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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US-2024-0379993-A1, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 12MAR2024 are in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Kubota (JP-2017212214-A; “Kubota”) in view of Battery Council International (“About Battery Separators”, “Battery Council International”).
Regarding Claims 1, Kubota teaches a thermally conductive sheet arranged on the heat transfer plate (Abstract) (where the fixing part comprises two or more portions having different properties). Moreover, Kubota teaches a method (including an apparatus) for manufacturing a battery module (second full paragraph for Page 2). Kubota teaches the power storage block 100 includes an element stack 11 in which a plurality of single cells 101 are stacked, an integrated mechanism that integrates the element stack 11, and a pressing device that presses the element stack 11 (first full paragraph of Page 3) (pressing part configured to press the fixing part). Kubota teaches a positive electrode (first electrode) and a negative electrode (second electrode) (seventh full paragraph of Page 3) as part of a single battery constituting the element stack 11 (fifth full paragraph of Page 3). Because the sheet arranged on the heat transfer plate is thermally conductive, and the pressing device presses down on the entire stack (including the conductive sheet), the pressing device is configured to heat the conductive sheet during regular battery operation (pressing part configured to heat the fixing part).
Kubota teaches that the fixing part has two or more properties in that the element stack 11 is held by an integrated mechanism which includes a pair of end plates 120 and a pair of side frames 140, and binds a plurality of unit cells 101 stacked via battery holders 160 and 170 (first full paragraph of Page 6). The side frame 140 is manufactured by cutting a metal plate such as stainless steel or steel plate (third full paragraph of Page 6). The heat transfer plate 191 and the cooling pipe 192 are made of a metal material having excellent thermal conductivity such as aluminum or an aluminum alloy (last full paragraph of Page 6).
Kubota also teaches the battery holders 160 and 170 which hold the batteries in place and are part of the fixing part are made of a resin having insulating properties and heat resistance (second full paragraph of Page 4) (the fixing part comprises two or more portions having different properties).
Separators are inherent to batteries and must be included in the unit cells 101 of Kubota. Battery Council International teaches that separators are essential to battery safety, performance or lifespan because without a separator, a battery would short-circuit, overheat, or fail immediately (second full paragraph of Page 1), so it must inherently be included in the unit cells 101 of Kubota.
Claim(s) 2-5, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Kubota (JP-2017212214-A; “Kubota”) in view of Battery Council International (“About Battery Separators”, “Battery Council International”) and “Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison” (“Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison”, “Machine MFG”).
Kubota in view of Battery Council International teach a thermally conductive sheet arranged on the heat transfer plate and method associated therewith as noted above for claim 1.
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, in Embodiment X, the side frame 140 is manufactured by cutting a metal plate such as stainless steel or steel plate (third full paragraph of Page 6). The side frame 140 serves as the rim portion configured to surround the central portion (please see the annotated Fig. 1 of Kubota below). The heat transfer plate 191 and the cooling pipe 192 are made of a metal material having excellent thermal conductivity such as aluminum or an aluminum alloy (last full paragraph of Page 6). The heat transfer plate 191 serves as the central portion comprising a surface configured to come into contact with the stack (please see the annotated Fig. 1 of Kubota below). If the prior art compound (aluminum/steel) does in fact possess a particular benefit, even though the benefit is not recognized in the prior art (the strength of steel and aluminum are not identified in Kubota), applicant’s recognition of the benefit is not in itself sufficient to distinguish the claimed compound from the prior art. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991); MPEP 2144.09 VII. Machine MFG teaches that aluminum has lower tensile strength compared to stainless steel. The tensile strength of aluminum alloys ranges from approximately 100 MPa to 400 MPa (first full paragraph of Page 2). Common stainless-steel grades, such as AISI 304 and 316, typically have tensile strengths ranging from 515 MPa to 750MPa, while some specialized stainless steels can achieve tensile strengths up to 1300 MPa (last paragraph of Page 1). Moreover, Machine MFG teaches that aluminum has higher thermal conductivity (205 W/m·K) (second paragraph of Page 11) compared with stainless steel (15 W/m·K) (first full paragraph of Page 11).
Regarding Claim 2, in Embodiment Y, the intermediate holders 160 made of resin are the central portion configured to come in contact with the stack (second full paragraph of Page 4) and the cooling pipe 192 is the rim portion disposed inside the heat transfer plate 191, is made of a metal such as aluminum or an aluminum alloy (last full paragraph of Page 6), and has a U-shape (first full paragraph of Page 7)(surrounds the central portion).
In Embodiment Z, the end plate 120 is made of aluminum (third full paragraph of Page 4) and the central portion, and the side frame 140 is the rim portion.
[AltContent: textbox (Battery Stack 0=])]
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
686
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Electrodes)][AltContent: textbox (DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS
30 Electrical storage module
31 Element laminated body
100 Electrical storage block,
101 Single cell,
102 Battery cover,
104 Positive terminal,
105 Negative terminal,
110 Duct device,
120 End plate,
140 Side frame,
160 intermediate holder,
170 end (battery) holder,
180 heat conduction sheet,
190 cooling structure,
191 heat transfer plate,
192 Cooling pipe, )]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Pressing Part)]
Fig. 1 of Kubota, duplicated from Page 42 of Kubota
Regarding Claim 4, from Embodiment X, the heat transfer plate 191 (the central portion) includes aluminum (last full paragraph of Page 6).
Regarding Claim 5, from Embodiment X, the side frame 140 (the rim portion) is made of steel (third full paragraph of Page 6).
Regarding Claim 7, from Embodiment Y above, the cooling pipe 192 (part of the rim portion) does not come into contact with the stack (please see Fig. 1 of Kubota, duplicated from Page 42 of Kubota, above).
Regarding Claim 8, from Embodiment Z above, if the side frame 140 is the rim portion and the end plate 120 is the central portion, then the central portion and the rim portion are spaced apart from each other because the side frame 140 extends down the stack (please see annotated Fig. 1 of Kubota above).
Regarding Claim 9, Kubota teaches that the bent portion 142 (coupling part) of the side frame 140 is screwed to the end plate 120 with a screw 150 while being in contact with the end plate 120 (sixth full paragraph of Page 6). Kubota teaches that the side frame is fixed to the frame 140 to the end plate 120 using the screw 150 and end-mounted using bolts, rivets, or the like, or by caulking or welding (seventh full paragraph of Page 6).
Claim(s) 1, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Abe (JP-5040272-B2; “Abe”).
Regarding Claim 1, Abe teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a bipolar battery, comprising a vacuum means for operatively holding the laminating means (fixing part) and the pressing means under vacuum (pressing part) (first full paragraph of Page 3). Abe teaches that the laminate is subject to heating while bring pressed (second full paragraph of Page 3).
Abe teaches the bipolar battery 110 is in the form of a stacked body 100 of a plurality of single cells (battery elements) (seventh full paragraph of Page 7) with terminal plates 101 and 102 that are highly conductive (eighth full paragraph of Page 7).
Abe teaches the bipolar battery has a positive and negative electrode and a separator (sixth full paragraph of Page 3).
Abe teaches that the outer case 104 is a sheet such as polymer-metal composite laminate film – such as a metal covered with an insulator like polypropylene film (first full paragraph of Page 4) (the fixing part comprises two or more portions having different properties).
Abe teaches a cradle that can grip the battery (last paragraph of Page 6, eighth full paragraph of Page 7) that is then pressed by the press plate 176 (eighth paragraph of Page 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
756
459
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 11-12, Abe teaches that the clip mechanism 153 (part of the fixing part) includes a guide block and a moveable block (tenth full paragraph of Page 6). Abe also teaches the Z-axis moving means can be arranged in the clip mechanism 153. If movement occurs along the Z-axis, then the blocks move toward each other to fix the battery, as the holding mechanism contains the clip mechanism which grips two opposing portions of the outer peripheral portion of the bipolar battery 110 (ninth full paragraph of Page 6)(the pair of fixing blocks has a pressing surface that comes into contact with and fixes the stack). The mechanism is shown in Fig. 13 of Abe below:
[AltContent: textbox (195 – Guide Block
197 – Moveable Block
191, 193 – Lower and Upper Arms of Clip Mechanism 153)]
Fig. 13 of Abe, duplicated from Page 38 of Abe
Regarding Claims 13-14, Abe teaches that the lower heating means 175 and the upper heating means 177 have, for example, resistance heating elements, are disposed inside the base plate 174 (part of the press unit 172) and the press plate 176, and are used to raise the temperature of the base plate 174 and the press plate 176 (last paragraph of Page 8)(the press part comprises a pair of heating blocks, and a heating part is included in each of the heating blocks). Abe also states that the press plate 176 is used to press the stacked body of the bipolar battery 110 in cooperation with the cradle 156 (eleventh full paragraph of Page 8), which is part of the fixing part (fifth full paragraph of Page 9). Abe teaches that the press plate 176 descends toward the cradle 156 while pressing (last paragraph of Page 9) and that the cradle is placed on the base plate 174 (tenth full paragraph of Page 8) (the pair of heating blocks each has a heating plate provided on one surface of each of the pair of heating blocks that comes into contact with the fixing part).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (JP-2017212214-A; “Kubota”) in view of Battery Council International (“About Battery Separators”, “Battery Council International”) and “Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison” (“Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison”, “Machine MFG”).
Regarding Claim 6, Kubota in view of Battery Council International and “Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison” teach the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above.
Kubota further teaches in Fig. 1 that the central portion would account for approximately 60% of an overall area of the fixing part, while the rim portion would account for approximately 40% of the overall area of the fixing part, from Embodiment X.
Kubota does not specifically teach values for the area that are drawn to scale.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable such as area through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The areas of the parts that make up the fixing part can be determined through routine experimentation depending on compression reaction forces (seventh full paragraph of Page 8 of Kubota and fourth full paragraph of Page 8 of Kubota). Kubota establishes that the thickness, shape, dimension, and material of the duct device 110 are set so as to ensure rigidity that can withstand the compression reaction force (fourth full paragraph of Page 8), and the duct device presses the element stack 11 toward the heat conductive sheet 180 (first full paragraph of Page 8). Because the dimensions of the duct device are directly proportional with the dimensions of the rim portion – the side frame 140 – as seen in Fig. 1 of Kubota above, the dimensions of the rim portion are also a result effective variable. The conductive sheet 180 is a rectangular sheet, where the dimension in the front-rear direction is substantially the same as the dimension in the front-rear direction of the element laminate 11, and the dimension in the left-right direction is larger than the dimension in the left-right direction of the element laminate 11 (fourth full paragraph of Page 8), which explains how the dimensions of the conductive sheet relate to the element laminate 11. Kubota also discusses how the compression of the heat conductive sheet 180 needs to be managed within a range where permanent deformation does not occur (sixth full paragraph of Page 8).
Because the battery is affected by a force per unit area as a result of compression and reaction forces (fourth full paragraph of Page 8), the areas of the rim and central portion need to be adjusted such that an adequate compression force is attained (sixth and seventh full paragraphs of Page 8).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota (JP-2017212214-A; “Kubota”) in view of Battery Council International (“About Battery Separators”, “Battery Council International”), “Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison” (“Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison”, “Machine MFG”), and Sun (“Studies on T-shaped one-side bolted connection to hollow section column under bending”, “Sun”).
Regarding Claim 10, Kubota in view of Battery Council International and “Stainless Steel vs Aluminum: Strength, Properties, and Applications Comparison” teach the limitations of Claim 9 as discussed above.
Kubota further teaches that the bent portion 142 (coupling part) of the side frame 140 is screwed to the end plate 120 with a screw 150 while being in contact with the end plate 120 (sixth full paragraph of Page 6). Kubota teaches that the side frame is fixed to the frame 140 to the end plate 120 using the screw 150 and end-mounted using bolts, rivets, or the like, or by caulking or welding (seventh full paragraph of Page 6).
Kubota does not teach a method of T-shaped coupling.
Sun teaches T-shaped coupling (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the battery of Kubota by employing T-shaped coupling as taught by Sun in the coupling between the central portion and the rim portion of the fixing part in the battery of Kubota. Kubota and Sun each constitute prior art which is directly analogous to the claimed invention (MPEP 2141.01(a)(I)) by being reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor is addressing, which is coupling. Sun teaches that the T-shaped coupling had a higher yield bending moment and did not weaken significantly in initial stiffness and ultimate bending moment compared with a Standard High-strength Bolted Connection (SHBC) (seventh full paragraph of Page 32), providing the adequate motivation for incorporating this feature that is readily known in the art in the battery of Kubota.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20140212751-A1 teaches a lamination method involving multiple electrodes in a stack (Abstract); teaches a fixing member that has a material different from the separator ([0054]); teaches a pressure and heating method using a stable interface contact ([0066])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-0315. The examiner can normally be reached 8a.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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/WILLIAM FADDOUL SAVAGE/
Examiner, Art Unit 1782
/AARON AUSTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights