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 .
Specification
The use of the term “Mylar”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 14, the phrase “second protection layer have a small thickness than the third…” should read ““second protection layer have a smaller thickness than the third”
Paragraph 19, “mylar” should read “Mylar” (also see the note above regarding trade names)
Paragraph 22, the phrase “In the cell core n some requirements…” should read “In the cell core in some requirements…”
Paragraph 57, the examiner recommends amending the phrase “The electric tool includes an electric metal cutting tool, an electric grinding tool, an electric assembly tool, and an electric railway-purpose tool, for example, an electric drill, an electric bench grinder, an electric wrench, an electric screwdriver, an electric hammer, an electric impact drill, a concrete blender, and an electric planer” by introducing a semicolon before “for example”.
Paragraph 72, the phrase “such as aluminum alloy…” should read “such as an aluminum alloy…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, the phrase “tabs of any one of the electrode assembly are led out from at least one end face of the two end faces” should read “tabs of any one of the electrode assemblies are led out from at least one end face of the two end faces”. Claims 2-14, which depend on claim 1, are objected to for the same reason as claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koji et al. (JP 2018106833A; Henceforth, Koji).
Regarding claim 1, Koji teaches a cell core (a group of wound electrodes, [0009]; Figure 3, below), comprising a cell core body, wherein the cell core body comprises at least one electrode assembly (a group of wound electrodes constitutes an electrode assembly [0009]). Koji teaches the cell core body has two opposite end faces and a cell core side face connected between the two end faces (see annotations of Figure 2 and 3, below). Koji teaches the tabs of the electrode assembly are led out from at least one end face of the two end faces (Figure 2, below). Koji teaches the cell core further comprises a cell core protection layer (an adhesive layer, [0009]), the cell core protection layer covers at least a part of a side face of the cell core body (element 41 in Figure 3, below is the adhesive layer, and it covers all sides of the wound electrodes), and the cell core protection layer comprises an inorganic material coating layer or an organic-inorganic composite structure coating layer (the adhesive layer contains 10% to 90% by mass of resin and the remainder of an insulating filler, [0011], The insulating filler may be composed of, for example, alumina (Al2O3), boehmite (Al2O3 ・ H2O), silica (SiO2), titania (TiO2), etc. [0034]; the examiner notes this makes the adhesive layer an organic-inorganic composite structure coating layer).
PNG
media_image1.png
407
602
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
410
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figures 2 (left) and 3 (right), reproduced from Koji, annotated by the examiner.
Regarding claim 2, Koji teaches the cell core according to claim 1. Koji additionally teaches the cell core side face comprises four side faces, including a first side face and a second side face that are opposite each other, and a third side face and a fourth side face that are opposite each other (see the annotations of Figure 3, below). Koji teaches the third side face and the fourth side face are respectively connected to the first side face and the second side face, and the first side face and the second side face have a larger area than the third side face and the fourth side face (see the annotations of Figure 3, below). Koji teaches the cell core protection layer (“adhesive layer”, see claim 1 above) surrounds the entire electrode core group (Figure 3); thus, the cell protection layer must comprise a first protection layer disposed on the first side face and a second protection layer disposed on the second side face.
PNG
media_image3.png
361
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, reproduced from Koji, annotated by the examiner.
Regarding claim 3, Koji teaches the cell core according to claim 2. Koji teaches the cell core protection layer (“adhesive layer”, see claim 1 above) surrounds the entire electrode core group (Figure 3, above); thus, the cell protection layer must a third protection layer disposed on the third side face and a fourth protection layer disposed on the fourth side face.
Regarding claim 4, Koji teaches the cell core according to claim 3. Koji teaches the thickness must be 0.1 mm or more ([0011]) and 10 mm or less ([0024]), where the thickness is measured at 3 or more locations with an optical microscope and averaged together ([0025]). Koji teaches an example where the thickness is 0.5 mm ([0052]). The examiner notes that, since the adhesive layer is wound around the electrode group, the first protection layer, the second protection layer, the third protection layer, and the fourth protection layer have an equal thickness, thereby satisfying the third condition of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Koji teaches the cell core according to claim 1. Koji teaches the organic-inorganic composite structure coating layer is directly attached to the cell core body (The adhesive layer 41 is located on the surface of the wound electrode group … The adhesive layer contains 10% to 90% by mass resin and the remainer of an insulating filler, [0020]; Figure 3, above).
Regarding claim 6, Koji teaches the cell core according to claim 1. Koji teaches the method of application of the adhesive layer is not particularly limited and can be applied by spray coating or the like ([0020]). Therefore, Koji teaches the organic-inorganic composite structure coating layer is integrally formed by spraying.
The examiner notes the above claim is a product-by-process claim; it has been held that "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113 (I). Since the product (the cell core of claim 1) is taught (see claim 1 above), the examiner notes the claim would be unpatentable even if the prior product was made by a different process.
Regarding claim 7, Koji teaches the cell core according to claim 1. Koji teaches the thickness of the adhesive layer must be 0.1 mm or more ([0011]) and 10 mm or less ([0024]), where the thickness is measured at 3 or more locations with an optical microscope and averaged together ([0025]). Koji teaches a series of examples where the thickness is 0.5 mm ([0052]; also see Table 1, Examples 1-10). The examiner notes this lies within the instant range of 0.01 μm to 1000 μm and therefore anticipates it. See MPEP 2131.03 (I).
Regarding claim 9, Koji teaches a battery cell (a secondary battery, [0009]), comprising the cell core according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above) and a housing (a housing, [0009]). The housing comprising a housing body (a case, [0018]; Figure 2, element 91), wherein the cell core is located in an accommodating space of the housing body (the housing contains the wound electrode group and the adhesive layer, [0009]), and the cell core protection layer of the cell core is opposite an inner wall of the housing body (Figure 3, as annotated in claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 12, Koji teaches the battery cell according to claim 9. As shown in Figure 3, above, the cell core protection layer (“adhesive layer”, see claim 1) fills a gap between a side face of the cell core body (“group of wound electrodes”) and the inner wall of the housing body (“case”, element 91).
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.
Claims 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji in view of Lu et al. (CN 215731923 U; Henceforth, Lu).
Regarding claim 8, Koji teaches the cell core according to claim 7. Koji teaches the thickness of the adhesive layer must be 0.1 mm or more ([0011]) and 10 mm or less ([0024]), where the thickness is measured at 3 or more locations with an optical microscope and averaged together ([0025]). Koji teaches an example where the thickness is 0.5 mm ([0052]; Table 1, Examples 1-10), and another where the thickness is 0.02 mm (Table 1, Comparative Example 9). Koji does not teach an example within the instant range of 0.05 μm to 5 μm.
Lu teaches a battery casing and a power battery ([n0006]), wherein the battery casing has an internal accommodating cavity ([n0008]) with an insulating and fireproofing layers attached to the inner wall of the accommodating cavity ([n0009]; the examiner notes this constitutes a housing protection layer). The ordering of the layers on the inner wall can be either the insulating layer is provided on the inner wall of the casing with the fireproofing layer is provided on top the insulating layer ([n0015]), or the opposite orientation ([n0017]). The layers are formed by a spraying or coating process ([n0018]). Lu teaches the insulating layer comprises at least one of acrylic resin, epoxy resin, polyurethane, and aluminum oxide ([n0020]) and the fireproof layer comprises at least one of acrylic resin, epoxy resin, polyurethane, rubber, carbonate, borate and aluminum oxide ([n0021]). The examiner notes the aluminum oxide material constitutes an inorganic coating layer. Lu teaches, to achieve better insulation and flame retardant effects, the thickness of both the insulation layer and the fireproof layer is 1 μm to 1 mm ([n0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the adhesive layer to be between 1 μm and 1mm, as taught by Lu. The examiner notes the range taught by Lu overlaps/encompasses the range taught by the instant claim. It has been held that, 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the thickness of the protective layers from the prior art range, because the prior art teaches the desired property/utility over the entire range. Additionally, there would have been a motivation, as taught by Lu, for the thickness of both the insulation and fire retardant layers to be between 1 μm and 1 mm, to achieve better insulation and flame retardant effects ([n0046]). The examiner notes this motivation is similar to the motivation Koji utilizes for including an adhesive layer on the battery cell, which is to suppress the possibility of short circuits between electrode burrs and sharp foreign objects ([0011]), which relies on better insulation effects, and thus a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a thickness within the range taught by Lu to get those benefits.
Regarding claim 10, Koji teaches the battery cell according to claim 9. Koji does not teach that the cell core protection layer of the cell core is fixedly connected to the inner wall of the housing body; or the housing further comprises a housing protection layer disposed on the inner wall of the housing body, the housing protection layer and the cell core protection layer are opposite each other and spaced apart, and the housing protection layer comprises an inorganic material coating layer or an organic-inorganic composite structure coating layer.
Lu teaches a battery casing and a power battery ([n0006]), wherein the battery casing has an internal accommodating cavity ([n0008]) with an insulating and fireproofing layers attached to the inner wall of the accommodating cavity ([n0009]; the examiner notes this constitutes a housing protection layer). The ordering of the layers on the inner wall can be either the insulating layer is provided on the inner wall of the casing with the fireproofing layer is provided on top the insulating layer ([n0015]), or the opposite orientation ([n0017]). The layers are formed by a spraying or coating process ([n0018]). Lu teaches the insulating layer comprises at least one of acrylic resin, epoxy resin, polyurethane, and aluminum oxide ([n0020]) and the fireproof layer comprises at least one of acrylic resin, epoxy resin, polyurethane, rubber, carbonate, borate and aluminum oxide ([n0021]). The examiner notes the aluminum oxide material constitutes an inorganic coating layer. Lu teaches bare cells are inserted into the opening of the battery cover ([n0025]). Lu teaches after coating the inner wall of the casing body with an insulating and fireproof covering, if the bare cell has surface defects and comes into contact with the battery casing, what is in direct contact with the bare cell is not the aluminum casing body, but the insulating and fireproof covering. The insulating and fireproof covering can play an insulating function, blocking the electrical conduction between the bare cell and the casing body, thereby avoiding the short circuit between the casing body and the bare cell ([n0026]). Thus, Lu teaches a battery with the provided casing effectively reduces the risk of short circuits and heat-induced fire inside the battery casing and has high safety performance ([n0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery casing of Koji by including insulating and fireproofing layers on the interior of the housing, as taught by Lu in the same field of endeavor. There would have been a motivation, as taught by Lu, to include insulating and fireproofing layers on the interior of the battery case, in order to block the electrical conduction between the bare cell and the casing body, thereby avoiding the short circuit between the casing body and the bare cell ([n0026]). This motivation is similar to the motivation Koji utilizes for including an adhesive layer on the battery cell, which is to suppress the possibility of short circuits between electrode burrs and sharp foreign objects ([0011]). Additionally, the simple substitution of the battery housing of Koji for that of Li would have led to predictable results, since Lu does not limit the type of battery cell would function within the battery casing. See MPEP 2143 (B).
Regarding claim 11, Koji and Lu teach the battery cell according to claim 10. Both Koji and Lu teach their coatings are applied through a spraying process, not through vapor deposition.
However, the examiner notes claim 11 is a product-by-process claim. It has been held that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113 (I). Therefore, since the product described in claim 11 is the battery of claim 10, and Koji and Lu teach the battery of claim 10, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, and thus the claim is rendered obvious.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koji in view of Li et al. (KR 20160088297 A; Henceforth, Li).
Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is drawn to a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 9. Koji teaches the battery cell of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach a battery containing the battery cell. Koji, however, teaches the battery cell may be any type of rechargeable battery, of which a lithium-ion battery is described as an example ([0016]).
Li teaches a battery system with a thermally conductive coating ([0001]). The battery system is comprised of battery cells having metal casings with a coating on the casing ([0005]). Li teaches the battery cell may be any type of battery, including lithium-ion batteries ([0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the battery cell of Koji in a battery pack, as taught by Li. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the simple substitution for the battery cells of Li for those of Koji would have led to predictable results, as the battery types of Li can be any type of battery, including lithium ion batteries, which matches the battery type of Koji. See MPEP 2143 (B).
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to an electric device, comprising the battery according to claim 13, wherein the battery is used to provide power to the electric device. Koji and Li teach the battery of claim 13. Li teaches lithium-ion batteries, in the form of battery packs with a plurality of battery cells, are suitable power sources for aircraft and electric vehicles ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the battery pack taught by Li and Koji to power an electric device, such as an aircraft or electric vehicle. There would have been a motivation to use a lithium-ion battery, such as the one taught by Koji and Li, to power an electric device, such as an airplane or an electric vehicle, since lithium-ion batteries are suitable power source for an electric vehicle or aircraft, as taught by Li, The examiner notes that electric vehicles and aircraft are listed as suitable electric devices in paragraph 57 of the instant specification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (CN 215496867 U; Henceforth, Chen).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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.
/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights