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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS’ filed 5/13/2024 and 6/30/2025 have been considered by examiner.
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 2-12 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the upper insulator and the lower insulator suppress at least one of front-to-back fluctuations and side-to-side fluctuations of the electrode assembly, respectively”. Claim 1, upon which claim 2 is dependent, recites the limitation “a cap plate coupled to the opening in the case, and having electrode terminals of a positive electrode and a negative electrode, and is provided with at least one of … an upper insulator … and a lower insulator …” (emphasis added). The limitation of claim 2 seems to require that the prismatic secondary battery include both the upper insulator and lower insulator; however, claim 1 only requires one of the upper insulator and lower insulator to be present. Therefore, it is unclear how to meet the limitations of claim 2, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims 3-12 are rejected due to their dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein one of the upper insulator and the lower insulator suppresses front-to-back fluctuations of the electrode assembly, and the other suppresses side-to-side fluctuations”. The limitation of claim 3 seems to require that the prismatic secondary battery include both the upper insulator and lower insulator; however, as explained above, claim 1 only requires one of the upper insulator and lower insulator to be present. Therefore, it is unclear how to meet the limitations of claim 3, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the upper insulator and the lower insulator suppress at least one of front-to-back fluctuations and side-to-side fluctuations of the electrode assembly”. The limitation of claim 4 seems to require that the prismatic secondary battery include both the upper insulator and lower insulator; however, claim 1 only requires one of the upper insulator and lower insulator to be present. Therefore, it is unclear how to meet the limitations of claim 4, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the upper insulator and the lower insulator suppress at least one of front-to-back fluctuations and side-to-side fluctuations of the electrode assembly”. Claim 2, upon which claim 4 is dependent, recites limitation “wherein the upper insulator and the lower insulator suppress at least one of front-to-back fluctuations and side-to-side fluctuations of the electrode assembly, respectively”. Therefore, claim 4 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2006/0024568, hereinafter "Lee").
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a rechargeable battery (“prismatic secondary battery”) including an electrode assembly, a case for housing the electrode assembly, and spacers positioned between the electrode assembly and the case [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Fig. 1 of Lee shows that the rechargeable battery has a prismatic shape. Lee teaches that the case 15 is provided with an opening 15a, which is coupled to a cap assembly 30 (“cap plate”) [Lee Fig. 1, 0022]. Lee teaches that the cap assembly further includes a positive electrode terminal 31 and a negative electrode terminal 32 [Lee Fig. 1, 0022]. Lee teaches a first spacer 20 (“upper insulator”) occupying a first space between the cap assembly and an upper surface of the electrode assembly and a second space between the case and opposing front and back surfaces [Lee Fig. 1, 0033-0034]. Lee also teaches a second spacer 20’ (“lower insulator”) occupying a third space between a bottom surface of the case and a lower surface of the electrode assembly and a fourth space between the case and opposing front and back surfaces [Lee Fig. 1, 0033-0034]. Lee teaches that the spacers may be made of an insulating material [0040].
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 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2006/0024568) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 101446152, referring to examiner-provided translation thereof, hereinafter "Kim").
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Lee further teaches that the spacers minimize the gap between the electrode assembly and the case [0051], which removes unnecessary dead space inside the case [0045]. Lee does not specifically teach that the spacers suppress at least one of front-to-back and side-to-side fluctuations of the electrode assembly.
Kim teaches analogous art of a secondary battery in which the flow (“fluctuation”) of an electrode assembly is prevented [0001]. Kim teaches that the secondary battery comprises an electrode assembly 200, a battery can 300 containing the electrode assembly, and a lower insulating plate 100 located at the bottom of the electrode assembly [Kim Fig. 1, 0020]. Kim teaches that the lower insulating plate includes a protrusion 110 protruding upwardly on its outer surface, the protrusion covering at least a portion of the outer surface of the electrode assembly [Kim Fig. 1, 0027]. Kim teaches that the lower insulating plate is interposed between the outer surface of the electrode assembly and the inner surface of the battery can at the bottom portion of the battery can, and between the bottom of the electrode assembly and the inner bottom surface of the battery can [0028]. The lower insulating plate is in close contact with the battery can and the electrode assembly, thereby preventing vertical or horizontal (“side-to-side”) movement of the electrode assembly inside the battery can [0028, 0031].
Kim teaches that when the electrode assembly moves, or flows, within the battery can, the electrode assembly may be severed from a tab connecting the electrode assembly and a cap assembly, causing power desensitization [0007]. Kim teaches that when movement of the electrode assembly is prevented, power insensitivity can also be prevented [pg. 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second spacers taught by Lee to prevent side-to-side fluctuations of the electrode assembly by also providing the spacers in a gap between the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and the case as taught by Kim, in order to prevent power desensitization of the rechargeable battery.
Furthermore, as described above, Kim teaches that the movement of the electrode assembly is prevented by the close contact of the lower insulating plate with the battery can and the electrode assembly [0028, 0031]. Lee teaches that the spacers minimize the gap between the electrode assembly and the case [0051], which removes unnecessary dead space inside the case [0045], meaning that the spacers are in close contact with the front and back surfaces of the electrode assembly and the inner surface of the case. Therefore, the spacers taught by Lee would also prevent front-to-back fluctuations of the electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 2, as described in the rejection of instant claim 2. As described above, Kim teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 200, a battery can 300 containing the electrode assembly, and a lower insulating plate 100 located at the bottom of the electrode assembly [Kim Fig. 1, 0020]. Kim teaches that the lower insulating plate includes a protrusion 110 protruding upwardly on its outer surface, the protrusion covering at least a portion of the outer surface of the electrode assembly [Kim Fig. 1, 0027]. Kim teaches that the lower insulating plate is interposed between the outer surface of the electrode assembly and the inner surface of the battery can at the bottom portion of the battery can, and between the bottom of the electrode assembly and the inner bottom surface of the battery can [0028]. The lower insulating plate is in close contact with the battery can and the electrode assembly, thereby preventing vertical or horizontal (“side-to-side”) movement of the electrode assembly inside the battery can [0028, 0031].
Kim teaches that when the electrode assembly moves, or flows, within the battery can, the electrode assembly may be severed from a tab connecting the electrode assembly and a cap assembly, causing power desensitization [0007]. Kim teaches that when movement of the electrode assembly is prevented, power insensitivity can also be prevented [pg. 7].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second spacers taught by modified Lee to prevent side-to-side fluctuations of the electrode assembly by also providing one of the first spacer and second spacer in a gap between the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and the case as taught by Kim, in order to prevent power desensitization of the rechargeable battery.
Furthermore, as described above, Kim teaches that the movement of the electrode assembly is prevented by the close contact of the lower insulating plate with the battery can and the electrode assembly [0028, 0031]. Lee teaches that the spacers minimize the gap between the electrode assembly and the case [0051], which removes unnecessary dead space inside the case [0045], meaning that the spacers are in close contact with the front and back surfaces of the electrode assembly and the inner surface of the case. Therefore, the spacers taught by Lee would also prevent front-to-back fluctuations of the electrode assembly.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 2, as described in the rejection of instant claim 2. Fig. 1 of Lee shows that the first spacer includes base part corresponding to the upper surface of the electrode assembly, and a side part bent and extending from two sides of the base part [see annotated Lee Fig. 1 below].
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 2, as described in the rejection of instant claim 2. Fig. 1 of Lee shows that the second spacer includes base part corresponding to the upper surface of the electrode assembly, and a side part bent and extending from two sides of the base part [see annotated Lee Fig. 1 below].
PNG
media_image1.png
762
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1: Lee Fig. 1 (annotated by examiner)
Claims 6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2006/0024568) in view of Kim (KR 101446152) as applied to claims 5 and 7 above, and further in view of '578 (US 2006/0024578, hereinafter referred to as "'578") and Fujiwara et al. (JP 2001273931, hereinafter "Fujiwara").
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 5, as described in the rejection of instant claim 5. Lee does not specifically teach that the side parts of the first spacer do not encroach on a coated part of the electrode.
‘578 teaches analogous art of a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, a case for containing the electrode assembly, and a support connected to each end of the electrode assembly [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. ‘578 teaches that the first and second supports 20 are positioned between the case 15 and uncoated regions 11a and 12a of the electrode assembly 14 [‘578 Fig. 1, 0018]. Fig. 1 of ‘578 shows that the each of the supports comprises a base part corresponding to the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and side parts bent and extending from all four side of the base part [see annotated ‘578 Fig. 1 below]. ‘578 discloses that the uncoated regions are regions of a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate of the electrode assembly that are not coated with an active material [0018]. ‘578 teaches that the supports 20 are sized and shaped to fit the uncoated regions 11a and 12a, and Fig. 3 of ‘578 shows that the supports only surround the uncoated regions [0026]. Therefore, the supports do not encroach on the coated parts of the electrode assembly.
‘578 teaches that if an uncoated region of an electrode assembly, which is connected to an external terminal of a prismatic secondary battery, is unprotected, the electrical connected between the electrode assembly and the electrode terminal is weak because it can be damaged by external impact [0007]. ‘578 teaches that the supports which surround only the uncoated regions can protect the uncoated regions, thereby preventing damage to the secondary battery upon external impact [0034], thus improving battery durability [0036].
PNG
media_image2.png
755
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
2: '578 Fig. 1 (annotated by examiner)
Fujiwara teaches analogous art of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an insulating tape that insulates a spiral electrode plate from a battery casing [0001]. Fujiwara teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a spiral electrode body 20 in which a positive electrode plate 22 and a negative electrode plate 24 are wound [0008]. Fujiwara teaches that the spiral electrode body may be inserted into the battery casing in such a manner that the winding axis of the spiral electrode body is parallel to an up-and-down direction [Fujiwara Figs. 1-2, 0012].
Lee, ‘578, and Fujiwara all teach batteries comprising wound electrode assemblies [Lee 0022, Lee Fig. 1, ‘578 0018, ‘578 Fig. 1, Fujiwara 0008] and insulating elements (Lee’s spacers, ‘578’s supports, Fujiwara’s insulating tap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rechargeable battery taught by modified Lee to have the side parts of the first spacer not encroach on a coated part of the electrode assembly and only cover an uncoated portion of the electrode assembly as taught by ‘578, in order to prevent damage to the secondary battery upon external impact and improve battery durability. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode assembly taught by modified Lee to have the winding axis of the electrode assembly be parallel with the up-and-down direction, so that the first spacer would be disposed on an upper surface of the electrode assembly and the second spacer would be disposed on a lower surface of the electrode assembly, as taught by Fujiwara. The results of this modification, i.e. providing a secondary battery comprising an insulating element, would have been predictable [see MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 7, as described in the rejection of instant claim 7. Lee does not specifically teach that the side parts of the second spacer do not encroach on a coated part of the electrode.
‘578 teaches analogous art of a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, a case for containing the electrode assembly, and a support connected to each end of the electrode assembly [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. ‘578 teaches that the first and second supports 20 are positioned between the case 15 and uncoated regions 11a and 12a of the electrode assembly 14 [‘578 Fig. 1, 0018]. Fig. 1 of ‘578 shows that the each of the supports comprises a base part corresponding to the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and side parts bent and extending from all four side of the base part [see annotated ‘578 Fig. 1 above]. ‘578 discloses that the uncoated regions are regions of a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate of the electrode assembly that are not coated with an active material [0018]. ‘578 teaches that the supports 20 are sized and shaped to fit the uncoated regions 11a and 12a, and Fig. 3 of ‘578 shows that the supports only surround the uncoated regions [0026]. Therefore, the supports do not encroach on the coated parts of the electrode assembly.
‘578 teaches that if an uncoated region of an electrode assembly, which is connected to an external terminal of a prismatic secondary battery, is unprotected, the electrical connected between the electrode assembly and the electrode terminal is weak because it can be damaged by external impact [0007]. ‘578 teaches that the supports which surround only the uncoated regions can protect the uncoated regions, thereby preventing damage to the secondary battery upon external impact [0034], thus improving battery durability [0036].
Fujiwara teaches analogous art of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an insulating tape that insulates a spiral electrode plate from a battery casing [0001]. Fujiwara teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a spiral electrode body 20 in which a positive electrode plate 22 and a negative electrode plate 24 are wound [0008]. Fujiwara teaches that the spiral electrode body may be inserted into the battery casing in such a manner that the winding axis of the spiral electrode body is parallel to an up-and-down direction [Fujiwara Figs. 1-2, 0012].
Lee, ‘578, and Fujiwara all teach batteries comprising wound electrode assemblies [Lee 0022, Lee Fig. 1, ‘578 0018, ‘578 Fig. 1, Fujiwara 0008] and insulating elements (Lee’s spacers, ‘578’s supports, Fujiwara’s insulating tap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rechargeable battery taught by modified Lee to have the side parts of the second spacer not encroach on a coated part of the electrode assembly and only cover an uncoated portion of the electrode assembly as taught by ‘578, in order to prevent damage to the secondary battery upon external impact and improve battery durability. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode assembly taught by modified Lee to have the winding axis of the electrode assembly be parallel with the up-and-down direction, so that the first spacer would be disposed on an upper surface of the electrode assembly and the second spacer would be disposed on a lower surface of the electrode assembly, as taught by Fujiwara. The results of this modification, i.e. providing a secondary battery comprising an insulating element, would have been predictable [see MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 2, as described in the rejection of instant claim 2. Fig. 1 of Lee shows that the first spacer includes base part corresponding to the upper surface of the electrode assembly [see annotated Lee Fig. 1 above]. Lee does not specifically teach the first spacer comprising a corner part bent and extending along at least two diagonal corners of the base part.
‘578 teaches analogous art of a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, a case for containing the electrode assembly, and a support connected to each end of the electrode assembly [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. ‘578 teaches that the first and second supports 20 are positioned between the case 15 and the ends of the electrode assembly 14 [‘578 Fig. 1, 0018]. Figs. 1 and 4 of ‘578 show that the each of the supports comprises a base part corresponding to the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and corner parts bent and extending along all of the corners of the base part [see annotated ‘578 Fig. 4 below].
‘578 teaches that the supports protect the battery from damage caused by external impact and improve battery durability [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first spacer taught by modified Lee to include corner parts as taught by ‘578, in order to protect the battery from damage caused by external impact and improve battery durability.
PNG
media_image3.png
617
413
media_image3.png
Greyscale
3: '578 Fig. 4 (annotated by examiner)
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 9, as described in the rejection of instant claim 9.
As described above, ‘578 teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, a case for containing the electrode assembly, and a support connected to each end of the electrode assembly [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Figs. 1 and 4 of ‘578 show that the each of the supports comprises a base part corresponding to the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and corner parts bent and extending along all of the corners of the base part [see annotated ‘578 Fig. 4 above]. ‘578 teaches that the first and second supports 20 are positioned between the case 15 and uncoated regions 11a and 12a of the electrode assembly 14 [‘578 Fig. 1, 0018]. ‘578 discloses that the uncoated regions are regions of a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate of the electrode assembly that are not coated with an active material [0018]. ‘578 teaches that the supports 20 are sized and shaped to fit the uncoated regions 11a and 12a, and Fig. 3 of ‘578 shows that the supports only surround the uncoated regions [0026]. Therefore, the supports do not encroach on the coated parts of the electrode assembly.
‘578 teaches that if an uncoated region of an electrode assembly, which is connected to an external terminal of a prismatic secondary battery, is unprotected, the electrical connected between the electrode assembly and the electrode terminal is weak because it can be damaged by external impact [0007]. ‘578 teaches that the supports which surround only the uncoated regions can protect the uncoated regions, thereby preventing damage to the secondary battery upon external impact [0034], thus improving battery durability [0036].
Fujiwara teaches analogous art of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an insulating tape that insulates a spiral electrode plate from a battery casing [0001]. Fujiwara teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a spiral electrode body 20 in which a positive electrode plate 22 and a negative electrode plate 24 are wound [0008]. Fujiwara teaches that the spiral electrode body may be inserted into the battery casing in such a manner that the winding axis of the spiral electrode body is parallel to an up-and-down direction [Fujiwara Figs. 1-2, 0012].
Lee, ‘578, and Fujiwara all teach batteries comprising wound electrode assemblies [Lee 0022, Lee Fig. 1, ‘578 0018, ‘578 Fig. 1, Fujiwara 0008] and insulating elements (Lee’s spacers, ‘578’s supports, Fujiwara’s insulating tap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rechargeable battery taught by modified Lee to have the corner parts of the first spacer not encroach on a coated part of the electrode assembly and only cover an uncoated portion of the electrode assembly as taught by ‘578, in order to prevent damage to the secondary battery upon external impact and improve battery durability. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode assembly taught by modified Lee to have the winding axis of the electrode assembly be parallel with the up-and-down direction, so that the first spacer would be disposed on an upper surface of the electrode assembly and the second spacer would be disposed on a lower surface of the electrode assembly, as taught by Fujiwara. The results of this modification, i.e. providing a secondary battery comprising an insulating element, would have been predictable [see MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 2, as described in the rejection of instant claim 2. Fig. 1 of Lee shows that the second spacer includes a base part corresponding to the lower surface of the electrode assembly [see annotated Lee Fig. 1 above]. Lee does not specifically teach the second spacer comprising a corner part bent and extending along at least two diagonal corners of the base part.
‘578 teaches analogous art of a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, a case for containing the electrode assembly, and a support connected to each end of the electrode assembly [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. ‘578 teaches that the first and second supports 20 are positioned between the case 15 and the ends of the electrode assembly 14 [‘578 Fig. 1, 0018]. Figs. 1 and 4 of ‘578 show that the each of the supports comprises a base part corresponding to the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and corner parts bent and extending along all of the corners of the base part [see annotated ‘578 Fig. 4 above].
‘578 teaches that the supports protect the battery from damage caused by external impact and improve battery durability [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the second spacer taught by modified Lee to include corner parts as taught by ‘578, in order to protect the battery from damage caused by external impact and improve battery durability.
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 11, as described in the rejection of instant claim 11.
As described above, ‘578 teaches a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, a case for containing the electrode assembly, and a support connected to each end of the electrode assembly [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Figs. 1 and 4 of ‘578 show that the each of the supports comprises a base part corresponding to the left and right surfaces of the electrode assembly and corner parts bent and extending along all of the corners of the base part [see annotated ‘578 Fig. 4 above]. ‘578 teaches that the first and second supports 20 are positioned between the case 15 and uncoated regions 11a and 12a of the electrode assembly 14 [‘578 Fig. 1, 0018]. ‘578 discloses that the uncoated regions are regions of a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate of the electrode assembly that are not coated with an active material [0018]. ‘578 teaches that the supports 20 are sized and shaped to fit the uncoated regions 11a and 12a, and Fig. 3 of ‘578 shows that the supports only surround the uncoated regions [0026]. Therefore, the supports do not encroach on the coated parts of the electrode assembly.
‘578 teaches that if an uncoated region of an electrode assembly, which is connected to an external terminal of a prismatic secondary battery, is unprotected, the electrical connected between the electrode assembly and the electrode terminal is weak because it can be damaged by external impact [0007]. ‘578 teaches that the supports which surround only the uncoated regions can protect the uncoated regions, thereby preventing damage to the secondary battery upon external impact [0034], thus improving battery durability [0036].
Fujiwara teaches analogous art of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery comprising an insulating tape that insulates a spiral electrode plate from a battery casing [0001]. Fujiwara teaches that the non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery includes a spiral electrode body 20 in which a positive electrode plate 22 and a negative electrode plate 24 are wound [0008]. Fujiwara teaches that the spiral electrode body may be inserted into the battery casing in such a manner that the winding axis of the spiral electrode body is parallel to an up-and-down direction [Fujiwara Figs. 1-2, 0012].
Lee, ‘578, and Fujiwara all teach batteries comprising wound electrode assemblies [Lee 0022, Lee Fig. 1, ‘578 0018, ‘578 Fig. 1, Fujiwara 0008] and insulating elements (Lee’s spacers, ‘578’s supports, Fujiwara’s insulating tap).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rechargeable battery taught by modified Lee to have the corner parts of the second spacer not encroach on a coated part of the electrode assembly and only cover an uncoated portion of the electrode assembly as taught by ‘578, in order to prevent damage to the secondary battery upon external impact and improve battery durability. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode assembly taught by modified Lee to have the winding axis of the electrode assembly be parallel with the up-and-down direction, so that the first spacer would be disposed on an upper surface of the electrode assembly and the second spacer would be disposed on a lower surface of the electrode assembly, as taught by Fujiwara. The results of this modification, i.e. providing a secondary battery comprising an insulating element, would have been predictable [see MPEP 2143(I)(E)].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2006/0024568) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of '853 (US 2011/0123853, hereinafter "'853").
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Lee does not specifically teach the first and second spacers being composed of a material that expands by contacting an electrolyte in the case.
‘853 teaches analogous art of a secondary battery including an electrode assembly, a can to house the electrode assembly, and electrical insulators [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. ‘853 teaches that the electrical insulators include a first electrical insulator 117 and second electrical insulator 116, wherein the first electrical insulator may be positioned between a top surface of the electrode assembly 110 and a cap assembly 150, and the second electrical insulator may be positioned between a bottom surface of the electrode assembly and the can 140 [0064]. ‘853 teaches that the first and second electrical insulators may absorb a significant amount of liquid (for example, an electrolytic solution) that fills the interior of the can, causing them to expand [0066].
‘853 teaches that when the first and second electrical insulators absorb the liquid that fills the interior of the can, the volumes of the first and second electrical insulators increase and the space for the electrode assembly to move inside of the can decreases [0068]. This results in the electrode assembly obtaining stability in a vertical direction [0068].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second spacers taught by Lee to be composed of a material that expands by contacting an electrolyte in the case as taught by ‘853, in order for the electrode assembly to obtain stability in a vertical direction.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2006/0024568) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2020/0365838, hereinafter "Chen").
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 1, as described in the rejection of instant claim 1. Lee does not specifically teach the first spacer being provided with an electrode connecting part penetrating through a base part corresponding to the upper surface of the electrode assembly and a tab connecting part that is provided on an inner surface of the base part and disposed opposing an electrode tab of the electrode assembly.
Chen teaches analogous art of a secondary battery including a cap assembly comprising a cap plate, an electrode terminal, and a lower insulating member (“upper insulator”) [Abstract; entire disclosure relied upon]. Chen also teaches that the secondary battery includes a case 11 and an electrode assembly 12 within the case [Chen Fig. 1, 0039]. Chen teaches that the lower insulating member 134 comprises a base portion 134a (“base part”) [0042]. Chen teaches that the lower insulating member corresponds to an upper surface of an electrode assembly [Chen Figs. 1 and 4]. Chen discloses that an extending portion 142 (“electrode connecting part”) of a current collecting member 14 penetrates a through hole 134c in the base portion 134a [Chen Fig. 4, 0043-0044]. Chen also discloses a body portion 141 (“tab connecting part”) electrically connected to the extending portion, wherein the body portion is provided on an inner surface of the base portion and disposed opposite a tab 121 of the electrode assembly [Chen Fig.7, 0043-0044, 051].
Lee teaches terminal insertion slots formed in the first spacer through which the positive electrode terminal and negative electrode terminal may be inserted in order to protrude through the cap plate [0042]. Both Lee and Chen teach a secondary battery comprising an upper insulator (Lee’s first spacer, Chen’s lower insulating element), through which an electrode assembly may be connected to the electrode terminals.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the known base portion of the lower insulating plate and the extending portion and body portion of Chen for the terminal insertion slots of Lee, and the results of this substitution, i.e. providing a battery with a means for connecting the electrode assembly to the electrode terminals, would have been predictable [see MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee teaches the rechargeable battery of claim 14, as described in the rejection of instant claim 14.
As described above, Chen teaches that the lower insulating member 134 comprises a base portion 134a (“base part”), an extending portion 142 (“electrode connecting part”) of a current collecting member 14 penetrating a through hole 134c in the base portion 134a, and a body portion 141 (“tab connecting part”) electrically connected to the extending portion, wherein the body portion is provided on an inner surface of the base portion and disposed opposite a tab 121 of the electrode assembly [Chen Figs. 4 and 7, 0042-0044, 051]. Figs. 1-3 shows that the extending portion and body portion are each provided in a pair. Chen teaches that the electrode assembly includes two tabs 121, a positive tab and a negative tab [0041]. Chen teaches that the electrode tabs are connected to the electrode terminals 132 via the current collecting member [0043]. Therefore, one of the electrode terminals, extending portions, and body portions would be connected to the positive tab, which would give them all a positive polarity, while the other electrode terminal, extending portion, and body portion would be connected to the negative tab, which would give them all a negative polarity.
Lee teaches that the rechargeable battery includes a positive terminal connected to a positive uncoated region and a negative terminal connected to a negative uncoated region [0027]. Both Lee and Chen teach a secondary battery comprising an upper insulator (Lee’s first spacer, Chen’s lower insulating element), through which the components of the electrode assembly (Lee’s positive uncoated region and negative uncoated region, Chen’s positive tab and negative tab) may be connected to an electrode terminal of the same polarity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the known the pair of extending portions and body portions connected to electrode terminals and electrode tabs of the same polarity of Chen for the terminal insertion slots of Lee, and the results of this substitution, i.e. providing a battery with a means for connecting the electrode assembly to the electrode terminals, would have been predictable [see MPEP 2143(I)(B)].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA F OROZCO whose telephone number is (571)272-0172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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.
/M.F.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
