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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
i. Claim 14, “bonding portion”, which has been interpreted as an adhesive, or equivalents thereof. See Applicant’s specification (paragraph 19). In claim 15, this term has not been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) in view of the recited adhesive structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, “10%” should be corrected to --0.1-- for better readability.
Regarding claim 7, line 3, the period should be replaced with --, and-- to correct the grammar.
Regarding claim 9, “3%” should be corrected to --0.03-- for better readability.
Regarding claim 10, “assumes” should be corrected to --takes on-- for better readability.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the term “the electrode plate” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “a sum of dimensions of the fillers in the filled regions” is recited. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1, the phrases “a filled region” and “a filler” are recited, and thus a singular region and a singular filler are disclosed whereas claim 5 is referring to more than one region and filler. For examination purposes, the phrase “a sum of dimensions of the fillers in the filled regions” will be interpreted to disclose more than one filled region, and “fillers” will be interpreted to refer to the same filler used in any filled region.
Regarding claim 6, as above in claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for plural “the filled regions”.
Regarding claim 7, as above in claim 5, there is insufficient antecedent basis for plural “the fillers”. Additionally, it is unclear how the filled region recited in parent claim 1 is related to the plurality of filled regions recited in claim 7. Further, it is unclear if each of the plurality of filled regions has the structure of pores which are filled with a filler as recited in claim 1. The examiner suggests --whereinthe foamed metal layer comprises a plurality of , including the filled region, which are arranged in a second preset direction, each of which has pores which are filled by the filler, and the filler[[s]] in the plurality of filled regions is distributed uniformly[[.]], and--.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear how the one edge and the another edge of parent claim 1 are related to the edges recited in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase “a sum of dimensions” is recited, referring to the first filled region. It is unclear how the first filled region, which is recited in singular form, has more than one dimension in the width direction. Paragraphs 14 and 126 of the applicant’s published specification disclose that L6 corresponds to “the sum of dimensions of the fillers in the width direction”, and further notes that “a sum of dimensions of the first filled region 22111a is L6”. Hence, the applicants published specification points to L6 being the sum of the widths of a plurality of first filled regions, which is not in line with the language of claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear if “a separator” in claim 14 is referencing the previously recited separator in parent claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear whether each of the plurality of battery cells comprises the battery cell according to claim 1. The examiner suggests --battery cells, each-- in line 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaami (US 2021/0257627A1) in view of Tomihara (US 2006/0240323 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaami teaches a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly, wherein the electrode assembly comprises a separator and an electrode plate (paragraphs 4 and 13), and wherein the electrode plate comprises a foamed metal layer (paragraph 17); a part of the foam metal layer is a filled region, and pores of the filled region are filled with a electrolytic solution filler (paragraphs 7-8, and 17), the filler extends continuously from one edge to another edge of the foamed metal layer (paragraphs 21 and 134; mixture-free regions 12, figures 1, 4A, and 4B), the two edges being arranged on two opposite sides along a first preset direction, and the first preset direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (paragraph 91; figures 1 and 4A). Tanaami notes that the mixture-free region has a quadrilateral prism shape which penetrates through the electrode layer, as seen by the cross-sectional view of figures 1 and 4A, and the top view of figure 4B (paragraphs 78 and 81). Tanaami further suggests that the first preset direction is perpendicular to the thickness direction by describing the material mixture-free regions to be formed parallel to a thickness direction when viewing the plate in the cross-sectional views of figure 1 and 4A.
Tanaami differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Tanaami fails to teach a shell wherein the electrode assembly is accommodated in the shell.
(i) In related art Tomihara teaches a shell wherein the electrode assembly is accommodated in the shell (paragraph 6). Tomihara suggests that using a shell allows the components inside the shell to be sealed from the outside using a sealing cap (paragraph 81). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the battery cell of Tanaami with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristic in accordance with the teachings of Tomihara.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches a first preset direction and a second preset direction of the foamed metal layer by disclosing that the shape of the material mixture-free regions have a quadrilateral prism shape which penetrates through the electrode layer, as seen by the cross-sectional views of figures 1 and 4A, and the top view of figure 4B (paragraphs 78 and 81). Tanaami further suggests that the second preset direction is perpendicular to the first preset direction and the thickness direction by describing the material mixture-free regions to be formed parallel to a thickness direction when viewing the plate in the cross-sectional view of figure 1. Tanaami teaches an angle between an extension direction of the filler in the filler region and the first preset direction that satisfies 0 degrees (figure 4B).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches wherein in a second preset direction, a plurality of filler regions are arranged (mixture-free region 12, figures 4A and 4B), and suggests that the fillers in the in the plurality of the filled regions are distributed uniformly (paragraph 17). Tanaami teaches that the second preset direction is perpendicular to the first preset direction and the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (figures 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, but Tanaami fails to teach wherein the electrode plate is an electrode plate of an electrode assembly that assumes a jelly-roll structure, and the first preset direction comprises a winding direction of the jelly-roll structure. However, Tomihara teaches wherein the electrode plate is an electrode plate of an electrode assembly that assumes a jelly-roll structure, and the first preset direction comprises a winding direction of the jelly-roll structure (paragraph 140, figures 4A and 4B). Tomihara notes that the components of the cell, the positive and negative electrodes with a separator sandwiched therebetween are to be spirally wound, allowing disk-shaped current collectors to be joined to a tab portion of the electrodes (paragraph 6). Tomihara also notes that the active material unfilled portion 511b corresponds to the part of the positive electrode 511 to which the current collector is to be joined (paragraph 8; figures 1A, 1B, and 3). Hence, the winding direction of the jelly-roll structure is set along the first preset direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted characteristics in accordance with the teachings of Tomihara.
Regarding claim 12, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches that in the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer, a ratio of a dimension of the foamed metal layer H1 and a thickness of the filler in a single filled region H2 is H2/H1 = 1.0 (mixture-free region 12, figures 1 and 4A). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range or amount. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches wherein the electrode plate is a negative electrode plate (paragraphs 116-118).
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaami in view of Tomihara as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Usui (JP 2009009869 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches a second preset direction that is perpendicular to the first preset direction and the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (figures 4A and 4B). Tanaami discloses wherein a dimension in a single filled region in a second preset direction is 1 to 2 mm in Figure 4A, however the units used are unclear as paragraph 134 that describes figure 4A uses different units, thus Usui is applied below in combination with Tanaami and this teaching of Tanaami will not be relied upon for the rejection of this claim. In related art Usui teaches wherein a dimension of the filler in a single filled region is equal to 3 mm (second filled section 6, paragraph 39; figures 1 and 2). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range or amount. See MPEP 2144.05. Usui suggests that 3 mm is suitable to achieve the desired effect of creating a filled region with a higher binder content, which can contribute to the battery’s capacity and characteristics compared to completely covering the region with a resin, and has the effect of preventing the active material from falling out (paragraphs 17-18, and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with this limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known suitable widths as evidenced by Usui to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Usui.
Regarding claim 4, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches a second preset direction that is perpendicular to the first preset direction and the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (figures 4A and 4B). Tanaami discloses wherein a dimension in a single filled region in a second preset direction is 1 to 2 mm in figure 4A, however the units used are unclear as paragraph 134 that describes figure 4A uses different units, thus Usui is applied below in combination with Tanaami and this teaching of Tanaami will not be relied upon for the rejection of this claim. Usui teaches wherein a dimension of the filler in a single filled region is equal to 3 mm (second filled section 6, paragraph 39; figures 1 and 2). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range or amount. See MPEP 2144.05. Usui suggests that 3 mm is suitable to achieve the desired effect of creating a filled region with a higher binder content, which can contribute to the battery’s capacity and characteristics compared to completely covering the region with a resin, and has the effect of preventing the active material from falling out (paragraphs 17-18, and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose known suitable widths as evidenced by Usui to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Usui.
Regarding claim 6, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches wherein in a second preset direction, a plurality of the filled regions are arranged (mixture-free region 12, figures 4A and 4B). Tanaami also teaches a second preset direction that is perpendicular to the first preset direction and the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (figures 4A and 4B). Tanaami fails to teach wherein in a second preset direction, a dimension of the foamed metal layer is L2, a distance of the filler between two adjacent filled regions is L4, and an L4/L2 ratio is greater than or equal to 10%.
However, Usui teaches that in a width direction, a dimension of the foamed metal layer that is equal to 35 mm, two second filled sections having a dimension of 6 mm, and a first filled section having a dimension of 23 mm found between the two second filled sections (paragraph 39; figure 2). This results in a ratio of 23 mm/35 mm that is equal to 0.657, which multiplied by 100 results in 65.7%, thus falling within the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range or amount. See MPEP 2144.05. Usui suggests that the dimension of the second filled section is suitable to achieve the desired effect of creating a filled region with a higher binder content, which can contribute to the battery’s capacity and characteristics compared to completely covering the region with a resin, and has the effect of preventing the active material from falling out (paragraphs 17-18, and 20). Usui also suggests that the dimension of the first filled section is suitable to achieve the desired effect of retaining the active material within the electrode during the cutting process (paragraphs 10-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ratio in the claimed range because one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use known suitable dimensions as evidenced by Usui, the claimed ratio value naturally flowing from the use of such values in accordance with the teachings of Usui.
Regarding claim 8, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches wherein the foamed metal layer comprises a first edge and a second edge that are arranged along a length direction of the foamed metal layer as well as a third edge and a fourth edge that are arranged along a width direction of the foamed metal layer, and wherein the filled region comprises a second filled region in which the filler extends continuously from the third edge to the fourth edge (mixture-free regions 12, figures 4A and 4B). Tanaami fails to teach wherein the filled region comprises a first filled region in which the filler extends continuously from the first edge to the second edge.
However, Usui teaches wherein filled region comprises a first filled region in which the filler extends continuously from the first edge to the second edge (first filled section 5, figures 1 and 2). Usui notes that during the manufacturing process of the electrode, active material within the porous metal falls off due to the stress it experiences during the cutting process, and when wound together and placed in a case, the detached active material can become conductive foreign matter which sometimes leads to an internal short circuit (paragraphs 4 and 6). Usui also notes that a second filled section 6 is positioned to prevent the active material from falling out (paragraph 20; figures 1 and 2). Hence, Usui suggests that the filler extends from the first edge to the second edge along a length direction to avoid active material from falling out during the cutting process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Usui.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood in view of the 35 USC § 112(b) issues identified above, Tanaami in view of Tomihara and Usui teaches the battery cell of claim 8, but Tanaami fails to teach wherein the filled region comprises the first filled region in which the filler extends continuously from the first edge to the second edge; and in the width direction of the foamed metal layer, a dimension of the foamed metal layer is L5, a sum of dimensions of the first filled region is L6, and an L6/L5 ratio is greater than or equal to 3%.
However, Usui teaches wherein filled region comprises a filled section in which the filler extends continuously from the first edge to the second edge (filled section 6, figures 1 and 2). Usui notes that during the manufacturing process of the electrode, active material within the porous metal falls off due to the stress it experiences during the cutting process, and when wound together and placed in a case, the detached active material can become conductive foreign matter which sometimes leads to an internal short circuit (paragraphs 4 and 6). Usui also notes that a filled section 6 is positioned to prevent the active material from falling out (paragraph 20; figures 1 and 2). Hence, Usui suggests that the filler extends from the first edge to the second edge along a length direction to avoid active material from falling out during the cutting process. Usui also teaches a width of the foamed metal layer is 35 mm, a width of a singular filled section 6 is 3 mm, resulting in a ratio 3 mm/35 mm that is approximately equal to 0.0857, which when multiplied by 100 equals 8.57% (paragraph 39). Alternatively, Usui teaches two filled sections 6, resulting in a ratio of the sum of widths of the filled sections to the width of the foamed metal layer being, ((3 mm x 2)/(35 mm)) x (100), which is approximately equal to 17.1% (paragraph 39). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range or amount. See MPEP 2144.05. Usui suggests that 3 mm is suitable to achieve the desired effect of creating a filled region with a higher binder content, which can contribute to the battery’s capacity and characteristics compared to completely covering the region with a resin, and has the effect of preventing the active material from falling out (paragraphs 17-18, and 20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation and to use known suitable widths as evidenced by Usui because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Usui.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaami in view of Tomihara as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of O'Toole (US 2021/0242456 A1).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 USC § 112(b) issues identified above, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, and Tanaami teaches wherein the second preset direction is perpendicular to the first preset direction and the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (figures 4A and 4B). Tanaami fails to teach wherein, in a second preset direction, a dimension of the foamed metal layer is L2, a sum of dimensions of the fillers in the filled regions is L3, and an L3/L2 ratio is less than or equal to 10%.
However, in related art O’Toole teaches a continuous porous lithium storage layer, that is patterned, creating regions having the porous lithium, and regions that do not. (paragraphs 6 and 30; figure 12A). O’Toole teaches that first regions where this porous lithium storage layer is present can have a width in a range of 2 μm to 10 mm (paragraph 76). O’Toole suggests that the width of the lithium storage layer will directly affect the total capacity requirement of the battery, by noting that the total area of the first region will directly affect the charge capacity per unit area (paragraph 77). It is noted that O’Toole is silent as to whether the porous lithium storage layer is filled with a filler. Hence, as Tanaami teaches that there are three mixture-free regions 12 which are filled, and the electrode is punched out to a size of 3 cm by 4 cm for use (paragraphs 134 and 136), the following L3/L2 ratios are calculated:
((2 μm)(3) / 40000 μm) 100 = 0.015%
((10 mm)(3) / 40 mm) 100 = 75%
This results in the L3/L2 ratio being in a range of 0.015% to 75%, which overlaps with the claimed range. It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range or amount. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the ratio in the claimed range because one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use known suitable widths as evidenced by O’Toole, the claimed ratio range naturally flowing from the use of such values in accordance with the teachings of Tanaami and O’Toole.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaami in view of Tomihara as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 112310406 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 11, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, but Tanaami fails to teach wherein the filler is a polymer; optionally, the filler is a rubber material; optionally, the rubber material comprises one or more of natural rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, high-cis polybutadiene rubber, isoprene rubber, neoprene rubber, butyl rubber, nitrile butadiene rubber, or silicone rubber.
However, in related art Zhang teaches a polymer filler including natural rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, isoprene rubber, chloroprene rubber, butyl rubber, nitrile rubber, and silicone rubber. Zhang notes that these rubber materials have good elasticity and flexibility, making them more adaptable to changes in the volume of active materials and battery bending, which helps to improve battery safety (paragraph 16-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Zhang.
Regarding claim 13, Tanaami in view of Tomihara and Zhang teaches the battery cell of claim 11, and Tanaami teaches wherein in the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer, two opposite surfaces of the filler cover two opposite surfaces of the foamed metal layer respectively (figures 4A and 4B).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaami in view of Tomihara as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Yoshida (KR 20140079712 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 14, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 12, and Tanaami teaches wherein the filler comprises a filling surface arranged along the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (paragraphs 110-112; figure 4A), but fails to teach wherein the filling surface comprises a bonding portion, and the bonding portion is configured to bond the electrode plate and a separator together.
However, in related art Yoshida teaches wherein a surface of a filled region comprises a bonding portion, and the bonding portion is configured to bond the electrode plate and a separator together (paragraphs 12, 18, 21). Yoshida notes that the adhesive prevents short circuits due to thermal shrinkage of the separator (paragraph 115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Yoshida.
Regarding claim 15, Tanaami in view of Tomihara and Yoshida teaches the battery cell of claim 14, but Tanaami fails to teach wherein a material of the bonding portion comprises an adhesive; and optionally, the material of the bonding portion comprises one or more of polyvinylidene fluoride or polymethyl methacrylate.
However, Yoshida teaches that the adhesive of the bonding portion includes polyvinylidene fluoride, polymethyl methacrylate, or mixtures thereof (paragraphs 48-49). Yoshida notes that the use of non-conductive polymer materials as part of the adhesive can increase the binding strength of the conductive filler, thereby increasing the reliability of the battery (paragraphs 48-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Yoshida.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaami in view of Tomihara as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Kano (US 2019/0372126 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 16, but Tanaami fails to teach wherein along the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer, a projection of the filler is configured to at least partially overlap a projection of a coated region of a positive electrode plate.
However, in related art Kano teaches a positive electrode plate with a coated region (paragraph 84), and a negative electrode with protrusions that are stacked in the thickness direction with a separator in between which results in a projection of the negative electrode to be configured to at least partially overlap a projection of a coated region of a positive electrode plate (paragraph 79; figures 3-5). Kano notes that as the negative and positive electrodes are wound, protrusions from the negative electrode will allow lithium metal to deposit at the negative electrode by way of secured spaces, which will decrease the change in the apparent volume of the negative electrode that is caused by the deposition of lithium metal (paragraph 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the electrode plate of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Kano.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaami in view of Tomihara as applied to claims 1-2, 7, 10, 12, and 16 above, and further in view of Yang (CN 106684285 A, referencing attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 18, Tanaami in view of Tomihara teaches the battery cell of claim 1, but Tanaami and Tomihara fail to teach a battery comprising a box and a plurality of battery cells wherein the plurality of battery cells are accommodated in the box.
However, in related art Yang teaches a battery comprising a box with a plurality of cylindrical cells accommodated in the box (figures 1-3). Yang notes that a heat dissipation system is required in the battery to prevent excessively high temperatures from affecting battery performance and lifespan (paragraph 5). Yang also notes that the heat dissipation system will use a phase change material within the box that ensures good temperature uniformity within the battery pack, suggesting that the box is needed to accommodate this phase change material which will need to be contained in some form around the plurality of battery cells (paragraph 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified battery cell of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Yang.
Regarding claim 19, Tanaami in view of Tomihara and Yang teaches the battery cell of claim 18, but Tanaami and Tomihara fail to teach an electrical device comprising the battery of claim 18.
However, Yang teaches an electric vehicle that contains lithium batteries connected in series or parallel (paragraph 4). Yang notes that lithium batteries within electric vehicles provide power and the required voltage or capacity to the vehicle (paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified battery cell of Tanaami with the claimed limitation because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to achieve the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Yang.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 16 and 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/815,890 (‘890 Application) in view of Tanaami (US 2021/0257627A1).
It is noted that claim 14 of ‘890 includes the limitations of claims 1 and 13 of ‘890. Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, claim 14 of ‘890 teaches a battery cell, comprising: a shell and an electrode assembly (claim 14 of ‘890), wherein the electrode assembly is accommodated in the shell (claim 14 of ‘890), and the electrode assembly comprises a separator and the electrode plate, and wherein the electrode plate comprises a foamed metal layer (claim 14 of ‘890); a part of the foamed metal layer is a filled region, and pores of the filled region are filled with a filler (claim 14 of ‘890). Claim 14 of ‘890 fails to teach the filler extends continuously from one edge to another edge of the foamed metal layer, the two edges being arranged on two opposite sides along a first preset direction; and the first preset direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the foamed metal layer.
However, Tanaami teaches the filler extends continuously from one edge to another edge of the foamed metal layer (paragraphs 21 and 134; mixture-free regions 12, figures 1, 4A, and 4B), the two edges being arranged on two opposite sides along a first preset direction, and the first preset direction is perpendicular to a thickness direction of the foamed metal layer (paragraph 91; figures 1 and 4A). Tanaami suggests that the claimed configuration of the filler is the result of having a quadrilateral prism shape that is easily formed in the current collector, which facilitates uniform diffusion of the electrolytic solution in the electrode layer (paragraphs 78-79). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the configuration of the filler recited in claim 14 of ‘890 with the claimed limitations to achieve the desired features in accordance with the teachings of Tanaami.
Regarding claim 16 of the instant application, claim 14 of ‘890 teaches the battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the electrode plate is a negative electrode plate (claim 14 of ‘890).
Regarding claim 17 of the instant application, claim 14 of ‘890 teaches the battery cell according to claim 16, wherein, along the thickness direction of the foamed metal layer, a projection of the filler is configured to at least partially overlap a projection of a coated region of a positive electrode plate (claim 14 of ‘890).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENAD NAKDALI whose telephone number is (571)-270-3286. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:00 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, Philip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
/R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights