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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “… a cooling member inside the case, and contacting the electrode assembly; and a cooling terminal coupled to the cooling member, and exposed to outside of the cap plate”. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation, a cooling member inside the case with a cooling terminal can be interpreted as a well-known current collector with a positive or negative terminal extending out of a lid/cap wherein tab cooling may occur wherein “contacting” and “coupling” can be interpreted as thermally, physically, or electrically.
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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the electrode assemblies". However, only one electrode assembly is claimed. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al. (US 20210028507) in view of Bae et al. (US 20150303439)
Regarding claim 1, Su teaches secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a first electrode plate 20, a separator 18, and a second electrode plate 16; a case, or protective housing 12 accommodating the electrode assembly; a cap plate sealing the case; a first terminal 28 electrically connected to the first electrode plate 20, and exposed to outside the cap plate; a cooling member, or heat spreader element 14 inside the case, and contacting the electrode assembly (P11.50-60.90-95; Fig. 1) and a cooling terminal 24 coupled to the cooling member, and exposed to outside of the cap plate.
Su is silent in explicitly teaching a cap plate sealing the case; however, Su teaches the combination of a case, or protective housing and a flat cap seal an entire battery cell (P37.51.73.94-95).
Furthermore, Bae, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a typical sealed secondary battery comprises a battery case with a flat cap plate 31 sealing the opening of the case 26 wherein the terminals extend therethrough (P12.53-63; Fig. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a cap plate sealing the case of Su wherein the terminals extend therethrough, as taught by Su and Bae as a well-known configuration of a battery cell. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, modified Su teaches the cooling member has a flat plate shape (P20.70; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, modified Su teaches the cooling member may comprise a thermoelectric element (P15).
Regarding claim 12, modified Su teaches the cooling member, or heat spreader element has a size less than that of the first electrode plate or the second electrode plate, or a spreading area that is 50% of the surface area of the first electrode or second electrode, falling within the range of less than 100% (P20.70). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05- I
Regarding claim 14, modified Su is silent in teaching a sealing member between the cooling terminal and the cap plate; however, Bae of modified Su teaches a sealing member, or gasket 55 between terminals and a cap plate to seal a hole through which a terminal penetrates (P72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a sealing member, as taught by Bae between the cooling terminal and the cap plate of modified Su to further seal the battery. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
Regarding claim 15, modified Su teaches the cooling member comprising an outer cooling member 14 contacting an outer surface of the electrode assembly (P50; Fig. 1(A))
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Su in view of Bae as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al. (US 20090159354).
Regarding claim 3, Su teaches that there are no limits on the electrode assembly or battery type, that the cooling member may be a metal foil such as aluminum or copper, that collectors may also be used as cooling members via thermal contact, and the cooling member is disposed near the electrodes (P18-75.90-97).
Su is silent in teaching the cooling member comprises an inner cooling member between the first electrode plate and the separator, or between the second electrode plate and the separator; however, Jiang, in a similar field of endeavor, also teaches using a cooling member disposed near the electrodes for cooling (P90-93; Fig. 1-2).
The battery comprises a cooling member, or substrate 107/114 between a first or second electrode plate 106/112 and a separator 115 (P73-74.91-97.170; Fig. 1.2B), wherein the cooling member is connected to a terminal and cooled
Furthermore, an electrode laminate stack or winding stack electrode assembly in a cell is a well-known design of batteries, requiring the stacking of assemblies, and it would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to create an electrode stack to reach a desired capacitance based on design size parameters and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B
The results are not unexpected because merely stacking another assembly above a first does not change the function of the battery, the cooling members, or the assembly, and provides the exact functionality taught by modified Su – to provide a battery within a case with effective heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Su teaches the cooling member further comprises an outer cooling member 14 contacting an outer surface of the electrode assembly (P50; Fig. 1(A)).
Regarding claim 5, modified Su teaches the outer cooling member comprises two outer cooling members respectively contacting and covering long sides of the electrode assembly, wherein a cooling member may be placed on each electrode (P22.71; Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, modified Su in view of Jiang teaches the inner cooling member is between the electrode assemblies at regular intervals, wherein the inner cooling members is always positioned between the electrode and the separator (Fig. 1A).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Su as applied to at least claim 4 above, and further in view of Masumoto et al. (US 20040170887)
Regarding claim 7, modified Su teaches controlling making the cooling terminal in thermal contact with cooling member via any known means and in some embodiments having thermal control with the collectors (also interpreted as cooling members) (P56-61.72-74).
Modified Su is silent in teaching the cooling member is coupled to the cooling terminal through a conducting wire; however, Masumoto, in a similar field off endeavor related to cooling a battery, teaches thermal connection between a cooling plate and terminal (P52.64.67.79; Fig. 1-2).
A cooling member is connected to a cooling terminal through a conducting wire, or thermal fuse, to improve thermal conductivity and temperature control without reducing space usage efficiency or increasing the size of a battery (P52.64-67.79).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a conducting wire to connect a cooling member and cooling terminal of modified Su because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable and because, as taught by Masumoto, a conducting wire allows a thermally controllable connection that minimizes space usage. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved.
Regarding claim 8, modified Su in view of Masumoto teaches covering a conducting wire and filling dead space with an insulating material to prevent corrosion from electrolyte in a battery, improve internal conduction, and to secure a battery from vibrations or impact (P51-52.58.63.85-87).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to fill the spaces with insulating material, thus having the conducting wire and cooling member coated with an insulating material to protect from external impact and prevent corrosion.
Regarding claim 9, modified Su in view of Masumoto teaches the insulating material covers the cooling member and the conducting wire (P51-52.58.63.85-87).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Su in view of Masumoto as applied to at least claim 9 above, and further in view of Bedeloğlu, Ayşe Çelik, and Ayşe Sezer Hiçyilmaz. "Applications of polyimide coatings: a review." SN Applied Sciences 3.3 (2021).
Regarding claim 10, modified Su teaches in view of Masumoto is silent in teaching the insulating material comprises silica aerogel or polyimide foam; however, Bedeloğlu teaches polyimide foams are proper and popular polymers in electronic devices such as batteries that enhance mechanical strength and thermal stability. Coating with polyimide preserves electrochemical properties, has strong electrolyte resistance and thermal resistance, and prevents shrinkage improving safety against explosion and overcharging (pg. 7-11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use polyimide foam as the insulating material in modified Su, coating the wire and cooling member to improve safety and reliability of the battery. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Su in view of Bae as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 20120064385).
Regarding claim 13, modified Su teaches a battery can be a plurality of battery cells packaged together (P10), but is silent in explicitly teaching the electrode assembly comprises a stack-type electrode assembly in which the first electrode plate, the separator, the second electrode plate, and the separator are sequentially stacked.
However, an electrode laminate stack in a cell, wherein the first electrode plate, the separator, the second electrode plate, and the separator are sequentially stacked, is a well-known design of batteries, requiring the stacking of assemblies, and it would be obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to create an electrode stack to reach a desired capacitance based on design size parameters and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B
The results are not unexpected because merely stacking another assembly above a first does not change the function of the battery, the cooling members, or the assembly, and provides the exact functionality taught by modified Su – to provide a battery within a case with effective heat dissipation.
Furthermore, as evidenced by Park, a typical secondary battery is formed by sequentially stacking a first electrode plate, a separator, a second electrode plate, and a separator (P5-6.66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to create an electrode stack to reach a desired capacitance based on design size parameters using the well-known sequential stacking of the first electrode plate, separator, second electrode plate, and separator, and because it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI B
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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, 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.
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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights