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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is displayed using an incorrect format and does not follow the guidelines for content that should be present on a single abstract page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 8, line 28, reference number 10 is referred to as “pouch-type battery cell stack 10”, whereas, on page 8, line 30, reference number 10 is referred to as “battery cell 10”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: On page 9, line 13, reference number 12 is referred to as “electrodes and/or coatings 12”, whereas, on page 9, line 25-26, reference number 12 is referred to as “internal layers 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-7, and 10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 4, and 10, the phrase “preferably” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the following limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05. (d).
Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 2.
Claims 5, 7, and 10 recite the limitation "the at least one pre-defined degassing channel" in lines 17 and 24 of page 2 and lines 16-17 on page of the instant application. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not definite if “the at least one pre-defined degassing channel” refers to “at least one degassing channel” in line 13 of claim 1 or another element. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “the at least one pre-defined degassing channel” as “at least one degassing channel”.
Claim 6 is rejected due to its dependency on claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the at least one layer" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not definite if “the at least one layer” refers to “at least one of the electrode layers” in line 10 of claim 1, “at least one of the coating layers” in lines 10-11 of claim 1 or another element. For purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret “the at least one layer” as “at least one of the electrode layers”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazzarella et al. (US 2020/0411825 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 20140032699 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bazzarella discloses a high-performance battery cell (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6), comprising:
a plurality of layers stacked one to another to form a cell stack (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6 illustrates and para. [0047] states that electrochemical cell stack 600 can be comprised of a plurality of electrochemical cells.), the cell stack comprising:
at least two electrode layers comprising a cathode layer and an anode layer (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6 displays a plurality of cathode layers and a plurality of anode layers wherein a plurality of cathode weld tabs 625 connect to a plurality of cathode cells and a plurality of anode weld tabs 615 connect to a plurality of anode cells.),
at least one of the electrode layers comprises at least one degassing channel connecting an inner portion of the cell stack with an edge portion of the cell stack (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6 shows an anode degassing port 660 and a cathode degassing port 670 wherein the anode degassing port and the cathode degassing port appear to be included on each cathode layer and each anode layer within the plurality of cathode layers and the plurality of anode layers and connect an inner portion of the cell stack to an edge portion of said cell stack.).
Bazzarella fails to disclose coating layers applied to the electrode layers characterized in that
at least one of the coating layers comprises at least one weakened portion pre-defining at least one path of weakness connecting an inner portion of the cell stack with an edge portion of the cell stack.
However, Kim teaches coating layers applied to the electrode layers (Annotated Kim Fig. 1 displays and para. [0032] explains that an electrode layer (current collector 10) is applied with a coating layer (anode slurry layer 20). Claim 1 states that a positive slurry layer is applied to a positive electrode and a negative slurry layer is applied to a negative electrode which comprise one unit cell and wherein a lithium secondary battery is comprised of at least one unit cell.) characterized in that
at least one of the coating layers comprises at least one weakened portion pre-defining at least one path of weakness connecting an inner portion of the cell stack with an edge portion of the cell stack (Para. [0032] states that at least one weakened portion pre-defining at least one path of weakness (gas discharge channel 30) is positioned on the current collector 10 that is not covered with the coating layer (anode slurry 20). Gas discharge channel 30 connects an inner portion of the current collector 10 to an edge portion of current collector 10.).
Bazzarella and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing batteries with gas discharge channels to facilitate gas release from battery electrodes. Therefore, 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 high-performance battery cell of Bazzarella to include coating layers applied to the electrode layers wherein at least one of the coating layers comprises at least one weakened portion pre-defining at least one path of weakness connecting an inner portion of a cell stack to an edge portion of a cell stack because Kim teaches that providing a gas discharge channel on an electrode surface allows for release of gases from a battery electrode, enabling uniform electrode reaction and suppressing lithium precipitation, thus increasing lithium battery life (Paras. 1 and 2 on page 8) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141 III (C).
PNG
media_image1.png
717
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6: A high-performance battery (electrochemical cell stack 600) comprising a plurality of layers (cathode and anode layers) stacked one to another to form a cell stack. The cell stack comprises at least two electrode layers comprising a cathode layer and an anode layer (denoted by arrow) and at least one of the electrode layers comprises at least one degassing channel (anode degassing port 660 and cathode degassing port 670) connecting an inner portion of the cell stack to an edge portion of the cell stack.
PNG
media_image2.png
649
783
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim Fig. 1: A coating layer (anode slurry 20) applied to an electrode layer (current collector 10) wherein the coating layer comprises of a weakened portion (gas discharge channel 30) pre-defining a path of weakness connecting an inner portion of the cell stack to an edge portion of the cell stack.
Regarding claim 4, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella further discloses wherein all electrode layers comprise the at least one degassing channel, preferably a plurality of degassing channels (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6 illustrates a cathode degassing port 670 and an anode degassing port 660 that extends the entirety of the height direction of electrochemical cell stack 600, showing that all electrode layers comprise a plurality of degassing channels.).
Bazzarella fails to disclose wherein all coating layers comprise at least one weakened portion, preferably a plurality of weakened portions, preferably pre-defining a plurality of paths of weakness.
However, Kim teaches wherein all coating layers comprise at least one weakened portion, preferably a plurality of weakened portions, preferably pre-defining a plurality of paths of weakness Annotated Kim Fig. 1 displays and para. [0032] explains that an electrode layer (current collector 10) is applied with a coating layer (anode slurry layer 20) and a gas discharge channel (30) is formed where the anode slurry 20 is not applied to the current collector 10. Claim 1 states that a positive slurry layer is applied to a positive electrode and a negative slurry layer is applied to a negative electrode which comprise one unit cell and wherein a lithium secondary battery is comprised of at least one unit cell. Para. [0022] states that in the present invention, it is appropriate to form one gas discharge channel per 225 cm2 of the electrode slurry layer area. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, based on the size requirements, every coating layer would require a weakened portion for proper gas discharge within the lithium battery.).
Bazzarella and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing batteries with gas discharge channels to facilitate gas release from battery electrodes. Therefore, 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 high-performance battery cell of Bazzarella to include coating layers applied to the electrode layers wherein at least one of the coating layers comprises at least one weakened portion pre-defining at least one path of weakness connecting an inner portion of a cell stack to an edge portion of a cell stack because Kim teaches that providing a gas discharge channel on an electrode surface allows for release of gases from a battery electrode, enabling uniform electrode reaction and suppressing lithium precipitation, thus increasing lithium battery life (Paras. 1 and 2 on page 8) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 5, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, further discloses wherein at least one of the coating layers comprises at least one uncoated area in order to form the at least one pre-defined degassing channel (Para. [0032] of Kim states that at least one weakened portion pre-defining at least one path of weakness (gas discharge channel 30) is positioned on the current collector 10 that is not covered with the coating layer (anode slurry 20).).
Regarding claim 6, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, further discloses wherein the at least one uncoated area is ablated or left out during a coating process (Claim 1 states that a gas discharge channel is formed on a positive electrode or an negative electrode where the slurry is not coated on a current collector.).
Regarding claim 7, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella further discloses wherein the at least one pre-defined degassing channel extends in a plane of the at least one layer (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6 depicts at least one pre-defined degassing channel (anode degassing port 660 and cathode degassing port 670) extending in a plane of at least one layer.).
Bazzarella fails to disclose wherein at least one path of weakness extends in a plane of at least one layer.
However, Kim teaches wherein at least one path of weakness extends in a plane of at least one layer (Annotated Kim Fig. 1 illustrates a path of weakness (gas discharge channel 30) extending in a plane of at least one layer.).
Bazzarella and Kim are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing batteries with gas discharge channels to facilitate gas release from battery electrodes. Therefore, 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 high-performance battery cell of Bazzarella to include coating layers applied to the electrode layers wherein at least one of the coating layers comprises at least one weakened portion pre-defining at least one path of weakness connecting an inner portion of a cell stack to an edge portion of a cell stack because Kim teaches that providing a gas discharge channel on an electrode surface allows for release of gases from a battery electrode, enabling uniform electrode reaction and suppressing lithium precipitation, thus increasing lithium battery life (Paras. 1 and 2 on page 8) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141 III (C).
Regarding claim 11, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, further discloses wherein the electrode layers are electrode foils (Para. [0038] of Kim states that when manufacturing the gas discharge channel, the anode slurry was coated onto the current collector which is described as an aluminum foil.).
Regarding claim 12, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella further discloses wherein the battery cell is an opposed sided tab, OST, battery cell (Bazzarella Fig. 5 displays and para. [0045] states that anode weld tabs and cathode weld tabs 525 can be on opposite sides of the electrochemical cell stack.).
Regarding claim 13, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella further discloses wherein the battery cell is a same sided tab, SST, battery cell (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6 shows and para. [0047] explains that anode weld tabs 615 and cathode weld tabs 625 can be on the same side of the electrochemical cell stack.).
Regarding claim 14, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella further discloses wherein the battery cell is a pouch-type battery cell (Bazzarella Fig. 7D).
Regarding claim 15, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella further discloses a battery assembly comprising a plurality of battery cells (Para. 0047] states that the electrochemical cell stack 600 as displayed in Bazzarella Fig. 6 may be comprised of a plurality of electrochemical cells.).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Carlson (US 7066971 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, fails to disclose wherein the cell stack further comprises at least one separator layer, preferably at least one of the coating layers being applied to the at least one separator layer.
However, Carlson teaches wherein the cell stack further comprises at least one separator layer, preferably at least one of the coating layers being applied to the at least one separator layer (Annotated Carlson Fig. 1 illustrates and col. 12, lines 8-17 describes a part of an electrochemical cell stack wherein a microporous separator layer 102 is coated on top of a first protective coating layer 101.).
Bazzarella, Kim, and Carlson are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing secondary batteries with high energy density. Therefore, 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 cell of Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, to include at least one separator layer that is preferably coated with a coating layer because Carlson teaches that it would be advantageous to be able to prepare electrochemical cells comprising of separator layers that are coated while in contact with one or more electrode layers of the electrochemical cell to prevent short circuiting (col. 2, lines 30-36) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
PNG
media_image3.png
295
893
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Carlson Fig. 1: At least one coating layer (first protective coating layer 101) applied to at least one separator layer (microporous separator layer 102).
Regarding claim 3, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim and Arai, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 2.
Bazzarella further disclose wherein the at least one separator layer extends substantially over an entire cross-sectional area of the battery cell (Bazzarella Fig. 3 displays a separator layer (330) extending over an entire cross-sectional area of the battery cell.).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kumbur et al. (US 2015/0295247 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, fails to disclose wherein at least one of the electrode layers is perforated in order to form the at least one weakened portion, of instant claim 8, and wherein the at least one of the electrode layers is perforated by means of a laser perforation process, of instant claim 9.
However, Kumbur teaches wherein at least one of the electrode layers is perforated in order to form the at least one weakened portion, of instant claim 8, and wherein the at least one of the electrode layers is perforated by means of a laser perforation process, of instant claim 9 (Kumbur Fig. 1 illustrates and para. [0052] explains that eight various perforation patterns were designed to evaluate the effects of laser perforation on electrode performance, wherein the perforations varied in diameter and density.).
Bazzarella, Kim, and Kumbur are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of developing electrodes with increased power density within a battery. Therefore, 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 cell of Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, to include at least one perforated electrode layer wherein said electrode layer is perforated by means of a laser perforation process because Kumbur teaches that perforated electrodes display enhanced peak power density and current density within a battery (Fig. 13 and para. [0077]) and applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (D).
Claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Takasaki et al. (US 2013/0040174 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, further discloses wherein the cell stack comprises a plurality of stack portions (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6a), each stack portion comprising:
two electrode layers comprising a cathode layer and an anode layer (Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6a),
at least one separator layer (Bazzarella Fig. 3), and
coating layers applied to the electrode layers and/or the at least one separator layer (Kim Fig. 1, Para. [0032] states that a coating layer (anode slurry 20) is applied to an electrode layer (current collector 10).).
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, fails to disclose wherein the layers of any stack portion of the plurality of stack portions are separated from the layers of the other stack portions of the plurality of stack portions by additional layers preferably consisting of separator material, thereby forming the at least one pre-defined degassing channel.
However, Takasaki teaches wherein the layers of any stack portion of the plurality of stack portions are separated from the layers of the other stack portions of the plurality of stack portions by additional layers preferably consisting of separator material, thereby forming the at least one pre-defined degassing channel (Annotated Takasaki Fig. 8 depicts a plurality of stack portions wherein each stack portion is separated by other stack portions by additional layers (partition plates 25) to form at least one pre-defined degassing channel (first exhaust duct 31).).
PNG
media_image4.png
636
990
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Bazzarella Fig. 6a: A high-performance battery (electrochemical cell stack 600) comprising a plurality of stack portions (denoted by arrows) wherein each stack portion comprises two electrode layers comprising a cathode layer and an anode layer (denoted by arrows).
Bazzarella, Kim, and Takasaki are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of developing batteries with a structure that prevents battery cells from being exposed to high-temperature gases. Therefore, 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 cell of Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, to include wherein the layers of any stack portion within the plurality of stack portions are separated from the layers of other stack portions by additional layers to form a pre-defined degassing channel because Takasaki teaches a battery comprising of a plurality of stack portions separated by additional layers in order to form pre-defined degassing channels enhances the safety of the battery through release of hazardous gases without a reduction in energy density (para. [0007]) and use of known techniques to improve similar methods in the same way is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (C).
PNG
media_image5.png
922
858
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Takasaki Fig. 8: A battery pack comprising of a plurality of stack portions (denoted by arrow) wherein an individual stack portion within the plurality of stack portions is separated by an other individual stack portion within the plurality of stack portions by additional layers (partition plates 25) to form at least one pre-defined degassing channel (first exhaust duct 31).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, as applied to claim 15 above, and in further view of Mikolajczak (US 2019/0339334 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, discloses the battery cell as discussed in claim 1.
Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, fails to disclose an electrically driven vertical take-off and landing, VTOL, aircraft comprising the battery assembly.
However, Mikolajczak discloses an electrically driven vertical take-off and landing, VTOL, aircraft comprising the battery assembly (Mikolajczak Fig. 1).
Bazzarella, Kim, and Mikolajczak are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are all in the same field of preventing degradation of electrochemical cells. Therefore, 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 cell of Bazzarella, as modified by Kim, to include an electrically driven vertical take-off and landing, VTOL, aircraft comprising the battery assembly because Mikolajczak teaches that electric VTOL aircraft perform high use actions regularly, which have a greater risk of causing cascading failure battery due to the strain high use actions place on said battery. Thus, mitigating the chances of losing power by monitoring battery degradations improves the safety and reliability of battery cells within electric VTOL aircraft (para. [0030]) and combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. See MPEP 2141. III. (A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ota et al. (US 2017/0025646 A1) discloses a pouch battery cell comprising of extra portions for degassing elements from the interior to the outside of said battery cell. Chabane et al. (US 2019/0393575 A1) discloses a battery cooling and heating device that is comprised of an assembly of plates wherein said plates have release notches for releasing gas generated by the battery cells interposed between each individual plate within the assembly of plates. Jeong et al. (KR 20160131414 A) discloses a pouch-type secondary battery comprising of an electrode lead provided with notches used for venting gas from said electrode. Kwon et al. (US 2021/0226295 A1) discloses a battery pack comprised of a stack portion of electrode and separator layers wherein, adjacent to the plurality of layers, a degassing channel is formed to release gases from an inner portion of the battery pack to the edge portion of the battery pack. Finegan et al. (Finegan, Donal P. et al., Nature Communications, 6, (2015)) discusses preventing and mitigating thermal runaway events by identifying causes of thermal runaway such as gas-induced delamination.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTINO M SERVAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-0847. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 am - 5:00 pm, F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Joshua Allen can be reached at (571) 270-3176. 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.
/SANTINO MICHALE SERVAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 1713
/ERIN F BERGNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights