DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaru et al (JP 2019036514 A) in view of Yamada et al (JP 2020009631 A).
Regarding claim 1, Tamaru discloses a power storage device containing multiple power storage modules (Figure 1; [0023] and [0028]), where the power storage modules comprise a stacked body that consists of a plurality of bipolar electrodes (Figure 2; [0028]). It is additionally disclosed that each bipolar electrode contains an electrode plate (current collector) between a negative electrode and a positive electrode (Figure 2; [0029]), where the electrode plate has a positive electrode active material and a negative electrode active material ([0035]).
Tamaru further discloses that each power storage module contains a second seal portion that extends in the stacking direction of the bipolar electrodes in the stacked body to seal a side surface of the stack (Figures 2 and 3; [0034]).
Tamaru even further discloses the presence of a first seal portion that comprises a plurality of frame bodies ([Figure 3; [0038]), where the frames bodies consist of a first frame (corresponding to the claimed seal member) and a second frame (corresponding to the claimed spacer) (Figure 3; [0041]). It is also disclosed that the first frames are welded to the peripheral side of each electrode plate and that the second frames are disposed adjacent to the first frames in the stacking direction (Figure 3; [0038] and [0041]).
It is additionally taught by Tamaru that the first frames and the second frames extend past the electrode plates (Figure 3) and may be welded together to form the first seal portion (Figure 3; [0038] and [0041].
Tamaru does not expressly disclose that the melt mass flow rate of a resin material constituting the second frame is larger than a melt mass flow rate of a resin material constituting the first frame. Tamaru does, however, teach that the linear expansion coefficient of the second frame may be larger than that of the first frame ([0046]). While melt mass flow rate and linear expansion coefficients are not directly correlated, it does demonstrate that Tamaru contemplated independently selecting materials for the first and second frames based on the properties of the materials.
Yamada, also drawn to battery art (abstract), similarly discloses a power storage device containing multiple power storage modules (Figure 1; [0017] - [0018]). Yamada further discloses that each power storage module contains an electrode stack (11) and a sealing body (12) (Figure 2; [0023]), where the sealing body comprises a first sealing portion (21) and a second sealing portion (22) (Figure 2; [0029] – [0030]). Yamada even further discloses that the first sealing portion consists of a first frame (23) and a second frame (24) (Figure 2; [0032]). It is taught by Yamada that the melt mass flow rate of the resin material composition in the first frame is larger than the melt mass flow rate of the resin material composition in the second frame ([0033]). Yamada teaches that selecting a resin material composition with a smaller melt mass flow rate leads to the fluidity of that resin material composition being low enough that it hardly flows during welding ([0012]). Yamada even further teaches that the melt mass flow rate of the resin material composition can be adjusted by section of the resin compound it comprises ([0034]).
It would have, therefore, been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have used the teachings of Yamada to specifically select the resin materials of the first and second frames of Tamaru in order to optimize the melt mass flow rate of each frame, including having the claimed relationship of the second frame having a larger melt mass flow rate than the first frame. Tamaru already disclosed that the first frame and the second frame are independently considered for their properties. Tamaru additionally taught that the first and second frames can be welded together. Yamada teaches that melt mass flow rate is a result effective variable that affects the fluidity of the resin material composition during welding. Accordingly, selecting the resin composition of the second frame to have a higher melting mass flow rate than the resin composition of the first frame would have amounted to nothing more than the routine optimization of a result effective variable [MPEP 2144.05 (II)].
Regarding claim 2, Tamaru in view of Yamada discloses the power storage device discussed above in claim 1. As discussed with respect to the claim 1, Tamaru discloses the presence of a first frame corresponding to the claimed seal member and a second frame corresponding to the claimed spacer. While Tamaru does not explicitly state that the thickness of the second frame is larger than that of the first frame, it is disclosed that the thickness of the second frame may be smaller than the thickness of the first frame ([0050]). This disclosure in Tamaru indicates that the relative thickness of the frames is not fixed can be tailored based on preference, including having a second frame thickness that is smaller, equivalent, or larger than the thickness of the first frame. Accordingly, adjusting the second frame to have larger thickness than that of the first frame would have been nothing more than the routine optimization of the relative thickness of both frames [MPEP 2144.05 (II)].
In addition to the foregoing, the examiner notes that the courts have found that changes in relative dimensions without a new or unexpected result are not considered to be patentable [MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)]. Since designing the thickness of the spacer to be larger than the thickness of the seal member does not impart any new or unexpected benefit onto the electrode laminate, the claimed relative thickness recitation is not considered to be a patentably distinguishing feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 3 would be allowable for disclosing that the seal member is welded to each of the first surface and the second surface of the current collector.
Tamaru discloses a stacked body that consists of a plurality of bipolar electrodes (Figure 2; [0028]), where the bipolar electrodes each contain an electrode plate (current collector) between a negative electrode and a positive electrode (Figure 2; [0029]). Tamaru also discloses the presence of a first frame (corresponding to the claimed seal members) that is welded to a peripheral side of each electrode plate. Tamaru does not, however, disclose that the first frame is welded to both the first surface and the second surface of the electrode plate.
Based on the disclosures of Tamaru, it would not have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the first frame so that it could be welded to both surfaces of the electrode plate. Therefore, claim 3 is considered allowable over Tamaru.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 4 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/J.T.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
