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 .
Note on Terminology
The instant application includes “ribbon-shaped” and “rectangular-shaped” in the claim language. “Ribbon-shaped” is taken as synonymous with “rectangular-shaped” as the difference is a matter of relative dimension, i.e. a “ribbon” is a rectangle that is much longer than it is wide, and specific dimensions and quantifications to differentiate the two terms are not provided in the instant specification. “Sheet” and “strip” as found in the prior art are similarly taken to be synonymous.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajiura et al. (EP 1113511 A1), further in view of Suehiro et al. (US 2020/0350634 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kajiura teaches a battery comprising a plurality of anodes aligned on and joined to one side of a anode current collector while being spaced from one another at a plurality of bending portions defined by desirable intervals on the anode current collector, and a corresponding plurality of cathodes aligned on and joined to one side of a cathode current collector while being spaced from one another at a plurality of bending portions defined by desirable intervals on the cathode current collector (Paragraph [0059]).
Kajiura does not teach the double-sided anode material on both sides of the anode current collector, nor the double-sided cathode material on both sides of the cathode current collector. Suehiro teaches coating at least one side of an anode current collector with anode active material (Paragraph [0035]) and exemplifies coating both sides (Fig. 3b), and coating both sides of a cathode current collector with cathode active material (Paragraph [0030], Fig. 2b). It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Kajiura and Suehiro to arrive at the claimed invention of double-sided coated electrodes and gain the commonly known benefits of the adaptation in the art, such as higher energy density and spatial efficiency per battery unit. See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Kajiura teaches the anode and cathode components opposing each other by a separator (Paragraph [0059]) and all cathodes and anodes oppose each other (Fig. 1B) and are folded at the designated bending portions (Paragraph [0060]) wherein the uncoated cathode current collector regions and uncoated anode current collector regions protrude from opposing sides of the stack (Fig. 1C).
Kajiura teaches welding the exposed anode lead to an insulation plate such that the uncoated anode current collector regions are also in contact with the plate, and the uncoated cathode current collector regions are in contact with the opposite wall surface of the can housing (Paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1E).
Regarding Claim 2, Kajiura teaches sheet-shaped anodes and cathodes with strip-shaped leads divided by a separator that are wound with two terminal ends from which the uncoated current collector regions protrude and the composite body is axially aligned such that the winding jacket bears against the inside of the housing circumferentially (Paragraph [0061]; Figs. 2D and 2E).
Kajiura does not teach a cylindrical-shaped housing. Suehiro teaches a closed-end cylindrical battery casing (Paragraph [0006]) of an optimized diameter (Paragraph [0057]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cylindrical battery housing of Suehiro with the wound electrode assembly of Kajiura in order to arrive at the claimed invention and gain the benefits of the adaptation, such as reduction of high stress on unsupported protruded portions of the electrode group during charging expansion as taught by Suehiro (Paragraph [0005]). See re Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Regarding Claim 3, Kajiura teaches repeatedly folding the sheet-shaped anodes and cathodes with strip-shaped leads divided by a separator to form a stacked electrode with protruding uncoated current collectors from opposing sides of the stack that is inserted into a prismatic housing can (Paragraph [0060] and [0068]; Figs. 1D and 1E).
Regarding Claim 4, Kajiura teaches welding the exposed anode lead to an insulation plate such that the uncoated anode current collector regions are also in contact with the plate, and the uncoated cathode current collector regions are in contact with the opposite wall surface of the can housing (Paragraph [0060]; Fig. 1E). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize the interfacing of the cathode current collector to the wall of the can housing, further secured via pressure by gas purging and sealing the can (Paragraph [0060]), to result in a mechanical connection by definition of joining two parts using physical interlocking with forces such as friction or compression.
Regarding Claim 5, Kajiura teaches an embodiment in which a cathode current collector of aluminum foil having 14 µm thickness (Paragraph [0040]) is coated intermittently with cathode active material having 94 µm thickness (Paragraph [0049]), and an anode current collector of copper foil having 14 µm thickness (Paragraph [0051]) is coated intermittently with anode active material having 74 µm thickness.
As in Claim 1 above, Kajiura only teaches single-sided active material coating and thus combining with the motivation of Suehiro to coat a double-sided electrode, the total thickness of the double-sided cathode becomes 202 µm and the total thickness of the double-sided anode becomes 162 µm. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pick any part of the claimed range of the instant application, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 6, Kajiura teaches a different embodiment in which a cathode current collector of aluminum foil having 14 µm thickness is coated intermittently with cathode active material having 300 µm thickness (Paragraph [0066]).
As in Claim 1 above, Kajiura only teaches single-sided active material coating and thus combining with the motivation of Suehiro to coat a double-sided electrode, the total thickness of the double-sided cathode becomes 614 µm. The combined teachings of Kajiura and Suehiro anticipate and render obvious the claimed range.
Kajiura does not teach an anode active material thickness in this embodiment. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kajiura, in regards to the cathode active material thickness, with common knowledge in the art of manufacturing anodes and cathodes for multilayer electrode assemblies in secondary batteries, to optimize the corresponding anode active material thickness to be approximately similar to the cathode active material thickness for reasons such as (1) aligning active material volumes for balanced capacities by N/P ratios and (2) matching material thicknesses and thus also shrinkage and expansion during charge and discharge cycles to mitigate cell deformation. A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would ultimately arrive at an anode with an active material thickness within the claimed range to match the performance of a cathode with the active material thickness as taught by Kajiura since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vivian Cheng whose telephone number is (571)270-1930. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-5pm ET, Fri 7:30am-12pm ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/V.S.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights