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
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (PG Pub. 2011/0033735) in view of Downs et al. (PG Pub. 2016/0037633) as evidenced by CN 107331802.
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, 14-15, Kinoshita et al. teaches a battery case comprising a composite laminate comprising a plurality of cover parts comprising a composite laminate and a battery assembly comprising a plurality of battery cells stacked (cells are taught as being stacked) within a battery case and the battery case formed to surround at least a portion of the laminated battery cells (lamination of the stack is taught) [00082, 0087, 0091 and Fig. 2]. Kinoshita et al. do not teach the battery case is flexible synthetic material, but does not teach the specifically claimed composite laminate. However, Downs et al. teach composite laminate with flexibility and strength comprising a unidirectional tape layer (e.g. 102) which comprises thermoplastic resin and continuous fibers (taught as continuous filaments) [0023 and Table 1]. It is further noted giving the number of choices (2 choices) and the level of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to select continuous filaments in order to improve strength. Down et al. also teach a first metal layer formed on an upper surface of a unidirectional tape layer and a second metal layer formed on a lower surface opposite to the upper surface of the unidirectional tape layer [0022 and Fig. 2]. Down et al. teach the maximum fiber diameter is 60 microns and the composite thickness is 0.001-0.007” and each fiber layer can be one or more monofilaments that can be stacked in multiple layers and teach the layer improve strength and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have the content of the continuous fibers by weight based on the weight of the unidirectional tape layer be 40% or more or 60% or more in order to improve strength and arrive at the claimed invention. The thermoplastic resin further comprises a flame retardant [0061-0062]. The unidirectional tape layer comprises a plurality of continuous fiber layers including continuous fibers impregnated with the thermoplastic resin, and the unidirectional tape layer comprises 2 layers or more of the continuous fiber layers and 7 or less layers of the continuous fiber layers [Fig. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composite laminate of Down et al. in Kinoshita et al as a battery case to provide improve strength and flexibility and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed fibers. However, as evidenced by CN 107331802, carbon continuous filaments and glass continuous filaments are equivalent alternatives for UHMWPE known in the art for reinforcements and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glass or carbon continuous filaments and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Kinoshita et al. are silent regarding the claimed unidirectional tape thickness. However, Down et al. teach “In various embodiments, composite materials according to the present disclosure are typically about 0.001″ to about 0.007″ in thickness. In various embodiments, composite materials in accordance with the present disclosure have fiber or filament stacking ranging from side by side or stacked to a center to center distance of approximately 300-fiber diameters.” [0040]. Therefore, it is clear Down et al. teaches various diverse embodiments with the composite thickness and unidirectional tape layer thickness varying and is inclusive of the claimed unidirectional tape thickness and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the claimed thickness in order to tailor mechanical properties, strength, flexibility and weight requirements. It would have been obvious to use the composite material of Down et al. including the thickness of the unidirectional tape layer in Kinoshita et al. in order to tailor mechanical properties, strength, flexibility and weight requirements and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9-10, Kinoshita et al. teach using aluminum, steel or alloys as the battery case first and second metal layer. Down et al. teach using any metal as the first and second metal layer. The previous combination are silent regarding the first and second metal layers being the same material. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at having the first and second metal layer be the same in order to ensure uniform properties across the entire composite and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Kinoshita et al. are silent regarding the claimed composite laminate. However, Downs et al. teaches a plurality of unidirectional tape layers and a plurality of metal layers formed on top of each other. Down et al. teach “ In various embodiments, the method further comprises the adding of additional conductive and/or non-conductive layers to the multilayered composite, either before or after said optional curing. In various embodiments, non-conductive film layers are added to the multilayered composite, such as between any conductive and/or non-conductive layers, or as outer insulating or protective layers on one or both of the outer surfaces of the multilayered composite”. Downs et al. teaches that arrangement of the layers can be varied to meet the end use needs and properties needed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed alternating metal layers and unidirectional tape layers. As stated above, Downs et al. teaches a first main surface of the composite laminate is formed by one of the metal layers and a second main surface of the composite laminate opposite to the first main surface is formed by one of the unidirectional tape layers [0021 and 0041]. Downs et al. is silent regarding the number of metal layers be an odd number. However, given the limited number of options (even and odd), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an odd number of metal layers and arrive at the claimed invention. The adhesive layers between the metal layers and unidirectional tape layers is not required by the present claim language, but Downs et al. does teach impregnating adhesive to the composite and therefore adhesive layers exist between the metal layers and unidirectional tape layers. It would have been obvious to use the composite laminate as taught by Downs et al. in Kinoshita et al. in order to meet end use needs and properties needed and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 13, Kinoshita et al. are silent regarding the thickness of the second metal layer. However, Downs et al. teach “In various embodiments, composite materials according to the present disclosure are typically about 0.001″ to about 0.007″ in thickness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed thickness of the second metal layer given the thickness of the composite material taught in order to provide desired mechanical properties and end use needs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed thickness of the second metal using the teaching of Downs et al. in Kinoshita et al. in order to provide desired mechanical properties and end use needs and arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita et al. (PG Pub. 2011/0033735) in view of Downs et al. (PG Pub. 2016/0037633) in view of Tancrede et al. (PG Pub. 2009/0306281).
Regarding claim 11, Kinoshita et al. are silent regarding the claimed adhesive. Down et al. teach adhesive used to laminate the layer through impregnation and would thus form a layer of adhesive between the metal layer and the unidirectional tape layer, but are silent regarding the claimed specific adhesive. However, Tancrede et al. teach polyolefin adhesive used in laminates to provide balance of properties such as high adhesive strength, wide temperature operating window, and fast set time. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyolefin adhesive of Tancrede et al. in Kinoshita et al. in order to provide balance of properties such as high adhesive strength, wide temperature operating window, and fast set time and arrive at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used But Relevant
PG Pub. 2014/0360344 teaches a battery case.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights