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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka et al. (US 20070207387 A1) (Muraoka) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180047969 A1) (Kim).
Regarding claims 1 Muraoka discloses A power storage cell(e.g. Fig. 1), comprising(per annotated Fig. 3 below): a wound electrode(4) assembly which includes a first electrode(1), a second electrode(2), and a separator(3) disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode;
PNG
media_image1.png
524
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a case accommodating the wound electrode assembly(Fig. 1), wherein the wound electrode assembly is configured of the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator which are wound about a winding axis(the longitudinal axis above in Fig. 3) , the first electrode includes(per annotated Fig. 4 below): a current collector(1a); an electrode material layer(1b) with which a portion of the current collector is coated; a tab lead(8) projecting from the current collector in an axial direction of the wound electrode assembly(implied by Fig. 1-2);
PNG
media_image2.png
288
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the current collector includes an uncoated portion that is not coated with the electrode material layer (21, fig. 4), the tab lead is disposed on the uncoated portion (fig. 4).
Muraoka further generally desires to cushion the radius of curvature above beside the tab to protect this portion from breakage or damage ([0029]), though Muraoka fails to explicitly disclose a cushioning disposed adjacent to the tab lead on the uncoated portion.
Kim teaches an analogous battery with wound electrode assembly (e.g., fig. 2). Kim teaches a composite tab 30 including a conductive part 32 adjacent soft, ductile parts 34 (fig. 3, [0038-0039]). The ductile part, in tolerating plastic deformation without breaking from tensile force ([0039]), as well as being polymeric ([0044]), is reasonably a cushion by protecting the separator and electrode from damage even if the tab is deformed ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to adopt Kim’s composite tab including a conductive part adjacent at least one ductile/cushioning part with the reasonable expectation of protecting the electrode and separator from damage even if the tab is deformed, as taught by Kim.
Thus, modified Muraoka would disclose a cushioning disposed adjacent to the tab lead on the uncoated portion (by adopting Kim’s tab, where ductile part would be adjacent conductive part on Muraoka’s uncoated portion).
Regarding claim 3, modified Muraoka discloses the power cell.
Muraoka discloses that the electrode material layer is rolled ([0007], [0046]) and, thus, compressed. Further, the layer includes PVDF as a binder ([0045]), which is known to be a flexible polymer and, thus, imparts some degree of elasticity. Thus, modified Muraoka reasonably discloses that the electrode material layer has a lower elastic modulus than the tab lead because the tab is understood to be a rigid metal (as in aluminum in Kim’s [0044]) without the same degree of elasticity, which is further seen in Kim’s teaching that the conductive part 32 (corresponding to the tab) is harder and less ductile than the ductile part 34/cushion ([0038], [0039]), which, similar to the electrode material layer’s PVDF binder, is made of an elastic polymer (Kim, e.g., [0044]).
Muraoka discloses, as seen above in annot. Fig. 4, approximately equal thicknesses of the tab 8 and the electrode material layer 1b when the first electrode is unfurled in the form of a sheet. However, because the drawings are not to scale, modified Muraoka fails to explicitly disclose that a thickness of the electrode material layer in the orthogonal direction is greater than or equal to the thickness of the tab lead in the orthogonal direction.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand fig. 4 as showing a reasonable starting point for each component’s thickness and would realize that only three solutions exist for the tab and electrode material layer’s relative thicknesses: they must be equal; the electrode material layer must be thicker; or the tab must be thicker.
In determining the suitable thickness of each of these components, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the claimed invention’s effective filing date, to try making the tab and electrode material layer equally thick in the orthogonal direction with the reasonable expectation of achieving a successful electrode with the desired stress mitigation (MPEP 2143 (E.)).
Muraoka discloses that the bulk of the electrode material layer is ceramic (via lithium cobalt oxide active material, [0045]), whereas, as discussed above, Kim teaches that the ductile part/cushion is soft and polymeric ([0039]/[0044]). Thus, modified Muraoka reasonably discloses that the cushioning has a lower elastic modulus than the electrode material layer because this ceramic-based layer is understood to be less flexible than the soft/ductile cushion.
Regarding claim 6, modified Muraoka discloses the power storage cell according to claim 1, wherein the uncoated portion is disposed on an end portion of the current collector in a winding direction of the wound electrode assembly (Muraoka, fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, modified Muraoka discloses the power storage cell according to claim 1, wherein the uncoated portion extends in the axial direction in which the winding axis extends (
6. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muraoka et al. (US 20070207387 A1) (Muraoka) in view of Kim et al. (US 20180047969 A1) (Kim), as applied to claim 6, further in view of Harima et al. (US 20220238967 A1) (Harima).
Regarding claim 7, modified Muraoka discloses the p
... than the tab lead (per Kim, [XXX], the ductile part/cushion is a polymer, while the conductive part/tab is a strip of metal, so the ductile part would necessarily have a lower elastic modulus to accommodate plastic deformation versus the more rigid metal).
Conclusion
7. The cited art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DESIRAE N NANCE whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Gordon Baldwin, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.
/D.N.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights