With respect to claim 14, Yura teaches the electrolyte is provided in the form of an electrolytic solution, and the electrolytic solution is a solution containing lithium borofluoride (LiBF.sub.4) in a non-aqueous solvent consisting of at least one selected from the group consisting of γ-butyrolactone (GBL), ethylene carbonate (EC) and propylene carbonate (PC) (paragraphs 54-55; and claim 15).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura and Liang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US2016/0072115A1) (hereafter Kim).
With respect to claim 6, Yura and Liang do not teach a positive electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body proximate to the positive electrode layer; and a negative electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body proximate to the negative electrode layer, wherein the positive electrode terminal and/or the negative electrode terminal is connected to the circuit board by the reflow solder.
However, Kim teaches a positive electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the positive electrode layer; and a negative electrode terminal joined to an outer surface of the exterior body closer to the negative electrode layer, wherein the positive electrode terminal and/or the negative electrode terminal is connected to the circuit board by the reflow solder (figures 7A-8B; paragraphs 6, 21, and 22; and claim 1).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the process of soldering the positive and negative electrode terminals to a circuit board as taught by Kim in the collective process of Yura and Liang in order to include circuit protection and increase the service life of the battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees that Yura and Kim do not teach a state of charge (SOC) of 3 to 29%, 3 to 28%, and 3 to 20%; however, newly cited Liang teaches discharging an initially charged lithium-ion secondary battery (but not fully discharging) before soldering to reduce danger while maintaining the life span of the battery.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735