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 § 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 1-5 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.
The spacer as described in claim 1 raises an indefiniteness rejection. The spacer is required to be between current collector foil (uncoated with active material) and the separator. A distance between the spacer and positive/negative active material in the perpendicular direction is longer than a distance to the frame body.
The examiner notes that the source of the confusion is the term “perpendicular direction up”. The term “up” is used to help orient the drawings. Therefore, the upward direction is already defined in the context of this application but is not what is meant by the claims. The claim requires that the perpendicular direction is perpendicularly intersecting the lamination direction. This direction would be FR in fig. 2 (and LH in fig. 1). In this direction, the electrode material (cathode and anode) is always closer than the frame body. The claim may intend to mean that the distance “up” to the active material is longer than the distance “down” to the closer frame. However, this interpretation would require interpreting the term “up” to mean 3 different directions.
The claim language can support itself, and the language is clear on its face. However, the claim language appears to conflict with the specification which creates uncertainty. The claim language essentially requires the spacer to be outside of the frame body, such that the frame body can be closer than the electrodes. At this location it does not function as a spacer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAMARU et al. (US 2022/0094000).
Regarding claim 1,
TAMARU teaches a laminated battery as shown in Fig. 2. A first sealing portion (spacer) 21 are positioned between the separator 13 and current collector 15 due to the step shape, see figs. 4, 5 and 9. The current collector 15 is bipolar and adjacent to the anode and cathode layers 17 and 16. The separator 13 is between cathode and anode as expected for an electrolyte. A second sealing portion (frame body) 22
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by TAMARU et al. (US 2021/0280948).
Regarding claim 1,
TAMARU teaches a laminated battery as shown in fig. 7. The sealing portion (spacer) 240 between the separator 220 and current collector 214 is made of a resin such as polypropylene, polyphenylene sulfide and polyphenylene ether [0091] (insulating material). The current collectors are bipolar and are adjacent to both cathode and anode materials 216 and 218. The stacked structure has separators 220 between cathode and anode materials. The uncoated portions of the current collector 214 (current collector foil) contacts the frame body, both 240 and 250. The second sealing portion 250 is a resin frame [0082] and [0091] (frame body made of resin).
As noted in the 112 rejection above, the examiner is uncertain about the distance between the spacer and active material layers as compared to the spacer and the frame body. However, if the spacer and frame body are considered the same thing as TAMARU suggests they can be grouped together, the distance between them will be zero and the gap space to the active material layers will be longer.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMARU et al. (US 2021/0280948).
Regarding claim 5,
The claim requires particular dimensions of the spacer such that the distance between the outer peripheral surface of the spacer and outer peripheral surface of the negative electrode active material is 10 times greater than the distance between adjacent current collectors. The examiner notes that this value can be manipulated by changing the thickness of the electrodes, thus changing the distance between current collectors. The thickness of electrodes is recognized as a result effective variable. A thicker electrode has a higher theoretical capacity because there is more material to store lithium. However, the thicker material also increases internal resistance of the battery. Therefore, the thickness of electrodes is a balance between total capacity and efficient use of the capacity which is optimization of a result effective variable MPEP 2144.05.II. In addition, the change in size does not change the operation of the battery which makes the claimed device not patentably distinct, MPEP 2144.04.IV. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to manipulate the thickness of electrodes and therefore the distance between current collectors to optimize the efficiency and capacity of a battery for their particular application and as a change in size or dimension of the battery without changing the operation of the battery MPEP 2144.IV.A.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMARU et al. (US 2021/0280948) in view of HORIE et al. (US 2023/0318094).
Regarding claim 2,
TAMARU teaches the negative electrode active material layer but does not teach the end portion of the negative electrode active material layer as being closer to an outer periphery than the end portion of the positive electrode active materials layer. However, HORIE teaches a laminated battery cell and teaches the spacers 314a and 314b can be sized to conform to an anode material 324 closer to the edge compared to a cathode material 322, see fig. 9B. When viewed in the laminate direction, the spacer 314a overlaps the edge of anode material 324. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to change the size and proportions of the spacers and electrode active materials as a change of shape that is operable in a laminated battery. Generally changes in size and proportion are not patentable without showing unexpected results, MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
Regarding claim 3,
As shown in HORIE fig. 9b the dimensions of the spacers 314a and 314b conform to the anode and cathode active materials 322 and 324.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TAMARU et al. (US 2021/0280948) in view of HAMAOKA et al. (US 2021/0234187).
Regarding claim 4,
TAMARU teaches a laminated stack with sealing members and a frame but does not teach a separate sealing material. However, HAMAOKA teaches a sealing member 80 can be provided between the sealing part 21 and conductive plate (current collector) 50. See figs. 8-10. The sealing member provides adhesive strength that will not decrease due to moisture [0077]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the sealing material of HAMAOKA to provide resilient adhesive strength between the sealing part and current collector.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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 CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
