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 § 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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Peh et al. (US 2016/0043447) as evidenced by Herzog (“COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF LI-ION AND NI-CD BATTERIES AT VARIABLE TEMPERATURES”, 2016).
Regarding Claim 1, Peh et al. teaches a battery pack (i.e. power storage device) that includes a first battery cell circuit and second battery cell circuit (Para. [0011]) wherein the first battery cell circuit may be a lithium ion cells and may be used at -30 degrees Celsius for very low current applications (Para. [0013]) (i.e. second secondary battery) and the second battery cell circuit may be nickel cadmium battery cells (i.e. first secondary battery) which operate effectively at as low as -40 degrees Celsius (Para. [0014]) (i.e. comprising a first secondary battery and a second secondary battery, wherein the first secondary battery is used in a first temperature range, wherein the secondary battery is used in a second temperature range, wherein a lower limit of the first of the first temperature range is lower than a lower limit of the second temperature range). The lithium ion cells (i.e. the second secondary battery) have an upper limit of 71 ºC and the operating range of nickel-cadmium batteries (i.e. the first secondary battery) is -40 to 70 ºC as evidenced by Herzog in Table 2-1 on page 20. Thus, the upper limit of the first temperature range is higher than the lower limit of the second temperature range, wherein an upper limit of the second temperature range (71 ºC) is higher than the upper limit of the first temperature range (70 ºC), wherein the first temperature range and the second temperature range each comprise 25 ºC.
Peh et al. does not teach a value of discharge capacity when the first secondary battery is discharged at the lower limit of the first temperature range is higher than or equal to 50% of a value of the discharge capacity when the first secondary battery is discharged at 25 ºC.
However, Peh et al. teaches the structure of claim 1 as explained above. Accordingly, the first secondary battery of Peh et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the claimed discharge capacity values or (b) differences in the capacity set forth in the instant claim, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the structure is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the nickel cadmium battery (i.e. first secondary battery) of Peh et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the discharge capacity values) would be small and obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 2, Peh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches a temperature control circuit can sense the temperature of the cells of the first battery cell circuit by a thermistor (Para. [0015]) (i.e. wherein the power storage device further comprises a temperature sensor and a control circuit, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to detect a temperature of the second secondary battery) and when the temperature control circuit is activated, the thermistor indicates the cells of the first battery cell circuit are below a lower temperature threshold, the cells of the second battery cell circuit discharge through the resistive heating element (Para. [0015]), heating the first battery cell circuit to an upper temperature threshold (Para. [0016]) (i.e. wherein the control circuit is configured to set the temperature of the second secondary battery within the second temperature range by heat generated by the first secondary battery in a case where a temperature detected by the temperature sensor is lower than the second temperature range).
Regarding Claim 3, Peh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches the cells of the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) discharge through the resistive heating element (Para. [0015]), heating the first battery cell circuit (i.e. second secondary battery) to an upper temperature threshold (Para. [0016]) (i.e. wherein the second secondary battery is configured to be preheated by the first secondary battery) after reaching an upper temperature threshold, there is a substantial increase in output capacity allowing use of the device as intended (Para. [0016]) and below -30 the first battery cell circuit is substantially inoperative (Para. [0021]) (i.e. wherein the second secondary battery is configured to discharge to an outside after the temperature of the second secondary battery is set within the second temperature range).
Regarding Claim 4, Peh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches second battery cell circuit may be nickel cadmium battery cells (i.e. first secondary battery) which operate effectively at as low as -40 degrees Celsius (Para. [0014]) (i.e. wherein the lower limit of the first temperature range is lower than or equal to -20 ºC).
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peh et al. (US 2016/0043447) as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Hiroki et al. (US 2018/0226629).
Regarding Claim 5, Peh et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 3 as explained above.
Peh et al. does not explicitly teach the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) has flexibility.
However, Hiroki et al. teaches an application to a nickel-cadmium storage battery (Para. [0105]) comprising a flexible secondary battery (Para. [0025]) (i.e. has flexibility).
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 the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) to incorporate the teaching of having flexibility as taught by Hiroki et al., as such a battery can have improved reliability (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 6, Peh et al. as modified by Hiroki et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches the second battery cell circuit is coupled to a resistive heating element that transfers heat into the cells of the first battery cell circuit (Para. [0014]). Thus, the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) exterior body at the very least comprise a plane in contact with the first battery cell circuit (i.e. a plane in contact with the second secondary battery). An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
Hiroki et al. further teaches a secondary battery made of a sheet with a flexible material (Para. [0046] and Fig. 1, #11) and a positive and negative electrode current collectors and active material layers placed inside the folded film (Para. [0068]) (i.e. a secondary battery comprises a stack and an exterior body) wherein the film is folded in half so that two sides of the folded film overlap with each other (Para [0047]) (i.e. wherein the exterior body has a film-like shape and is folded in half so as to sandwich the stack, wherein the exterior body comprises a plane in contact with the stack).
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 the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) to incorporate the teaching of Hiroki et al., as such a battery relieves strain caused by stress (Para. [0048]) providing improved reliability (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 7, Peh et al. as modified by Hiroki et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Peh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the second secondary battery is a cylindrical secondary battery or an angular secondary battery.
However, Hiroki et al. teaches a secondary battery having a rectangular shape (Para. [0047], [0066] and Fig. 1D, #40) (i.e. wherein the secondary battery is an angular battery).
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 the first battery cell circuit (i.e. second secondary battery) to incorporate the teaching of the shape of Hiroki et al. (i.e. an angular secondary battery), as such a battery shape provides a battery which relieves strain caused by stress (Para. [0048]) providing improved reliability (Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 8, Peh et al. as modified by Hiroki et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches a first battery cell circuit having at least one battery cell (i.e. wherein the power storage device comprises a plurality of second secondary batteries) and a second battery cell circuit comprising at least one battery cell (Para. [0011]) (i.e. a plurality of first secondary batteries).
Peh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein a number of the plurality of the first secondary battery cells is smaller than a number of the plurality of the second secondary batteries. However, a number of the plurality of first battery cells is smaller than a number of the plurality of the second secondary batteries is obvious to try, as only a finite number of options for this limitation exist: a number of the plurality of the first secondary batteries is either (1) smaller than (2) greater than or (3) equal to a number of the plurality of the second secondary batteries; all of which are predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. An "obvious to try" rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding Claim 9, Peh et al. as modified by Hiroki et al. teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 5 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches the second battery cell circuit is coupled to a resistive heating element that transfers heat into the cells of the first battery cell circuit (Para. [0014]) (i.e. comprising a thermal conductive material between the first secondary battery and the second secondary battery).
Regarding Claim 10, Peh et al. teaches all of the elements of the power storage device in claim 1 as explained above.
Peh et al. does not teach a vehicle comprising the power storage device according to claim 1.
However, Hiroki et al. teaches vehicles including secondary batteries (Para. [0003], [0036]).
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 the power storage device to incorporate the teaching of the power storage device of Peh et al. in a vehicle as taught by Hiroki et al., as a power storage device in a vehicle enables next-generation clean energy vehicles production (Para. [0121]) providing for the driving of an electric motor and supplying electric power to light-emitting devices of the vehicle (Para. [0122]).
Claims 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peh et al. (US 2016/0043447) in view of Lee (US 2021/0167446) as evidenced by Herzog (“COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF LI-ION AND NI-CD BATTERIES AT VARIABLE TEMPERATURES”, 2016).
Regarding Claim 11, Peh et al. teaches a battery pack (i.e. power storage device) that includes a first battery cell circuit and second battery cell circuit (Para. [0011]), the first battery cell circuit having at least one battery cell (i.e. wherein the power storage device comprises a plurality of second secondary batteries) (Para. [0011]), wherein the first battery cell circuit may be a lithium ion cells and may be used at -30 degrees Celsius for very low current applications (Para. [0013]) (i.e. second secondary battery) and the second battery cell circuit may be nickel cadmium battery cells (i.e. first secondary battery) which operate effectively at as low as -40 degrees Celsius (Para. [0014]) (i.e. comprising a first secondary battery and each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries, wherein the first secondary battery is used in a first temperature range, wherein each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries is used in a second temperature range, wherein a lower limit of the first of the first temperature range is lower than a lower limit of the second temperature range). The lithium ion cells (i.e. the second secondary battery) have an upper limit of 71 ºC and the operating range of nickel-cadmium batteries (i.e. the first secondary battery) is -40 to 70 ºC as evidenced by Herzog in Table 2-1 on page 20. Thus, the upper limit of the first temperature range is higher than the lower limit of the second temperature range, wherein an upper limit of the second temperature range (71 ºC) is higher than the upper limit of the first temperature range (70 ºC), wherein the first temperature range and the second temperature range each comprise 25 ºC.
Peh et al. does not explicitly teach the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) is configured to be bent and in contact with side surfaces of the plurality of the second secondary batteries.
However, Lee teaches battery cells (Fig. 2, #110a, #110b) stacked and having electrode leads that are bent such that the electrode leads of neighboring battery cells and the bent portions overlap each other (Para. [0052]) (i.e. a first secondary battery configured to be bent and in contact with side surfaces of a plurality of second secondary batteries).
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 the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary batteries) and first battery cell circuit (i.e. second secondary batteries) to incorporate the teaching of a bent electrode lead connecting the two as taught by Lee, as it would provide excellent heat dissipation (i.e. excellent heat transfer) and a simplified structure of the battery module (Para. [0022]). Thus, modified Peh et al. would provide the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) in contact with side surfaces of the plurality of the first battery cell circuit (i.e. of the plurality of the second secondary batteries).
Peh et al. does not teach a value of discharge capacity when the first secondary battery is discharged at the lower limit of the first temperature range is higher than or equal to 50% of a value of the discharge capacity when the first secondary battery is discharged at 25 ºC.
However, Peh et al. as modified by Lee teaches the structure of claim 11 as explained above. Accordingly, the first secondary battery of modified Peh et al. would either (a) be expected to satisfy the claimed discharge capacity values or (b) differences in the capacity set forth in the instant claim, would be slight differences in ranges that would be obvious. With respect to (a): The reasons regarding expectedness are that the structure is identical to that of the instant claim, therefore it is expected that the nickel cadmium battery (i.e. first secondary battery) of modified Peh et al. would satisfy these conditions. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01. With respect to (b): If it is shown that such characteristics are not present, then any differences (regarding the discharge capacity values) would be small and obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding Claim 12, Peh et al. as modified by Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 11 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches a temperature control circuit can sense the temperature of the cells of the first battery cell circuit by a thermistor (Para. [0015]) (i.e. wherein the power storage device further comprises a temperature sensor and a control circuit, wherein the temperature sensor is configured to detect a temperature of each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries) and when the temperature control circuit is activated, the thermistor indicates the cells of the first battery cell circuit are below a lower temperature threshold, the cells of the second battery cell circuit discharge through the resistive heating element (Para. [0015]), heating the first battery cell circuit to an upper temperature threshold (Para. [0016]) (i.e. wherein the control circuit is configured to set the temperature of each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries within the second temperature range by heat generated by the first secondary battery in a case where a temperature detected by the temperature sensor is lower than the second temperature range).
Regarding Claim 13, Peh et al. as modified by Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 12 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches the cells of the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) discharge through the resistive heating element (Para. [0015]), heating the first battery cell circuit (i.e. each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries) to an upper temperature threshold (Para. [0016]) (i.e. wherein each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries is configured to be preheated by the first secondary battery) after reaching an upper temperature threshold, there is a substantial increase in output capacity allowing use of the device as intended (Para. [0016]) and below -30 the first battery cell circuit is substantially inoperative (Para. [0021]) (i.e. wherein each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries is configured to discharge to an outside after the temperature of each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries is set within the second temperature range).
Regarding Claim 14, Peh et al. as modified by Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches second battery cell circuit may be nickel cadmium battery cells (i.e. first secondary battery) which operate effectively at as low as -40 degrees Celsius (Para. [0014]) (i.e. wherein the lower limit of the first temperature range is lower than or equal to -20 ºC).
Regarding Claim 15, Peh et al. as modified by Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Peh et al. does not explicitly teach the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) has flexibility.
However, Lee teaches battery cells (Fig. 2, #110a, #110b) stacked and having electrode leads that are bent such that the electrode leads of neighboring battery cells and the bent portions overlap each other (Para. [0052]) (i.e. a battery cell which has flexibility).
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 the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary batteries) and first battery cell circuit (i.e. second secondary batteries) to incorporate the teaching of a bent electrode lead (i.e. flexibility) connecting the two as taught by Lee, as it would provide excellent heat dissipation (i.e. excellent heat transfer) and a simplified structure of the battery module (Para. [0022]).
Regarding Claim 17, Peh et al. as modified by Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 13 as explained above.
Peh et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the second secondary battery is a cylindrical secondary battery or an angular secondary battery.
However, Lee teaches a pouch type battery cell (Para. [0027] and Fig. 3, wherein the cell shape is sharp-cornered, i.e. an angular secondary battery) or in the form of a jelly roll (i.e. cylindrical) (Para. [0050]) .
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 the first battery cell circuit (i.e. second secondary battery) to incorporate the teaching of the shape of Lee (i.e. an angular secondary battery or cylindrical secondary battery), as such a battery shape provides
The combination of the shape (i.e. an angular secondary battery or cylindrical secondary battery) as taught by Lee with Peh et al. would yield the predictable result of providing a known method of manufacturing electrode assembly unit cells (Para. [0050]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to combine the shape (i.e. an angular secondary battery or cylindrical secondary battery) as taught by Lee with Peh et al., as the combination would yield the predictable result of providing a known method of manufacturing electrode assembly unit cells (Para. [0050]). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peh et al. (US 2016/0043447) in view of Lee (US 2021/0167446) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Hiroki et al. (US 2018/0226629).
Regarding Claim 16, Peh et al. as modified by Lee teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 15 as explained above.
Peh et al. further teaches the second battery cell circuit is coupled to a resistive heating element that transfers heat into the cells of the first battery cell circuit (Para. [0014]). Thus, the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) exterior body at the very least comprise a plane in contact with the first battery cell circuit (i.e. a plane in contact with each of the plurality of the second secondary batteries). An inherent feature does not need to be recognized by the art at the time of the invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. See MPEP §2112(II).
Hiroki et al. further teaches a secondary battery made of a sheet with a flexible material (Para. [0046] and Fig. 1, #11) and a positive and negative electrode current collectors and active material layers placed inside the folded film (Para. [0068]) (i.e. a secondary battery comprises a stack and an exterior body) wherein the film is folded in half so that two sides of the folded film overlap with each other (Para [0047]) (i.e. wherein the exterior body has a film-like shape and is folded in half so as to sandwich the stack, wherein the exterior body comprises a plane in contact with the stack).
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 the second battery cell circuit (i.e. first secondary battery) to incorporate the teaching of Hiroki et al., as such a battery relieves strain caused by stress (Para. [0048]) providing improved reliability (Para. [0026]).
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