Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 10-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 15-16 recite "an extrudable sealing material". It is unclear whether this sealing material is the same or different than the sealing material recited in step b. For the purpose of examination, claim 1, lines 15-16 read on "the extrudable sealing material". Dependent claims fall herewith.
Claim 11, line 1 recites "the stacked structure". The term is not previously used in this claim or its parent claims(s), and does not have proper antecedent basis, making it unclear what structure is being referenced. For the purpose of examination, claim 11, line 1 reads on "the bipolar battery stack".
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 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 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 1-5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosaka (US PG Pub 2013/0065097) in view of Wu (CN 102867974A, including citations to attached translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hosaka teaches a method of manufacturing a bipolar battery stack (abstract, Fig. 2) comprising:
a) providing a first bipolar electrode (21 in Fig. 2), comprising an electrically conductive carrier foil with a carrier foil central region coated on both sides with electrode material and a carrier foil edge region that completely surrounds the carrier foil central region and is free of electrode material (para. 0042),
b) applying a first sealing bead of an extrudable sealing material to the carrier foil edge region in the form of a ring encircling the carrier foil central region (bead 40A in Fig. 12 and paras. 0088-0089),
c) placing, onto said first sealing bead, an electrically insulating ion permeable, planar separator (SP in para. 0089) that projects completely beyond the carrier foil central region in a lateral direction (as shown in Figs. 12A-12B) for the lower first sealing bead 40A),
d) applying, to an edge region of the separator projecting beyond the carrier foil central region, a second sealing bead of the extrudable sealing material in the form of a ring encircling the carrier foil central region (as shown for upper second sealing bead 40A in Fig. 12B),
e) placing, by its carrier foil edge region, a further, equally constructed and aligned bipolar electrode onto said second sealing bead (as shown in Fig. 2), and
f) repeating steps b to e until a predetermined number of such bipolar electrodes stacked in said manner is reached (as shown in Fig. 2),
wherein each separator, when placed onto the respectively assigned first sealing bead, projects, along an entire circumference thereof, laterally beyond the carrier foil edge region of the bipolar electrode immediately adjacent to the respective bipolar electrode (as shown in Fig. 12B).
Hosaka does not teach each second sealing bead is applied laterally outwardly offset from the respective corresponding first sealing bead, instead teaching that it is applied with no lateral offset.
However, Wu teaches a method of manufacturing a bipolar battery stack similar to Hosaka (Fig. 4) wherein each second sealing bead is applied laterally outwardly offset from the respective corresponding first sealing bead (second bead 5 furthest to the right in Figs. 2-3 is offset in this manner from first sealing bead 6; see also para. 0016) forming a groove in between the two upper beads for the lower bead to apply a pre-tightening force when sealing together (last sentence in para. 0016) and providing a larger total seal area above and below the bipolar electrode as shown in Figs. 2-3.
In view of Wu’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hosaka’s method with Wu’s manner of applied the second bead with a lateral offset relative to the first bead to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Wu and cited above.
Regarding claim 2, Hosaka teaches the separators consist of a flexible material that at least under an influence of a pressure applied in the stacking direction or in the opposite direction thereto - undulates between the sealing beads adjacent to the respective separator in accordance with their contours (paras. 0038-0042).
Regarding claim 3, Hosaka teaches, after step f, a pressure acting in the stacking direction or in a direction opposite the stacking direction is exerted on a stacked structure produced by the stacking (para. 0039).
Regarding claim 4, Hosaka teaches the stacked structure is heated to a temperature between 50C and 180C after step f (80C of para. 0093).
Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches, between steps b and e, a further sealing bead in the form of a ring surrounding the second sealing bead is applied to the edge region of each separator (18) projecting beyond the carrier foil central region (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 10, Hosaka teaches, after step f, a pressure acting in the stacking direction or in a direction opposite the stacking direction is exerted on a stacked structure produced by the stacking (para. 0039).
Regarding claim 11, Hosaka teaches the stacked structure is heated to a temperature between 50C and 180C after step f (80C of para. 0093).
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches, wherein between steps b and e, a further sealing bead in the form of a ring surrounding the second sealing bead is applied to the edge region of each separator projecting beyond the carrier foil central region (Figs. 2-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745