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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following:
Paragraph [0014] (on pages 5-6) of the specification should be revised for clarity.
For example, it is unclear what is meant by “to prevent an electrolyte of a bipolar battery” and “since it is necessary to ensure corrosion resistance by forming a cathode or anode potential and a coating” and in the former it is specifically unclear what is meant by “cathode or anode potential” as related to corrosion resistance.
It is further unclear what is meant by “because it is necessary to select a metal which is as low as the reactivity and the electric resistivity is as low as possible for both cathode surface and anode surface throughout the year” and “and it becomes difficult to stack and battery the intended shape”.
Paragraph [0023] (on pages 9-10) of the specification should be revised for clarity.
For example, it is unclear what is meant by “On the first metal foil side opposite to the second metal foil side (heated surface) to be irradiated with the laser beam, as the first member, the thermal conductivity represented by metal is 15W/(m·K) @100° C. or higher it is desirable to support.” Among other possibilities, this could be revised as “On the first metal foil side opposite to the second metal foil side (heated surface) to be irradiated with the laser beam, the first member is a metal with a thermal conductivity of 15W/(m·K) @100° C. or higher
The specification uses the acronym “SUS” throughout. This acronym first appears in paragraph [0018] (pages 7-8) without explanation. This is understood to mean stainless steel. Among other possibilities the first instance could be amended as “stainless steel (SUS)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 recites “and wherein the laser is irradiated from the second metal foil side” and it is recommended to amend this to make clear that the metal foil is irradiated by the laser.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the laser is irradiated from the first metal foil side at a first laser intensity” and it is recommended to amend this to make clear that the first metal foil is irradiated by the laser. See the examples below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 section.
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 2-4 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.
Claim 2 recites “the second metal foil side” in line 5 which lacks explicit antecedent basis. Among other options, the claim could be amended as: “The method for producing the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein, in the welding, the resin member is welded to the current collector by a laser; wherein the second metal foil is positioned on a second metal foil side, and wherein the second metal foil by the laser from the second metal foil side.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the laser is irradiated from the first metal foil side at a first laser intensity, and it is irradiated from the second metal foil side at a second laser intensity; and wherein the second laser intensity is larger than the first laser intensity”. It is unclear what is meant by this because the specification does not appear to contain a detailed explanation for this limitation and there is no indication that there is more than one laser or that the laser is somehow positioned for the beam to be incident on both sides. As best understood, the claim is interpreted to mean the first intensity may be due to the beam passing through the second metal foil side, the intensity being attenuated therein, and then entering the first metal foil side at lower intensity.
Claim 3 recites “the first metal foil side” in lines 5-6 and “the second metal foil side” in lines 6-7 which lack explicit antecedent basis.
Claim 3 recites “and it is” in line 6, but it is not completely clear what “it” is.
Among other options, claim 3 could be amended as: “The method for producing the secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein, in the welding, the resin member is welded to the current collector by a laser; wherein the first metal foil is positioned on a first metal foil side and the second metal foil is positioned on a second metal foil side; wherein the first metal foil by the laser from the first metal foil side at a first laser intensity, and [[it]] the second metal foil is irradiated from the second metal foil side at a second laser intensity; and wherein the second laser intensity is larger than the first laser intensity.”
Claim 4 recites “the first metal foil side” in line 5 which lacks antecedent basis. This instance could be changed to “a first metal foil side”.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugioka et al. (Applicant provided JP 2023053669A) in view of Shibata (Applicant provided JP 2004042053), Grabman et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Laser welding of current collector foil stacks in battery production”) and Arai et al. (US 20130192751) and as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (attached non-patent literature titled “Metals – Temperature Expansion Coefficients”) and Tan et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Simulation of temperature and weld growth mechanism in ultrasonic welding of carbon fiber reinforced polyamide…..”).
Regarding claim 1, Sugioka et al. discloses a method for producing a secondary battery (such as a lithium ion battery, para. [0006]) comprising a current collector (bipolar current collector, para. [0007]) comprising a first metal foil (aluminum layer, para. [0007]) and a second metal foil (copper layer, para. [0007]) and a resin member welded to a peripheral portion of the current collector (para. [0026], Fig. 1) as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
546
1456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sugioka et al. discloses wherein the method comprises welding the resin member to the current collector that is arranged to be sandwiched by the resin member (para. [0026], Fig. 1); wherein the first metal foil has a first linear expansion coefficient (aluminum has a linear expansion coefficient); wherein the second metal foil has a second linear expansion coefficient (copper has a linear expansion coefficient); wherein the first linear expansion coefficient is larger than the second linear expansion coefficient (as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox, aluminum has a larger linear expansion coefficient than copper, pages 1-2).
Sugioka et al. does not expressly disclose that an amount of heat applied to the first metal foil is smaller than an amount of heat applied to the second metal foil. However, Sugioka et al. discloses the welding may be accomplished by various welding techniques: heat welding, ultrasonic welding, or IR welding (para. [0026]) and heat welding could meet the claimed limitation as an arbitrary process step/decision in that in heat welding, the copper foil could be positioned closer to the heat source than the aluminum foil resulting in more heat applied to the copper foil. To the person of ordinary skill in the art, rearrangement of the setup/system for conducting the method would produce the predictable result of welding the resin to the current collector. See In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Further, as evidenced by Tan et al., in ultrasonic welding the temperature will be higher near the weld interface and also closer to the horn (Tan et al. shows temperature increase to above the decomposition temperature occurs mainly in the section near the horn due to viscoelastic heating, see page 5561, Section 3.1, Fig. 15a on page 5569, “Phase 4” paragraph on pages 5566-5567) and the copper film of Sugioka et al. will be located closer to the horn (being on the upper side) and will thus experience more applied heat such that an amount of heat applied to the first metal foil (aluminum) is smaller than an amount of heat applied to the second metal foil (copper).
Also, Grabman et al. discloses a method for producing a secondary battery (lithium-ion battery, Abstract) comprising a current collector (Abstract) and Grabman et al. teaches using laser welding for welding foils for a current collector (page 2573, Section 4.1, Fig.1).
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 teachings of Sugioka et al. wherein laser welding is utilized to form the current collector.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use laser welding at least in order to achieve high surface quality weld seams (Grabman et al., page 2573, Section 2).
Further, Arai et al. teaches a method which is analogous art in that it is reasonably pertinent to the problems of bonding thermoplastic resin to metals (pars. [0012]-[0013]) including copper, nickel, and aluminum (pars. [0034]) and Arai et al. teaches the resin member is welded to the metal by a laser (Abstract, para. [0035]).
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 teachings of Sugioka et al. wherein the resin member is welded to the metal foil by a laser.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a laser at least in order to improve tensile strength and the peeling strength at the interface (Arai et al., para. [0016]).
Further, Shibata discloses a method which is analogous art at least because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of joining metals having different properties including melting points (para. [0003], claim 1, including aluminum and copper, para. [0004]) and the second metal foil, copper, has a higher melting point (≈1085°C) than the first metal foil, aluminum (≈660° C), and Shibata teaches applying heat irradiation using laser welding (para. [0015]) from the high melting point side (pars. [0010] and [0016], claim 1).
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 teachings of Sugioka et al. wherein in the welding, an amount of heat applied to the first metal foil (aluminum) is smaller than an amount of heat applied to the second metal foil (copper, having a higher melting point) in that the copper is directly radiated.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an amount of heat applied to the first metal foil that is smaller than an amount of heat applied to the second metal foil at least in order to improve weld strength (Shibata, para. [0019]).
Regarding claim 2, in the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1, in the welding, the resin member is welded to the current collector by a laser (Arai et al., welding thermoplastic resin and a metal, Abstract, para. [0035]), and wherein the laser is irradiated from the second metal foil side (the higher melting point copper side, Shibata, para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 3, in the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1, in the welding, the resin member is welded to the current collector by a laser (Arai et al., welding thermoplastic resin and a metal, Abstract, para. [0035]).
Sugioka et al. does not expressly disclose a laser.
However, Grabman et al. who is relied upon to teach laser welding for a current collector as discussed in claim 1 above, further teaches that the laser is incident on one side and the laser energy passes through to the other side (the weld passes through multiple foil layers and onto a tab, page 2574, Fig. 1) and would be attenuated by the layers such that it is lower intensity on the other side of the layers.
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 teachings of Sugioka et al. wherein the laser is irradiated from the first metal foil side (after passing through the second metal foil side) at a first laser intensity (an attenuated intensity which is lower than the incident intensity), and it is irradiated from the second metal foil side at a second laser intensity (the incident intensity directly from the laser); and
wherein the second laser intensity is larger than the first laser intensity (being directly from the laser without any attenuation in the current collector components).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a laser which delivers energy to the first and second metal foils in order to form a weld all the way through the layers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugioka et al. (Applicant provided JP 2023053669A) in view of Shibata (Applicant provided JP 2004042053), Grabman et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Laser welding of current collector foil stacks in battery production”) and Arai et al. (US 20130192751) and as evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (attached non-patent literature titled “Metals – Temperature Expansion Coefficients”) and Tan et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Simulation of temperature and weld growth mechanism in ultrasonic welding of carbon fiber reinforced polyamide…..”) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Sekihara et al. (US 20100101720) and as further evidenced by Engineering ToolBox (attached non-patent literature titled “Thermal Conductivity of Common Materials - Solids, Liquids and Gases”) hereinafter “ToolBox II” and Sergeev et al. (attached non-patent literature titled “Thermophysical properties of quartz glass”).
Regarding claim 4, Sugioka et al. does not expressly disclose first and second members having different thermal conductivities.
However, Sekihara et al. discloses a method which is analogous art in that it is at least reasonably pertinent to the problem of laser welding of resins (Abstract) and Sekihara et al. teaches the use of a first member (base board 3) in contact with a resin member (resin member 1) on a side opposite of the incident laser beam side (laser beam 10, Fig. 2) and Sekihara et al. teaches a second member (pressing member 6) on the incident laser beam side (Fig. 2) and Sekihara et al. further teaches that different materials may be selected for these members including glass, quartz or resin (pars. [0031] and [0042]). In selecting a material for each member the person of ordinary skill in the art may select a glass (such as borosilicate glass/pyrex) for the second member on the incident laser beam side and quartz glass for the side opposite the incident laser beam side (such as to provide a permanent base structure 3 made of quartz and a pressing member 6 which is replaceable during loading of new current collectors for welding) which would result in a thermal conductivity of the first member being larger than a thermal conductivity of the second member (as evidenced by ToolBox II, page 9, the thermal conductivity of Pyrex is about 1.005 W/m-°K, and as evidenced by Sergeev et al., Table 2, the thermal conductivity of quartz glass is about 1.3 W/m-°K).
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 teachings of Sugioka et al. wherein the resin member is in contact with a first member on a surface opposite to a surface in contact with the first metal foil on the first metal foil side, and the resin member is in contact with a second member on a surface opposite to a surface in contact with the second metal foil on the second metal foil side, and
wherein a thermal conductivity of the first member is larger than a thermal conductivity of the second member.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use first and second members in order to prevent undesirable melt regions on the resin member (Sekihara et al., para. [0004]) and to provide for a light transmitting pressing member to facilitate sandwiching (Sekihara et al., para. [0004]) and the person of ordinary skill would be motivated to select these two members using different materials for design or economic reasons resulting in the thermal conductivity of the first member being larger than the thermal conductivity of the second member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights