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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 03/15/2024, 06/20/2025, and 02/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fixation member must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims (see Claim 8 and [0061] of spec.). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference signs mentioned in the description: 501, 502 (see [0061] of spec.).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 5, 8, and 11 are 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.
"A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1235-36, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971); In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 169 USPQ 95 (CCPA 1971); In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970)" (see MPEP 2173.03).
Regarding Claim 5, there are inconsistencies between the claimed subject matter and the specification. In the summary, the specification recites that the first metal foil may be made of copper, and the second metal foil may be made of aluminum ([0008]). However, in the detailed description, the specification recites that the first metal foil is aluminum, a same material as the anode; while the second metal foil is copper, a same material of the cathode ([0050]). Therefore, it is unclear if the first metal foil is copper or aluminum and if it should be the same material as the cathode or anode. The scope of applicant’s invention cannot be ascertained. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 8, a skilled artisan would look to applicant’s disclosure for further clarification and determination of the scope of the term “fixation member.” However, said term is briefly discussed in [0061] of the specification with reference to numerals 501 and 502 of the drawings. However, said numerals/structure are not found in the drawings. Therefore, it is unclear what constitutes a fixation member; and the term is rendered indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claim 11, there are inconsistencies between the claimed subject matter and the disclosure. The specification supports that a first short-circuit member 401 and a second short-circuit member 402 may be located at an outermost portion of the electrode assembly 101 (e.g., may face and contact an exterior of the electrode assembly 101) ([0049]). In Fig. 2, the second metal foil 43 is provided at an outermost of the electrode assembly and is not in direct contact with the electrode assembly. However, the claim language recites that the second metal foil itself faces and contacts an exterior of electrode assembly. Therefore, the scope of applicant’s invention cannot be ascertained. For examination purposes, “contact” is interpreted as not requiring direct contact and encompasses a case where other components provided there between. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, as related to anticipation, Hasegawa et al. teaches an electrode assembly (stacked battery in which comprises electric elements comprising a cathode an anode structure) ([0028]) comprising:
a first short-circuit member 10 (short-circuit current shunt part)
an anode 20b on the first short-circuit member ([0068] teaches that the stacked battery comprises at least one short circuit current shunt part 10, [0076] teaches that the short circuit shunt part is provided preferably on an outer side of the plurality of electric elements between the electric elements and the case and can be provided between the electrode elements (20a, 20b); therefore, a skilled artisan would reasonably infer that providing a short circuit member between both sides, one on an anode side and one on a cathode side, of the external case would provide additional short circuit protection and is within the scope of Hasegawa’s invention), the anode including a first substrate 25 (anode current collector layer) and a first active material layer 24 (anode material layer) ([0028]) on the first substrate;
a separator on the anode (electrolyte layer 23 comprising an electrolyte solution and a separator) ([0028], [0061]);
a cathode on the separator, the cathode including a second substrate 21 (cathode current collector layer) and a second active material layer 22 (cathode material layer) on the second substrate ([0028]); and
a second short-circuit member on the cathode (as described above, Hasegawa teaches that a plurality of short circuit shunt parts can be used and can be provided between the anode and cathode electrode elements and between the electrode elements and exterior body, encompassing a case wherein the short circuit shunt part is provided on both the anode and cathode).
[AltContent: textbox (Hasegawa et al. (Fig. 2B))]
PNG
media_image1.png
128
412
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member includes a first metal foil 12 (second current collector layer comprising copper foil), an insulating layer 13, and a second metal foil 11 (a first current collector layer 11 comprising an aluminum foil) that are on top of each other ([0028], [0105], Fig. 2B).
As related to obviousness, Hasegawa et al. teaches a preferable placement of the short circuit member between the electric elements and external case ([0076]). Therefore, it would be obvious to duplicate the short circuit member to provide a first and second short circuit member at a top and bottom portion of the electrode assembly between both sides of the electrode assembly and exterior case in view of the teachings of Hasegawa et al. The mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described duplication to provide the expected result of further suppressing heat generation within the battery and suppressing deterioration of the battery ([0076]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hasegawa et al. teaches that the first metal foil (second current collector layer) includes copper, and the second metal foil (first current collector layer) includes aluminum ([0105]). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Regarding Claim 9, Hasegawa et al. teaches wherein each of the anode, the separator, and the cathode have a sheet shape ([0059]; [0061] teaches a solid electrolyte layer 23 having a sheet shape wherein said layer comprises an electrolyte solution and a separator), the anode and the cathode may be alternately and repeatedly stacked, and the separator (within the electrolyte layer 23, [0061]) may be [AltContent: textbox (Hasegawa et al. (Fig. 1))]
PNG
media_image2.png
450
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
positioned between the anode and the cathode (Fig. 1, [0027]-[0028]).
Regarding Claim 11, as applied to Claim 1, the second metal foil 11 (first current collector layer) of Hasegawa et al. of each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member faces and indirectly contacts an exterior of the electrode assembly (located at an outermost of the electrode assembly) (see Fig. 1, 2B). Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1) in view of Abe et al. (JP. Pat. No. 2009064767 A) as further evidenced by Huang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210399282 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hasegawa et al. teaches that the first metal foil 12 (second current collector layer) and the second metal foil 11 (first current collector layer) include a metal foil selected from a limited list comprising compounds such as Cu, Ni, or Al ([0032]). A typical first substrate (anode current collector) and second substrate (cathode current collector) can include aluminum and copper as further evidenced by Huang et al.; the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07). Therefore, it is deemed obvious to select Cu or Al as the first and second metal foil and utilizing said foils for the formation of the anode and cathode substrates as Cu and Al are well known to be suitable for use as an anode or cathode current collector as described above; one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the first metal foil as the same metal as the first substrate, and the second metal foil as the second substrate to simplify the manufacturing process.
Hasegawa et al. does not specifically teach the first metal foil being stronger than the first substrate, and the second metal foil being stronger than the second substrate.
However, Hasegawa et al. teaches that the thickness of the first metal foil (second current collector layer) and second metal foil (first current collector layer) is not limited and is preferably 1 μm to 100 μm ([0033]). The thickness thereof within such a range makes it possible to contact the current collector layers 11 and 12 to each other more properly and to more properly short-circuit the short-circuit current shunt part 10 especially when stress such as nail penetration is applied ([0033]).
In the same field of endeavor, Abe et al. teaches analogous art of a thickness of a positive electrode current collector of preferably 1 to 20 μm (para. 29); and a thickness of a negative electrode current collector of 1 to 9 μm. The thickness of the current collector helps protect against short circuits within the battery (para. 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Hasegawa et al. wherein the first substrate (first/anode current collector) and second substrate (second/cathode current collector) have a thickness of 1 to 9 μm and 1 to 20 μm, respectively, as taught by Abe et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to help protect against short circuits within the battery as described above.
When performing the described modification, the thickness of the positive and negative current collector (as modified by Abe et al. is on the lower end of the thickness range of the first and second metal foils of 1 to 100 μm, as disclosed by Hasegawa et al.). Therefore, the modification encompasses a case wherein the first and second metal foil (thickness: 1 to 100 μm) are thicker than the first and second substrates (1 to 9 μm and 1 to 20 μm, respectively). In the case where the first metal foil includes the same metal as the first substrate and the second metal foil includes the same metal as the second substrate, and the first and second metal foil are thicker than the first and second substrates, a skilled artisan would conclude that an increase in thickness corresponds to an increase in strength when the compared metals are the same. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect thicker copper or aluminum to be mechanically stronger and durable than thinner copper or aluminum at least in some aspect; for example, thicker materials may be hard to bend, break, or puncture when force is applied than thinner counterparts. Therefore, the modification encompasses a case wherein the first metal foil is stronger than the first substrate, and the second metal foil is stronger than the second substrate.
Regarding Claim 3, as applied to Claim 2, Hasegawa et al. as modified by Abe et al. encompasses a case wherein the first metal foil is thicker than the first substrate, and the second metal foil is thicker than the second substrate. Therefore, all claim limitations are taught or suggested by the prior art.
Regarding Claim 4, Hasegawa et al. teaches that the thickness of the first metal foil 12 (second current collector layer) and second metal foil 11 (first current collector layer) is not limited and is preferably 1 μm to 100 μm, overlapping the claimed range of 6 μm to 10 μm and 15 μm to 20 μm. ([0033]). "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). The thickness thereof within such a range makes it possible to contact the current collector layers 11 and 12 to each other more properly and to more properly short-circuit the short-circuit current shunt part 10 especially when stress such as nail penetration is applied. Therefore, all claim limitations are met.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1) in view of Ishida et al. (JP Pat. No. 2001068156 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Hasegawa et al. does not teach wherein each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member are longer than each of the anode and the cathode, each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member protruding beyond an edge of each of the anode and the cathode in an overlapped state.
[AltContent: textbox (Ishida et al. (Fig. 5))]
PNG
media_image3.png
367
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Ishida et al. teaches analogous art of a first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member 30 (short-circuit formation/heat dissipation promotion unit provided on a lowermost and uppermost side of an electrode assembly comprising two metal plates and an insulator there between) are longer than each of the anode 20 and the cathode 10, each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member protruding beyond an edge of each of the anode and the cathode in an overlapped state ([0045],[0047], Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Hasegawa et al. wherein each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member are longer than each of the anode and the cathode, each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member protruding beyond an edge of each of the anode and the cathode in an overlapped state as taught by Ishida et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide further protection of a side of the electrode assembly. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious” (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1) in view of Ishida et al. (JP Pat. No. 2001068156 A), and further in view of Lizuka et al. (CN Pat. No. 105322105 A).
Regarding Claim 7, Hasegawa et al. does not teach wherein each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member includes a bending line, each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member being bent along the bending line.
In the same field of endeavor, Lizuka et al. teaches analogous art of a film comprising a metal foil covering a battery element (electrode assembly); the metal foil is bent along a fold (bending) line to prevent cracking or pinholes on the metal foil (para. 3 of “Invention”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Hasegawa et al. wherein the metal foil on an exterior of an electrode assembly thereof (corresponding to a position of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member of Hasegawa) are bent along a bending line thereof as taught by Lizuka et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent cracking or pinholes on the metal foil as described above. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to bend the first and second short circuit members to effectively protect the sides of the electrode assembly and/or to seal the electrode assembly. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious” (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20230084564 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hasegawa et al. does not teach wherein the electrode assembly further comprises a fixation member between the first metal foil and a corresponding one of the anode and the cathode.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. teaches analogous art of a stacked electrode battery wherein a fixing member such as fixing tape is attached to an electrode assembly to provide and maintain a stacked alignment ([0145]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Hasegawa et al. to include a fixing member such as fixing tape attached to an electrode assembly as taught by Lee et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to maintain the stacked alignment as described above and prevent movement there between. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious” (see MPEP § 2143, D.). Therefore, when performing the described modification, it would be obvious for the fixing member (fixing tape) to lie between a top of the electrode assembly (corresponding to an anode or cathode) and the short circuit members, specifically the first metal foil layer of the short circuit members provided closest to the electrode assembly. “Office personnel may also take into account ‘the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’ Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396” (see MPEP 2141.03,I). Therefore, all claim limitations are met in view of the creative steps employed by a skilled artisan.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1) in view of Jung et al. (KR Pat. No. 20200132351 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Hasegawa et al. does not teach wherein the first metal foil is directly between the insulating layer and the separator.
In the same field of endeavor, Jung et al. teaches a metal substrate 200 on an outer surface of an electrode assembly directly in contact with a separator 130 to prevent an electrical short between the metal substrate and electrode structure ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Hasegawa et al. wherein the first metal foil is directly between the insulating layer and the separator as suggested by Jung et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to prevent an electrical short between the metal substrate and electrode structure as described above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1) in view of Lizuka et al. (CN Pat. No. 105322105 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Hasegawa et al. does not teach wherein edges of each of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member are bent toward the anode and the cathode, respectively.
[AltContent: textbox (Lizuka et al. (Fig. 24))]
PNG
media_image4.png
260
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Lizuka et al. teaches analogous art of a film comprising a metal foil covering a battery element (electrode assembly); the metal foil provided on an outer surface of the electrode assembly is bent toward the electrode assembly (para. 7 of “Sealing Process,” Fig. 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the electrode assembly of Hasegawa et al. wherein the metal foil on an exterior of an electrode assembly (corresponding to a position of the first short-circuit member and the second short-circuit member of Hasegawa) are bent toward the electrode assembly as taught by Lizuka et al., corresponding to the anode or cathode, respectively, of Hasegawa et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to bend the first and second short circuit members to effectively protect the sides of the electrode assembly and/or to seal the electrode assembly. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious” (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20190319252 A1) in view of Huang et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20210399282 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hasegawa et al. further teaches a lithium battery comprising the electrode assembly and a case receiving the electrode assembly and an electrolyte ([0059], [0083], [0093]).
Hasegawa et al. does not teach the lithium battery as rechargeable.
In the same field of endeavor, Huang et al. teaches analogous art of an electrode assembly in which is used in a rechargeable battery; Huang et al. acknowledges that a one time use battery results in large material wastage and undesirable environmental consequences ([0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the lithium battery of Hasegawa et al. to be rechargeable as taught by Huang et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to reduce wastage and undesirable environmental consequences as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights