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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu (US20190259979), Yoon (US20100136411) and Min (US20160372783).
As to claims 1 and 13, Ryu teaches a battery comprising a housing (pouch/case, 220), electrode assembly (210) and tabs (fig. 5: 207/209) connected to the assembly (fig. 3) where the housing (220) comprises an L-shaped first end wall (top) an L-shaped second end wall (bottom) spaced apart from the first end wall in the thickness direction (top/bottom of page) (fig. 3) and a connecting wall portion extending between the edge of the first and second L-shaped end walls enclosing an L-shaped accommodating cavity (that occupied by 210) wherein the first and second end walls are provided as ends of the cavity (fig. 3), the connecting wall portion comprises a plurality of wall portion units (sides of L) arranged sequentially along a contour of the edge of the first end wall (fig. 3), the electrode assembly (210) is L-shaped and comprises anode, cathode plates and separator therebetween stacked in the thickness direction ([0105-106]), the plurality of wall portion units comprise a preset wall portion unit (Z or Z’: fig. 5). Further regarding instant claim 13, Ryu teaches use of the battery in an electronic apparatus ([0004]). Ryu teaches the desire to maximize battery cell (assembly) space in the device and minimize sealed area (i.e. claimed first distance) but is explicitly silent the anode surrounding the cathode (i.e. anode larger than cathode) and the first (distance from anode to connecting wall portion/side wall) and second distance (distance from cathode to anode) size and relationship claimed.
Yoon teaches a pouch battery wherein the cathode material (108 on 104) is surrounded by the anode material (108 on 102); that is 108 on 102 extends past 108 on 104 (fig. 1) thereby creating the claimed second distance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the cathode not extending as far as the anode and second distance of Yoon in Ryu to reduce lithium plating as taught by Yoon ([0034]). While Yoon is specifically silent to this distance being 0.7 to 2mm. One of ordinary skill would appreciate the distance is a result effective variable where providing a distance (>0mm) ensures reduction of lithium plating as taught by Yoon ([0034]) while too large a distance reduces cathode material necessary for reaction. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to balance enough cathode material and reduction of lithium plating barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results (MPEP 2144.05).
Min teaches that the electrode assembly (i.e. including claimed anode) should be spaced apart from the pouch to prevent short circuiting ([0005-7]) but that increasing this distance (claimed first distance) decreases the accommodation cavity for the assembly limiting capacity ([0008]). Min therefore teaches that the claimed first distance (D3) forming space (4) is a result effective variable which must be minimized to maximize capacity while being present to reduce shorting. It would have been obvious to provide a ratio of first distance to second distance which approaches 0mm and therefore overlaps by optimizing the above art recognized result effective variables i.e. increased capacity/assembly volume, prevention of Li plating and shorting barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results.
Regarding claim 2 and 14, modified Ryu teaches the plurality of wall portion units comprise first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth (each side of L-shape Ryu) wherein walls as claimed are provided by Ryu see annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
309
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3 and 15, in modified Ryu, Yoon teaches the larger anode understood on additional sides ([0034]) and it would have been obvious to provide the distances on all sides for the benefits discussed with respect to claim 1: preventing Li plating (Yoon: [0034]) and shorting (Min: [0007]) as a result all walls read on preset wall portion.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ryu teaches the housing comprises two composite sheets of polymer and metal layer and protective layer sequentially stacked (Ryu: [0005], [0062]).
Claim(s) 4-8, 10 and 16-120 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Yoon and Min as applied to claim 2 and 14 above and further in view of Kandibanda (US20200075992)
Regarding claims 4, 6, 16 and 18, modified Ryu teaches the side walls to provide sealing (Ryu: [0025, 34] and fig. 6); Yoon and Min (fig. 9). Kandibanda teaches a pouch wherein the side walls are bent (folded) towards the first end wall (fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the bent sides of Kandibanda in modified Ryu to effectively seal and protect the edge walls of the L by enclosing the edge within the additional material and reduce size as technology strives to allow the greatest amount of space for the cell as taught by Kanibanda ([0035]).
Claims 5, 7, 17 and 19, modified Ryu teaches that the electrode assembly (i.e. including claimed cathode) should be spaced apart from the pouch to prevent short circuiting (Min: [0005-7]) but that increasing this distance (claimed D2) decreases the accommodation cavity for the assembly limiting capacity (Min: [0008]). Similar to the above, Min therefore teaches that the claimed D2 (Min: D2 and D3) forming space (4) (fig. 4) is a result effective variable which must be minimized to maximize capacity while being present to reduce shorting. It would have been obvious to provide D2 which approaches 0mm and therefore overlaps the claimed range in modified Ryu by optimizing the above art recognized result effective variables i.e. increased capacity/assembly volume, prevention of Li plating and shorting barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results. Min explains that this spacing distance is the same along the perimeter i.e. sides and edge/corner ([0040]) which would therefore include the claimed opposite second side wall distance G2 and overall reduction in sizes to balance preventing shorting while increasing capacity ([0039]). Examiner notes the indents claimed are in the alternative therefore only the first was addressed and reads on the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, modified Ryu teaches the sealing portion (Min: fig. 1: 4A) further comprises a first curved side wall unit (Min: fig. 4) wherein curved (rounded) side wall units would have been obvious in modified Ryu because they prevent concentration load from breading the edges and maximize electrical capacity as taught by Min ([0004] and [0043]). As a result of the combination and obviousness to round/curve the connections the combination will have a curved side wall unit connecting the second and fourth side walls with R1. In the optimization of the above result effective variables the relationship would necessarily flow in an effort to balance the presence of the claimed distances, presence of the claimed curve to prevent shorting and maximize capacity barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results. Examiner notes the indents claimed are in the alternative therefore only the first was addressed and reads on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, modified Ryu is silent the bent part being adhesively fixed to the connecting wall portion. Kandibanda teaches an L-shaped battery wherein the bent part is adhesively fixed to the connecting wall portion (fig. 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adhesively fix the bent part to provide smaller battery dimensions as taught by Kandibanda ([0051]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Yoon, Min and Kandibanda as applied to claim 7 above and further in view of Jung (US20190089021).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ryu teaches the that the electrode assembly (i.e. including claimed cathode) should be spaced apart from the pouch to prevent short circuiting (Min: [0005-7]) but that increasing this distance (claimed L2) decreases the accommodation cavity for the assembly limiting capacity (Min: [0008]). Similar to the above, Min therefore teaches that the claimed D2 (Min: D2 and D3) forming space (4) (fig. 4) ([0039-40]) is a result effective variable which must be minimized to maximize capacity while being present to reduce shorting. It would have been obvious to provide L2 which approaches 0mm and therefore overlaps the claimed range in modified Ryu by optimizing the above art recognized result effective variables i.e. increased capacity/assembly volume, prevention of Li plating and shorting barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results. Modified Ryu is silent the thickness of the laminate (claimed T). Jung teaches that the thickness of a laminate for pouch batteries is on the micron scale and is a result effective variable wherein the too thin and it may be difficult to protect the cell while too large limits weight and volume which is not desirable ([0074]). It would have been obvious to optimize the laminate thickness (T) and distance between the second side edge and wall portion respectively thereby arriving at the claimed relationship to balance preventing shorting, increasing capacity while reducing overall weight and volume of the cell as taught by Min and Jung as discussed above. Examiner notes the indents claimed are in the alternative therefore only the first was addressed and reads on the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, Yoon and Min as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Heo (US20060071637).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ryu teaches aluminum (Ryu: [0064]) and polypropylene ([0067]) and polyethylene terephthalate (Ryu: [0063]). Yoon teaches the same materials and specifies the aluminum as a foil ([0037]). While modified Ryu teaches PET and PP they are specifically silent to PETG (polyethylene glycol terephthalate) as required by claim 12. Heo teaches that PETG, PP, PE are art recognized equivalents materials for forming the casing (i.e. housing) of batteries ([0050]). It would have been obvious to use the modified PET (PETG) of Heo in modified Ryu with a reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. protective housing barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results MPEP 2144.06-7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chaloner-Gill (US5445856) which teaches that the thickness of pouch laminates should be as thin as possible (col. 9, lines 34-45).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRIAM STAGG whose telephone number is (571)270-5256. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights