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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bobel et al. (US 2021/0408517 A1).
As to claim 1, Bobel et al. disclose a battery cell (figure 10), comprising: an electrode assembly (100’) comprising a first end face(the top of the cell) and a second end face opposite to each other (bottom of the cell), the first end face being provided with tabs (see figure 10); and a lithium replenishing apparatus (110 lithium source) connected with the second end face [0074].
As to claim 2, Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of electrode assemblies (100’, 100’’) are provided, and the lithium replenishing apparatus is connected with second end faces (bottom of the cells) of at least some electrode assemblies of the plurality of electrode assemblies [0074].
As to claim 15, Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the lithium replenishing apparatus (110) is connected with the entire second end face (figure 10).
As to claim 16, Bobel et al. discloses a battery (figure 10), comprising: the battery cell (100’) according to claim 1; and a box (140-container), the box being configured to accommodate the battery cell (figure 10).
As to claim 17, Bobel et al. discloses a power consumption apparatus (HEV or EV), comprising: the battery according to claim 16, the battery being configured to provide electric energy [0002].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobel et al. (US 2021/0408517 A1) in view of Abe et al. (JP 2018/120811 A, cited on IDS).
As to claim 3. Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 2 where in the replenishing apparatus is at the bottom (figures 9-10) of the cells or on the side of the cell as seen in figure 7 [0072-73] but does not disclose the lithium source being placed between two adjacent electrode assemblies of the plurality of electrode assemblies.
Abe et al. discloses a battery and teaches the pre doping electrode (4) having a vertical leg (41) and a bottom portion (43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include the vertical portion because this would allow for the current collector to come in contact with the anode. By placing the lithium replenishing apparatus between the cells it would allow the lithium to be the same distance from each of the anodes.
As to claim 4. Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 3, wherein a surface of each electrode assembly of the plurality of electrode assemblies comprises a planar part (flat part -major surface of the electrodes), and planar parts of the two adjacent electrode assemblies are opposite and connected (via tabs or by the major surfaces of the electrode groups); wherein the lithium replenishing apparatus is disposed between the planar parts of the two adjacent electrode assemblies.
As to claim 5, Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 4, wherein the planar part is a side face of each electrode assembly having the largest area (see figure 2).
As to claim 6, Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 4, wherein the lithium replenishing apparatus covers the planar part (the vertical part would be between the cells which are the major surfaces of the cells).
As to claim 7, Bobel discloses the battery cell according to claim 1, further comprising: an end cover (140-container is disposed around the cells see figure 10, which includes a cover at the top of the cell) disposed towards the first end face and parallel to the first end face (figure 10). Bobel does not disclose the end cover being provided with a lithium replenishing electrode terminal.
Abe et al. discloses a battery and teaches the pre doping electrode (4) having a vertical leg (41) and a bottom portion (43) and a tab portion (42 is connected to the terminal 103-lithium replenishing electrode terminal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include the vertical portion along with the tab because this would allow for the current collector to come in contact with the anode. By placing the lithium replenishing apparatus between the cells it would allow the lithium to be the same distance from each of the anodes.
As to claim 8, Modified Bobel discloses the battery cell according to claim 7, wherein the lithium replenishing apparatus comprises a lithium replenishing agent (lithium source), and the lithium replenishing agent is electrically connected with the lithium replenishing electrode terminal (42-tab portion connects to terminal 103).
As to claim 9, Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 8, and further discloses that the thickness of the lithium source as a result effective variable [0077-81]. The thickness of the lithium source determines the amount of lithium that is added to the battery and does not add additional weight to the battery after construction [0081]. So while Bobel does not explicitly disclose wherein the lithium replenishing agent has a thickness of 0.001mm to 4.9mm, Bobel does teach that the amount of lithium affects the weight of the battery and one of ordinary skill would be able to optimize the thickness because it has been held by the courts that optimization of a results effective variable is not novel. In re Boesch, 617 F2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
As to claim 10 Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 8, wherein Abe further discloses lithium replenishing apparatus (4) further comprises a conductive assembly (current collector 41), and the conductive assembly is configured to electrically connect the lithium replenishing agent and the lithium replenishing electrode terminal (see figure 2).
As to claim 11, Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 8, wherein the lithium replenishing apparatus further comprises a supporting member (current collector 41), and the supporting member is disposed on the innermost side of the lithium replenishing apparatus (Modified Bobel would place the current collector between the cells thus the innermost side of the lithium replenishing apparatus.
As to claim 13, Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 7, wherein a side of the lithium replenishing apparatus facing the end cover is provided with a lead-out end (42), and the lead-out end and the lithium replenishing electrode terminal (103)are connected [0175].
As to claim 14, Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 7, wherein the end cover (container 140) is further provided with a negative electrode terminal (15), and the negative electrode terminal is connected with the electrode assembly (figure 2); wherein the lithium replenishing electrode terminal is configured to be short circuited with the negative electrode terminal when the lithium replenishing apparatus replenishes the battery cell with lithium [0017].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobel et al. (US 2021/0408517 A1) in view of Abe et al. (JP 2018/120811 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US 2021/0119218 A1).
As to claim 12, Modified Bobel et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 11, wherein a material of the supporting member as a metal (conductive material as it is used for a current collector) thus not being plastic.
Li et al. discloses a battery and teaches improvements to a current collector are generally selecting a current collector with a light weight or small thickness. For example, a punched current collector or a plastic current collector plated with a metal layer may be used [0005].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use a plastic current collector with a metal layer because this would make the battery lightweight or have smaller thickness.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18631360 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference application claims a battery cell, comprising: at least two electrode assemblies, a surface of each electrode assembly comprising a curved part, and curved parts of two adjacent electrode assemblies forming an accommodating space; and a lithium replenishing apparatus, at least part of the lithium replenishing apparatus being disposed in the accommodating space which overlaps the current claim 2 of A battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly comprising a first end face and a second end face opposite to each other, the first end face being provided with tabs; and a lithium replenishing apparatus connected with the second end face and where in a plurality of electrode assemblies are provided, and the lithium replenishing apparatus is connected with second end faces of at least some electrode assemblies of the plurality of electrode assemblies.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 2 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18643600 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because reference application claims A battery cell, comprising: at least two electrode assemblies; a lithium-supplementing apparatus arranged between two adjacent electrode assemblies in the at least two electrode assemblies; a shell configured to accommodate the at least two electrode assemblies, the shell comprising a first wall, and the first wall being provided with a lithium-supplementing electrode terminal; and a connecting element configured to electrically connect the lithium-supplementing apparatus with the lithium-supplementing electrode terminal which encompasses claim 2 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights