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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
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. JP2021-182151, filed on 11/08/2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8-11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouchi et al (US 2012/0171549 A1; hereinafter “Ouchi”).
Regarding claim 1, Ouchi discloses a laminate type solid secondary battery [0060] comprising:
The two unit cells 1 and 2 are stacked via an intercellular separation structure body [0060].
Each unit cells consist of positive electrode layer 1, negative electrode layer 2 and solid electrolyte layer 3 [0047].
PNG
media_image1.png
464
764
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An in-between layer (i.e. a bonding layer) comprising of a current collecting layer 9 and an intercellular layer 4 and 5. Layer 9 is made from electroconductive material [0065] and is capable of electric conduction directly perpendicular to the stacking direction [0023]. The intercellular layer consisting of insulating materials 4 and electroconductive materials 5 in the through-holes, allowing the two cells to be electronically connected [0013].
Fig.1 Embodiment 3 as discloses by Ouchi (Pg.3).
Regarding claim 2, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses that the electroconductive material 5 is fills the through-hole formed in the insulating section 4 [0015]. Filling the through-holes is understood to be disposing the material into the space until the surface is flushed with the insulating material section. Therefore, the conductor and the insulator have the same thickness.
Regarding claim 5, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses the insulating layer 4 is stacked so that the positive electrode layer 1 of unit cell 2 may be adjacent to one side surface (upper surface) of insulating layer 4 and the negative electrode layer 2 of the unit cell 1 may be adjacent to the other side surface (lower surface) of the insulating layer 4 [0048]. A cut-out view is provided in figure 1 above.
Regarding claim 8 and 9, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses another embodiment where the insulator layer 4 and the conductive layer 5 is on top of Unit Cell 2, as shown in figure 2 below. Therefore, the conductors and the insulators are positioned at an outer edge of the bonding layer in plan view of the laminated battery. Furthermore, the bonding layer is exposed to the top surface of the laminated battery.
PNG
media_image2.png
421
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig.2 Embodiment 4 as discloses by Ouchi (Pg.5)
Regarding claim 10, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses that the shape of the laminate body is rectangular [0046]. This meet the claim limitation of the conductor is provided in a grid shape, as grid is understood to be a rectangular array of squares. This is demonstrated in figure 3 below, where the insulating layer is rectangular.
PNG
media_image3.png
396
388
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig.3 Rectangular insulating layer in Ouchi (Pg.4)
Regarding claim 11, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses in Figure 1 where the intercellular layer includes a plurality of conductors disposed in through-holes that are adjacent to the insulators, in an alternating pattern.
Regarding claim 14, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses in Figure 2 where the conductors have a configuration in which the conductors are regularly disposed at certain intervals in plan view of the laminated battery, in an alternating patten of insulator, conductor, insulator, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses in figure 1, where the intercellular layer comprising of the conductor and insulator layers are in between the two unit cells. The term “embeds” here is understood to mean fix firmly within something else. Hence, the insulating layer and conductor layer are embedded to both unit cell 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 16, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses in Figure 2 where the conductors and the insulators are disposed in an alternating patten, with the insulators adjacent to the conductors.
Regarding claim 17, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi discloses that the insulator layer 4 is not one single smooth surface, but with a plurality of through-holes [0054]. This results in a surface with a pattern of ridges, where the surface is raised and lowered in a zig-zag pattern. This can be seen in figure 1. Therefore, Ouchi insulator pattern meet the definition of an embossed shape, and consequently the prior art anticipates the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 18, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses the surface of the insulator 4 is a face in contact with the first and the second unit cell, as shown Figure 2. The insulator 4 is in physical contact with the positive electrode layer 1 of unit cell 2 and negative electrode layer 2 of unit cell 1 [0048].
Regarding claim 19, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses the surface is a face in contact with the conductor, as shown in figure 2. The top surface of insulator layer 4 is in physical contact with the electroconductive layer 5 adjacent to it.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouchi et al (US 2012/0171549 A1; hereinafter “Ouchi”) as evidenced by Wang et al (Porosity-driven stress relaxation enabling durable LaCrO3-based high-emissivity coatings under thermal cycling; hereafter “Wang”) and Rosales-Sosa et al (Crack-resistant Al2O3 – SiO2 glasses; hereafter “Sosa”)
Regarding claim 7, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi further discloses the materials which comprises the conductors and the insulators. The insulating layer 4 contains an Al2O3 powder and borosilicate-based glass as a major material, or alternatively, the insulating layer may be constituted by fusing an insulating ceramic such as an Al2O3 powder with a glass frit such as borosilicate-based glass [0109]. The materials of the insulating ceramic and the glass frit are not particularly limited [0109]. As for the electroconductive material, it can be selected from an electroconductive oxide, a metal, a mixture of an electroconductive oxide with a metal and the like [0052]. Specifically, Lanthanum chromite (LaCrO3) or the like can be used, but Ni, Cu, Ag, or the like can also be used [0110].
The calculated hardness of LaCrO3 range from 9.5-11.8 Gpa (Wang, Pg.20, Line 12-13), and the hardness of the Al2O3 powder and borosilicate glass fusion material ranges from 7.23 – 8.07 Gpa (Sosa, Table 1). Thus, in this particular embodiment, the insulator is softer than the conductor.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al (US 2012/0171549 A1; hereinafter “Ouchi”) as applied to claim 1 above in view of machine translated Osaki et al (JP2004179091 A; hereafter “Osaki”).
Regarding claim 3, Ouchi disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi does not explicitly teaches that the conductor contains a conductive resin material.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Osaki teaches a stacked battery in which positive electrode plate and negative electrode plate are arranged alternatively facing each other inside a rectangular parallelepiped block made of an electrolyte, and a pair of end-face electrodes made of a conductive resin containing an adhesive is provided on different end faces of the block [0014].
Ouchi and Osaki are combinable because both are concerned with battery comprising multiple unit cells.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to use conductive resin taught by Osaki as the electroconductive material in Ouchi’s battery invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because the resin would provide excellent flexibility [0042]. The resin can absorb shear stress generated at the joint surface due to thermal shock, etc., and maintain joint strength and electrical contact. Furthermore, Osaki teaches that even when subjected to thermal shock during solder reflow, the thermal expansion coefficient of the conductive resin is higher than that of the electrodes, allows for the mitigation of stress due to thermal expansion and the maintenance of current collection efficiency [0043].
Regarding claim 4, Ouchi-Osaki discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Osaki further discloses the conductive resin material contains filler materials to impart conductivity, materials such as carbon black, graphite, gold, silver, nickel, zinc oxide, etc. [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the invention, to add the filler material into the resin to enhance its conductivity. Osaki further teaches that these conductive fillers do not ionize and dissolve even after repeated charging and discharging, and the sites through which lithium ions enter and exit the electrode active material are not blocked. As a result, there is no significant degradation in cycle characteristics, and the appropriate discharge capacity can be maintained [0036].
Claims 6, 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al (US 2012/0171549 A1; hereinafter “Ouchi”) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Saitou et al (US 2014/0038008 A1; hereafter “Saitou”) and MasterBond (Adhesives for Battery Applications; hereafter “MasterBond”) and further in view of Periodic Table (Technical data for Tin, Technical data for Aluminum; hereafter “Periodic Table”).
Regarding claim 6, Ouchi disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi does not explicitly discloses that the insulator contains at least one selected from the group consisting of an insulating resin material and an oxide.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Saitou teaches a multi cells battery design, shown in figure 4 below, where the insulator 92b may be formed of an insulating resin, an oxide, a nitride, and the like [0074]. Saitou further teaches the insulating resin layer contains, as a high thermal conductive filler, silver, bismuth, copper, aluminum, magnesium, tin, zinc, or an alloy of any two or more of those [0066]. Therefore, the insulating resin also houses another conductor, but a thermal conductor instead of an electrical conductor. MasterBond further teaches the benefit of using conductive epoxy adhesives and potting compounds, which is to improve heat dissipation. Select adhesives and sealant systems offer protection from moisture, vibration, mechanical shock and extreme temperatures (Para. 2).
Ouchi, Saitou, and MasterBond are combinable because both are concerned with components of battery.
PNG
media_image4.png
503
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filling date of the invention, to incorporate the insulating resin of Saitou and MasterBond into the battery design of Ouchi. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because Saitou and MasterBond teaches that conductive epoxies (i.e. resin) are more resilient to thermal and mechanical and improve heat dissipation.
Fig. 4 Embodiment 3 discloses by Saitou (Pg.8).
Regarding claim 12, Ouchi-Saitou-MasterBond discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi-Saitou-MasterBond teaches that the metallic member 92a is a solid material that performs heat transfer with the battery cell 30 [0074]. The metallic member can be material such as Al [0065] while the second conductor that made up the filler in the insulating resin contains zinc [0066]. Periodic Table discloses that based on Mohs hardness values, aluminum has a value of 2.75 (Bulk physical properties) which made it harder than tin, which has a value at 1.5 (Bulk physical property). Therefore, the first conductor and the second conductor differ from each other in hardness.
Regarding claim 13, Ouchi-Saitou-MasterBond-Periodic Table discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Based on Mohs hardness values disclose by Periodic Table, aluminum (2.75, Bulk physical properties) is harder than tin (1.5, Bulk physical property).
Based on Figure 4, the first conductor 92b is positioned closer to an outer edge of the battery than the conductor 92a in plan view of the laminated battery. Therefore, the prior arts teaches the limitation.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouchi et al (US 2012/0171549 A1; hereinafter “Ouchi”) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Hayashi et al (US 9,190,652 B2; hereafter “Hayashi”).
Regarding claim 20, Ouchi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi did not disclose that the laminated battery further comprising a side face insulating member, wherein the side face insulating member is in contact with a side face of the laminated battery.
PNG
media_image5.png
489
649
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hayashi teaches a layered solid state battery constructed so that the unit cells constituting the layered solid-state battery can be connected in parallel (Col.2, Line 4-7). Hayashi further teaches an embodiment where protective layers 6 are disposed on the side surface of the internal collection layer 4, which contains an electron conductive material (Col.5, Line 39-41). The protective layer 6 is constituted of a material that does not have electric conductivity (Col.9, Line 9-11).
Fig 5. Hayashi battery with protective layers (Pg.7).
Ouchi and Hayashi are combinable because both are concerned with the same field of endeavor, laminated battery of multiple unit cells.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the battery designs of Ouchi with Hayashi’s protective layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add this protective layer to prevent short circuit between the positive electrode layer and the negative electrode layer (Col.9, Line 5-9).
Regarding claim 21, Ouchi-Hayashi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ouchi-Hayashi further discloses that the side facing insulating member is in contact with the conductor. As shown in figure 5, the protective layer 6 is in contact with the short side of layer 4, the conductive layer between the unit cells.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THINH HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0275. The examiner can normally be reached 0730-1700.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights