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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim language “wherein the separator further comprises a liquid holding member different from the separator and configured to hold an electrolytic solution” is unclear due to inconsistencies with both the separator claimed to comprise the liquid holding member and the liquid holding member being different from the separator. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention with reasonable certainty. Applicant is invited to amend the claim to provide clear and definite language that distinctly defines the invention. Until the claim language is clarified, the scope of the invention (the liquid holding member) cannot be determined with the certainty required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and will be interpreted as, based on the drawings and specifications, as being different from the separator and configured to hold an electrolytic solution, being provided at an end portion as claimed.
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 way 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 no obviousness.
This application currently called 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 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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagata et al. JP 2009218105A in view of Watanabe et al. US 11,189,886B. The English Patent Translation for JP 2009218105A is attached.
Regarding claim 1, Yagata et al. describes a plurality of flat plate-shaped positive and negative electrodes arranged together side-by-side in one direction (with the positive electrode terminal connection portion and the negative electrode terminal connection portion facing the same direction (para [0012])), separated by a separator (para [0001]). The disclosed separator that is made of a zigzag-folded member (para [0011]) that insulates the positive and negative electrodes and contains intervening portions that are interposed between pairs of electrodes (Figures 4 and 5); see References 1 and 2 below. Yagata et al. additionally discloses the separator having an upper folded portion connecting an upper end of one intervening portion to another upper end of another intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portion on one side of the direction, and the separator having a lower folded portion connecting a lower end of one intervening portion to another lower end of another intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portion on one side of the direction (Figures 6 and 7); see Reference 3 below. Yagata et al., however, does not teach of an outermost covering portion collectively covering the upper and lower folded portions, where the upper folded portion is connected to the outermost covering portion, and the lower folded portion is connected to the outermost covering portion. Watanabe, et al. teaches of a separator including an extended portion including a first extended portion at one end of the first separator located on one side of the first electrode stack, and a second extended portion at another end opposite the one end of the first separator located on another side of the [first] electrode stack. The wrapper covers at least part of a periphery of the [first and second] (upper and lower) electrode stack(s), and the [first and second] (upper and lower) wrapper is connected to at least one of the plurality of [fan]fold portions one side of the [first and second] electrode stack(s) (Column 15, lines 17-22; Column 16, lines 1-21; Figure 10); See Reference 4 below. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yagata et al. to incorporate the teaching of Watanabe, as to further prevent displacement between stacked electrodes without excessively reducing the battery capacity and the amount of retained electrolyte solution (Column 4, Lines 43-45).
Regarding claim 5, Yagata et al. discloses an electrode assembly comprising the plurality of electrodes arranged in one direction, and the zigzag-configured separator that comprises an upper folded portion which connects an upper and lower end of one intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions and an upper and lower end of another intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions which is adjacent to the one intervening portions on one side of the one directions, respectively, as described above. However, Yagata et al. fails to disclose a cell case that houses the electrode assembly. Watanabe discloses a case with a case body (Column 4, line 48) that insulates the positive and negative electrodes (electrode assembly) (Column 4, lines 56-58; Figure 1); See Reference 5 below. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yagata et al. to incorporate the teaching of Watanabe, as to serve as an exterior body that can house the electrode assembly and an electrolyte solution (Column 3, lines 42-46).
Reference 1: Example of Intervening Portions
PNG
media_image1.png
534
479
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference 2: Separator Formed in Zigzag Configuration
PNG
media_image2.png
553
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reference 3: Upper and Lower Folded Portions that Connect Upper and Lower Ends of Intervening Portions of the Plurality of Intervening Portions
PNG
media_image3.png
529
553
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
637
395
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reference 4: Wrapper (Outmost Covering Portion) Connected to Upper and Lower Folded Portions
PNG
media_image5.png
398
691
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reference 5: Cell Case Housing Electrode Assembly
PNG
media_image6.png
479
618
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagata et al. JP 2009218105A in view of Watanabe et al. US 11189886, as applied to claim 1 further in view of Hibino et al. US 20210273256. Regarding claim 2, Yagata et al. as modified by Watanabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Yagata et al. discloses an electrode assembly comprising the plurality of electrodes arranged in one direction, and the zigzag-configured separator that comprises an upper folded portion which connects an upper and lower end of one intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions and an upper and lower end of another intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions which is adjacent to the one intervening portions on one side of the one directions, respectively, as described above. However, Yagata et al. fails to teach of an outermost covering including a terminal end that is connected to the electrode. Hibino et al., discusses a sheet-like rectangular case that covers the positive and negative electrode from both sides, that houses the positive and negative electrodes and the separator, with terminal ends that are connected to the positive and negative electrode (Para [0009]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yagata et al. to incorporate the teaching of Hibino, as to possibly suppress leakage of electrolytic solution to outside the secondary cell (Para [0009]).
Regarding claim 3, Yagata et al. as modified by Watanabe et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above. Yagata et al. discloses an electrode assembly comprising the plurality of electrodes arranged in one direction, and the zigzag-configured separator that comprises an upper folded portion which connects an upper and lower end of one intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions and an upper and lower end of another intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions which is adjacent to the one intervening portions on one side of the one directions, respectively, as described above. However, Yagata et al. fails to teach the outermost covering (as in the disclosed claim 2) to include a two-layer portion composed of two layers, and the two-layer portion being connected to the electrode. Hibino et al. discusses a sheet-like cell case that includes two-layer sheet portions covering the positive and negative electrodes, the separator, and the electrolytic solution, and two terminals connected respectively to the positive and negative electrodes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yagata et al. to incorporate the teaching of Hibino, as to both house the contents of the electrode assembly (inner layer) and to suppress leakage of the electrolytic solution to the outside of the secondary cell (outer peripheral layer) (Para [0009]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagata et al. JP 2009218105A in view of Watanabe et al. US 11189886, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Kawaski & Hori US 20150064550A1. Yagata et al. discloses an electrode assembly comprising the plurality of electrodes arranged in one direction, and the zigzag-configured separator that comprises an upper folded portion which connects an upper and lower end of one intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions and an upper and lower end of another intervening portion of the plurality of intervening portions which is adjacent to the one intervening portions on one side of the one directions, respectively, as described above. However, Yagata et al. fails to teach of a liquid electrolyte holding member as being different from the separator and being provided at an end portion as claimed. Kawaski & Hori disclose a cell that holds electrolytic solution in a liquid electrolyte holding area that is not a part of a separator and is located at the end of the case (Figure 5); see Reference 6 below. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yagata et al. to incorporate the teaching of Kawaski & Hori, as the injected electrolytic fluid may be stored within the cell, and be readily available for exchange with the electrodes, allowing optimal battery function (Para [0042]).
Reference 6: Electrolytic Solution Held at End of Cell
PNG
media_image7.png
743
579
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMINDO CARVALHO JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-5292. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a.m.-5p.m..
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571 272-1481. 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.
/ARMINDO CARVALHO JR./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights