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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: fig. 2 does not include reference sign “212” mentioned in the instant specification paragraph [48] to refer to the sacrificial metal part; fig. 2 also does not include reference sign “210” mentioned in the instant specification paragraph [45] to refer to the case. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "125" and "212" have both been used to designate the sacrificial metal part. The sacrificial metal part is designated as “212” in paragraph [48], line 3 of the instant specification and is designated as “125” everywhere else. In addition, reference characters "122" and "210" have both been used to designate the sacrificial metal part. The sacrificial metal part is designated as “210” in paragraph [45], line 5 of the instant specification and is designated as “122” everywhere else. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 10, and 12 are 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.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites the limitation “in the scratch part, a partial region of the first plating layer…” in line 2. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 depends, already limits “a scratch part formed by removing a partial region of the first plating layer” in line 5. It is unclear if the “a partial region” in claim 2 is the same as the “a partial region” in claim 1. For the sake of examination, the partial region of claim 2 will be interpreted as the same partial region of claim 1. Claims 3-4 are also rejected based on their dependency on claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 includes the limitation “the first and second scratch parts are not exposed to the outside” in lines 4-5. It is unclear what “the outside” is in reference to. For example, is “the outside” in reference to the general outside/atmosphere, or is it outside relative to another component. Further, figs. 8-9 of the instant application show that the scratch parts 124a and 124c are shielded from a general outside/atmosphere by the cell sheet 126 regardless of the presence of the sacrificial metal part 125. In this case, it is unclear if instead the outside is in reference to outside the first plating layer 123. Claim 8 is also rejected based on its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the outside" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is also rejected based on its dependency on claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites the limitations “in the scratch part, a partial region of the first plating layer” in line 2 and “or a partial region of the first plating layer” in line 3. Claim 1, upon which claim 10 depends, already limits “a scratch part formed by removing a partial region of the first plating layer” in line 5. It is unclear if the “a partial region” in claim 10 is the same as the “a partial region” in claim 1. For the sake of examination, the partial region of claim 10 will be interpreted as the same partial region of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the circumferential direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamata et al. (JP-2014103026-A), hereinafter Kamata, presented in the IDS, cited using the machine translation from Espacenet.
Regarding claim 1, Kamata teaches a battery cell comprising: an electrode assembly ([0011]); a case accommodating the electrode assembly ([0010] case 2): a first plating layer formed on an outer surface of the case ([0010] plating layer 2p): a scratch part formed by removing a partial region of the first plating layer ([0005];[0038] cracks; figs. 12, 14): and a sacrificial metal part provided to surround the scratch part (fig. 14; [0038]; coating layer M made of metal particles), and formed of a material having a higher metal ionization tendency than that of the first plating layer ([0038] coating layer M includes particles such as zinc and magnesium; [0027] plating layer of a material such as nickel; zinc and magnesium; [0006]-[0007] coating layer, interpreted as the sacrificial metal part, has a greater ionization tendency than the plating layer).
Regarding claim 2, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata also teaches wherein in the scratch part, a partial region of the first plating layer is removed along a thickness direction of the first plating layer (figs. 12 and 14 show that the cracks extend in a thickness direction).
Regarding claim 3, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Kamata also teaches wherein the scratch part is formed to a partial region of the first plating layer along the thickness direction of the first plating layer and an outer circumferential surface of the case facing the partial region (figs. 12 and 14 cracks “k”).
Regarding claim 4, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Kamata also teaches wherein the sacrificial metal part is coupled to the outer circumferential surface of the case ([0038]; figs. 12-14).
Regarding claim 5, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata also teaches wherein the sacrificial metal part comprises at least one or more selected from the group consisting of an aluminum, magnesium, zinc, an aluminum alloy, a magnesium alloy, and/or a zinc alloy ([0038] zinc, aluminum, magnesium).
Regarding claim 6, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata also teaches wherein the scratch part is provided in a band shape along a circumferential direction of the case (figs. 12-14).
Regarding claim 7, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata also teaches wherein the scratch part comprises a first scratch part located at an upper end of the case and a second scratch part located at a lower end of the case (figs. 12-14 show multiple cracks k along the case such that one is closer to an upper end of the case and another is closer to the lower end of the case), and the sacrificial metal part surrounds the first and second scratch parts so that the first and second scratch parts are not exposed to the outside (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 8, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Kamata also teaches wherein the sacrificial metal part is coupled to the first and second scratch parts, respectively (fig. 14).
Regarding claim 9, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata also teaches wherein the first plating layer comprises a nickel-plating layer ([0027] plating layer of a material such as nickel).
Regarding claim 10, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata also teaches wherein the scratch part is formed in a partial region of the first plating layer (figs. 12-14). Kamata does not explicitly teach that the scratch part, a partial region of the first plating layer is arranged to be peeled off by a laser, or a partial region of the first plating layer is arranged to be peeled off by etching treatment. However, the claim is directed to the product of a battery cell, not a method of making the battery cell. As such, the claim limitation of the scratch part, a partial region of the first plating layer is arranged to be peeled off by a laser, or a partial region of the first plating layer is arranged to be peeled off by etching treatment is interpreted as a product-by-process claim. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Since the product of a scratch part formed in a partial region of the first plating layer is taught by Kamata (figs. 12-14), the limitations of the claim are satisfied.
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 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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seki (JP-2016173931-A), presented in the IDS, cited using the machine translation from Espacenet.
Regarding claim 11, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata fails to teach a cell sheet comprising a polymer film, provided to surround the sacrificial metal part.
Seki is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of casings for secondary batteries ([0001]). Seki teaches a cell sheet comprising a polymer film, provided to surround the sacrificial metal part (figs. 1 and 4-6; [0019]-[0020]; exterior label 10 includes a heat-shrinkable film 11 that can comprise polymer).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kamata and provided a cell sheet comprising a polymer film such as in Seki. Doing so improves durability against external impacts, abrasion, and temperature changes and improved repeated resistance (Seki [0001]; [0008]; [0016]; [0036]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 11. Modified Kamata also teaches wherein the cell sheet surrounds the outer surf ace of the case so that one end of the cell sheet and the other end of the cell sheet overlap along the circumferential direction of the case (Seki figs. 4-6; [0010]-[0014]; [0034] end edges are overlapped and bonded).
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhong et al. (CN-204424404-U), hereinafter Zhong, cited using the machine translation from Espacenet.
Regarding claim 13, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Kamata fails to teach a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells according to claim 1; a cell frame provided so that the plurality of battery cells is disposed apart from each other, and cooling water is configured to flow between the plurality of battery cells; and a cooling water supply part for supplying cooling water into the cell frame.
Zhong is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cooling battery modules ([0002]). Zhong teaches teach a battery module comprising: a plurality of battery cells according to claim 1 (fig. 1; [0008] cells 8); a cell frame provided so that the plurality of battery cells is disposed apart from each other (fig. 1; [0024]; upper and lower shells 1 and 2 as the frame), and cooling water is configured to flow between the plurality of battery cells ([0008] water inlet and outlet pipes connected to the cavity inside the box; [0009]; [0030] coolant flow); and a cooling water supply part for supplying cooling water into the cell frame ([0008] water inlet pipe 9).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the battery of Kamata in a water-cooled battery module of Zhong. Doing so allows for a relatively overall constant temperature (Zhong [0014]), good safety, and a high depth of discharge of the battery cells (Zhong [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Modified Kamata also teaches wherein the cooling water supply part is provided to supply cooling water that is not insulated (Zhong [0009] coolant with high thermal conductivity; Zhong [0002] water cooled).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamata in view of Zhong as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Toya et al. (JP-2006156171-A), hereinafter Toya, cited using the machine translation from Espacenet.
Regarding claim 14, Kamata teaches all of the limitations of claim 13. Kamata fails to teach wherein the battery module comprises a waterproof layer provided inside the cell frame and provided to cover a side end of an upper surface and a side end of a lower surface of the case, respectively, where the waterproof layer comprises a waterproof adhesive or a potting resin.
Toya is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of battery cooling ([0001]). Toya teaches wherein the battery module comprises a waterproof layer provided inside the cell frame and provided to cover a side end of an upper surface and a side end of a lower surface of the case, respectively, where the waterproof layer comprises a waterproof adhesive or a potting resin (figs. 7-8; [0011] potting resin 18; [0029] the potting resin achieves waterproof structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kamata and provided a waterproof layer provided inside the cell frame and provided to cover a side end of an upper surface and a side end of a lower surface of the case such as in Toya. Doing so allows for a waterproof structure (Toya [0029]), improved vibration absorption, and enhanced cooling performance due to the potting material (Toya [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights