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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments filed January 20, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 14, 18, and 20 have been amended; support for the amendments can be found at least in paragraph [0033] in the Instant Specification. Claims 1-20 remain pending and have been examined on their merits in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed January 20, 2026 have been entered. Applicant argues that a) Kluge does not teach the amendments to claim 1, and b) Kluge lacks a temperature-triggered SOC reduction device because Kluge discloses a test device that is intentionally actuated to create an internal short circuit for experimental testing of electrochemical cells and does not disclose or suggest a fusible element, a melting transition, or any temperature-defined trigger that passively activates the device.
Regarding argument A, Kluge teaches a test device 14 (“a state-of-charge (SOC) reduction device within the electrochemical cell”) comprises a switching device 20 comprising at least one cathodic partial electrode 22a and at least one anodic partial electrode 22b (“the SOC reduction device comprises a conductive material forming first and second conductive elements”) (see e.g., paragraph [0084]), wherein the at least one cathodic partial electrode 22a is electrically connected to the cathode 18a and the at least one anodic partial electrode 22b is directly connected to the anode 18b (“the first conductive element is electrically coupled to the negative electrode and the second conductive element is electrically coupled to the positive electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0085]). Kluge teaches no current flows through the switching device 20, when the at least one of the partial electrodes 22a and 22b are spaced apart by a gap (see e.g., paragraph [0091]), and when the test device is activated through the temperature of the electrochemical cell or that of a heating device (see e.g., paragraphs [0035]-[0036]), the temperature increases, the contact of the at least one of the partial electrodes 22a, 22b effectively short-circuits the test device (“the conductive material is operable to short the negative electrode to the positive electrode in response to a trigger temperature”) (see e.g., paragraph [0099]).Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not found to be persuasive as Kluge does teach the limitations of the amended claim 1.
Regarding argument B, Kluge does teach that an intended use of the test device is produce an internal short circuit with predefined properties in an electrochemical cell in a targeted manner for test purposes (see e.g., paragraph [0006]); however, the testing device of Kluge teaches the structure of Applicant’s state-of-charge (SOC) reduction device as well as the application of shorting the negative electrode to the positive electrode in response to a trigger temperature. Therefore, with this reasoning and since the Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967), Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not found to be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 14, 18, and 20 overcome the previous 112(b) rejection; therefore, the previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 11, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 8, “wherein SOC reduction device” should read “wherein the SOC reduction device”,
in claim 11, there is the limitation “TR” without a definition for the abbreviation; therefore, for examination purposes, TR is interpreted as thermal runway as defined in the Instant Specification paragraph [0013], and
in claim 16, “Bi-33In. Sn-52In” should read “Bi-33In, Sn-52In”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 10-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluge et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0411915 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kluge.
Regarding claim 1, Kluge teaches an electrochemical cell, in particular a lithium-ion rechargeable battery (see e.g., paragraph [0078]), comprising two electrodes 18a (a negative electrode) and 18b (a positive electrode) (“a battery device, comprising an electrochemical cell comprising a negative electrode and a positive electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0079]). Kluge teaches a test device 14 (“a state-of-charge (SOC) reduction device within the electrochemical cell”) comprises a switching device 20 comprising at least one cathodic partial electrode 22a and at least one anodic partial electrode 22b (“a conductive material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0084]). Kluge teaches the test device 14 is inserted into the electrochemical cell 12 such that all cathodic partial electrodes 22a present in the switching device 20 are connected, in a highly electrically conductive manner, directly to the cathode 18a by way of a first connecting cable 23a and all anodic partial electrodes 22b present are connected, in a highly electrically conductive manner, directly to the anode 18b by way of a second connecting cable 23b (see e.g., paragraph [0085]).
Kluge teaches in an initial state of the test device 14, a contact substance 26 is arranged above the interspace 24 in the vertical direction V and is spaced apart from at least one of the partial electrodes 22a, 22b by a gap 28, and in this state, no current flows through the switching device 20 (see e.g., paragraph [0091]). Kluge teaches if the test device is activated, the switching device 20 being closed, then as a result of a temperature increase the contact substance 26, still solid in the initial state, is heated and transferred to the liquid state of matter (see e.g., paragraph [0098]). Kluge teaches the contact substance 26 fills the interspace 24 to an extent such that it bridges the interspace 24 and electrically conductively connects the two partial electrodes 22a, 22b to one another, and this is the short-circuit state of the test device 14 (“the conductive material is operable to short the negative electrode to the positive electrode according to a trigger temperature”) (see e.g., paragraph [0099]). Kluge teaches the partial electrodes 22a, 22b of the test device 14 consist of the respective metal also comprises by the electrodes 18a, 18b, respectively, to which they are electrically connected, that is to say copper and aluminum (“the SOC reduction device comprises a conductive material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 3, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the partial electrodes 22a, 22b of the test device 14 consist of the respective metal also comprises by the electrodes 18a, 18b, respectively, to which they are electrically connected, that is to say copper and aluminum (“wherein the conductive material is the same material as a current collector of the electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 4, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the partial electrode 22a of the test device 14 consist of the respective metal also comprises by the electrodes 18a respectively, to which they are electrically connected, that is to say copper (“wherein the conductive material comprises copper that is operably connected to the negative material”) (see e.g., paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 5, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the partial electrodes 22b of the test device 14 consist of the respective metal also comprises by the electrodes 18b to which they are electrically connected, that is to say, aluminum (“wherein the conductive material comprises aluminum that is operably connected to the positive electrode”) (see e.g., paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claim 6, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the test device 14 comprises a switching device 20 comprising at least one cathodic partial electrode 22a and at least one anodic partial electrode 22b (see e.g., paragraph [0084]). Kluge teaches the test device 14 is inserted into the electrochemical cell 12 such that all cathodic partial electrodes 22a present in the switching device 20 are connected, in a highly electrically conductive manner, directly to the cathode 18a by way of a first connecting cable 23a and all anodic partial electrodes 22b present are connected, in a highly electrically conductive manner, directly to the anode 18b by way of a second connecting cable 23b (“the conductive material is operably connected to the negative electrode at a location where the negative electrode is connected to a first external contact, and the conductive material is operably connected to the positive electrode at a location where the positive electrode is connected to a second external contact”) (see e.g., paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 10, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches in the initial state, the switching device is normally at a temperature below the melting point of the contact substance (see e.g., paragraph [0019]). Kluge teaches the short-circuit state is triggered by the melting of the contact substance (see e.g., paragraph [0020]); therefore, the trigger temperature of the short-circuit state is higher than that of the operating temperature of the electrochemical cell comprising the switching device (“the trigger temperature is higher than an operating temperature of the electrochemical cell”). Kluge teaches by triggering the short-circuit state by the melting of the contact substance because of the contact substance’s low-temperature melting point, thermal runaway is prevented in the cell (“the trigger temperature is lower than a thermal propagation trigger temperature of the electrochemical cell”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 11, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the contact substance 26 fills the interspace 24 to an extent such that it bridges the interspace 24 and electrically conductively connects the two partial electrodes 22a, 22b to one another, and this is the short-circuit state of the test device 14 (see e.g., paragraph [0099]). Kluge teaches the contact substance 26 consists in each case of a material having a low melting point of, for instance, between 50 and 100° C (see e.g., paragraph [0096]). Kluge teaches the short-circuit state of the test device caused by the liquefaction of the contact substance prevents thermal runaway (“wherein the SOC reduction device has a resistance that allows the electrochemical cell to discharge without triggering TR”) (see e.g., paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 14, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches a contact substance 26 (“a conductive agent”) fills the interspace 24 that it bridges the interspace 24 and electrically connects the two partial electrodes 22a, 22b (“conductive material”) to one another, and this is the short-circuit state of the test device 14 (see e.g., paragraph [0099]). Kluge teaches the test device 14 comprises the contact substance 26 that consists of a material a low melting point of, for instance, between 50 and 100° C (“wherein the SOC reduction device comprises a conductive agent, distinct from the conductive material, that melts between 80 °C and 200 °C”) (see e.g., paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 15, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the test device 14 comprises the contact substance 26 that consists of a material a low melting point of, for instance, between 50 and 100° C (“wherein the conductive agent is a low-temperature melting point metal”) (see e.g., paragraph [0096]).
Regarding claim 16, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the contact substance 26 comprises suitable bismuth (“wherein the conductive agent comprises one or more of: indium, lithium, tin, Bi-33In, Sn-52In, Sn-58Bi, and Sn-9Zn”) (see e.g., paragraph [0097] and Table 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the contact substance 26 fills the interspace 24 to an extent such that it bridges the interspace 24 and electrically conductively connects the two partial electrodes 22a, 22b to one another (“wherein the conductive agent is operable to melt and bridge a gap between two conductive surfaces”) (see e.g., paragraph [0099]).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kluge et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0411915 A1) as evidenced by Ashkhotov et al. (“Surface Properties of Indium, Tin, Bismuth, and Binary In–Bi and Sn–Bi Alloys”), hereinafter referred to as Ashkhotov.
Regarding claim 18, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 14, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the contact substance 26 comprises suitable bismuth (see e.g., paragraph [0097]), indium, and tin alloys (“wherein the conductive agent comprises one or more of: indium, lithium, tin, Bi-33In, Sn-52In, Sn-58Bi, and Sn-9Zn”) (see e.g., Table 1).
Kluge does not explicitly teach the surface energy of the bismuth, indium, and tin alloys.
However, Ashkhotov teaches the surface properties of Indium, Tin, Bismuth, and Binary In–Bi and Sn–Bi Alloys. Ashkhotov teaches the surface energy of indium is 694.6 mJ/m2, tin is 638.1 mJ/m2, and bismuth is 469.2 mJ/m2.
Therefore, the bismuth alloys of Kluge would have a surface energy higher than 0.5 J/m2 since the surface energies of indium, tin, and bismuth are higher than 0.5 J/m2.
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 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0411915 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the switching device is constructed as simply as possible to enable reliable closing and fashioned robustly enough that it can withstand the short-circuit current of an electrochemical cell over the desired time duration up to a few seconds (see e.g., paragraph [0013]). While the time duration of up to a few seconds does overlap with within 1 second, Kluge does not explicitly teach that the electrochemical cell would discharge within 1 second. Thus, the resistance that would allow the electrochemical cell to discharge within 1 second would be dependent on the resistivity of the material, the length, and the cross-sectional area of the partial electrodes 22a, 22b. Since Kluge teaches the partial electrodes 22a, 22b (“conductive material”) are materially the same as the conductive material in the Instant Application (see e.g., Instant Specification, paragraph [0020] in which the negative foil comprises copper and the positive foil comprises aluminum; see e.g., Kluge, paragraph [0087], in which the partial electrodes 22a, 22b are copper and aluminum, respectively), the resistivity of the partial electrodes 22a, 22b would be approximately the same as the conductive material in the Instant Application. Therefore, the cross-sectional area and length of the partial electrodes 22a, 22b would be the variables determining the resistance of the test device 14.
The modification of the size of and selection a suitable, known material (copper and aluminum) for the partial electrodes 22a, 22b to have a resistance that allows the electrochemical cell to discharge within 1 second is within the level of ordinary skill in the art because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, and the modification of its size is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07) and See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04)) to produce a test device having a resistance that allows the electrochemical cell to discharge within 1 second.
Regarding claim 13, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge teaches the contact substance should therefore have the lowest possible electrical resistance) (see e.g., paragraph [0016]). The resistance of the test device is dependent on the resistivity of the material, the length, and the cross-sectional area of the partial electrodes. Since Kluge teaches the partial electrodes 22a, 22b (“conductive material”) are materially the same as the conductive material in the Instant Application (see e.g., Instant Specification, paragraph [0020] in which the negative foil comprises copper and the positive foil comprises aluminum; see e.g., Kluge, paragraph [0087], in which the partial electrodes 22a, 22b are copper and aluminum, respectively), the resistivity of the partial electrodes 22a, 22b would be approximately the same as the conductive material in the Instant Application. Therefore, the cross-sectional area and length of the partial electrodes 22a, 22b would be the variables determining the resistance of the test device 14.
Therefore, the modification of the size of and selection a suitable, known material (copper and aluminum) for the partial electrodes 22a, 22b to have a resistance less than 0.1 ohms is within the level of ordinary skill in the art because the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, and the modification of its size is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07) and See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04)) in order to improve the thermal runaway prevention capability of the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0012])
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0411915 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 209029438 U), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge does not explicitly teach wherein the conductive material is one of a film and a foil.
However, Zhang teaches a lithium-ion battery with a thermal runaway control function (see e.g., paragraph [0002]). Zhang teaches the thermal runaway blocking device comprises a first conductive plate and a second conductive plate, and a blocking film is provided between the first conductive plate and the second conductive plate (see e.g., paragraph [0017]), wherein the first and second conductive plate are a copper plate and an aluminum plate, respectively (“wherein the conductive material is one of a film and a foil”) (see e.g., paragraphs [0030]-[0031]). Zhang teaches the thermal runaway blocking device comprising the plates (foils) and film is ensured to have a low-resistance and reliably melt and fill a space when the battery reaches a temperature indicative of a thermal runaway event (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the test device of Kluge to comprise a foil and a film, as taught by Zhang, in order to have a low-resistance and reliably melt and fill a space when the battery reaches a temperature indicative of a thermal runaway event (see e.g., paragraph [0032]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0411915 A1) in view of Morita et al. (US 20140322600 A1), hereinafter referred to as Morita.
Regarding claim 7, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge does not explicitly teach wherein a current collection point of the electrochemical cell is a weld.
However, Morita teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract) having a shutdown function with respect to abnormal heat generation in the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0001]). Morita teaches ultrasonic welding is used for connecting the positive electrode terminal 40 and the positive electrode collector 32, and resistance welding is used for welding the negative electrode terminal 60 and the negative electrode collector 52 (“wherein a current collection point of the electrochemical cell is a weld”) (see e.g., paragraph [0111]). Morita teaches welding in order to ensure the electrical connection between the electrodes and current collectors are reliable (see e.g., paragraph [0111]), and the physical connection is established using a well-known technique in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the test device of Kluge to have a current collection point of the electrochemical is a weld, as taught by Morita, in order to ensure the electrical connection between the electrodes and current collectors are reliable (see e.g., paragraph [0111]), and the physical connection is established using a well-known technique in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge does not explicitly teach wherein the SOC reduction device comprises two metals that are connected using welding.
However, Morita teaches a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery (see e.g., Abstract) having a shutdown function with respect to abnormal heat generation in the battery (see e.g., paragraph [0001]). Morita teaches ultrasonic welding is used for connecting the positive electrode terminal 40 and the positive electrode collector 32, and resistance welding is used for welding the negative electrode terminal 60 and the negative electrode collector 52 (“wherein the SOC reduction device comprises two metals that are connected using welding”) (see e.g., paragraph [0111]). Morita teaches welding in order to ensure the electrical connection between the electrodes and current collectors are reliable (see e.g., paragraph [0111]), and the physical connection is established using a well-known technique in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the test device of Kluge to have a current collection point of the electrochemical is a weld, as taught by Morita, in order to ensure the electrical connection between the electrodes and current collectors are reliable (see e.g., paragraph [0111]), and the physical connection is established using a well-known technique in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Kluge, as modified by Morita, teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 8, as previously described.
As previously described in claim 8, Morita teaches ultrasonic welding is used for connecting the positive electrode terminal 40 and the positive electrode collector 32, and resistance welding is used for welding the negative electrode terminal 60 and the negative electrode collector 52 (“wherein the welding is one of ultrasonic welding”) (see e.g., paragraph [0111]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2020/0411915 A1) in view of Cho et al. (Published U.S. Patent Application US 2005/0255376 A1), hereinafter referred to as Cho.
Regarding claim 19, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge does not explicitly teach wherein pressure is applied to increase an electrical conductive of the SOC reduction device.
However, Cho teaches a battery safety device (see e.g., Abstract). Cho teaches the safety device includes a first metal plate, a second metal plate, and a PSCF (pressure-sensitive conducting film) interposed between both metal plates and adapted to exhibit electrical conductivity when a predetermined pressure or higher is applied (see e.g., paragraph [0032]), and the first and second metal plates are electrically connected to the positive and negative electrodes of the battery, respectively (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Cho teaches the pressure-sensitive conducting film acts as a nonconductor through which no current is applied to flow during a normal state, and, when predetermined pressure or higher occurs, it conducts a current in the direction of the pressure (see e.g., paragraph [0033]), exhibiting an increase in electrical conductivity when pressure is applied (“wherein pressure is applied to increase an electrical conductivity of the SOC reduction device”). Cho teaches the exhibition of electrical conductivity when pressure is applied produces a safer battery by converting the charged state of the battery to the discharged state before the battery is damaged by a pressure caused by external impact (see e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0011])
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the test device of Kluge to exhibit an increase in electrical conductivity when pressure is applied, as taught by Cho, in order to produce a safer battery by converting the charged state of the battery to the discharged state before the battery is damaged by a pressure caused by external impact (see e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0011])
Regarding claim 20, Kluge teaches the instantly claimed invention of claim 1, as previously described.
Kluge does not explicitly teach wherein the pressure is greater than 10 kPa.
However, Cho teaches a battery safety device (see e.g., Abstract). Cho teaches the safety device includes a first metal plate, a second metal plate, and a PSCF (pressure-sensitive conducting film) interposed between both metal plates and adapted to exhibit electrical conductivity when a predetermined pressure or higher is applied (see e.g., paragraph [0032]), and the first and second metal plates are electrically connected to the positive and negative electrodes of the battery, respectively (see e.g., paragraph [0012]). Cho teaches the pressure-sensitive conducting film acts as a nonconductor through which no current is applied to flow during a normal state, and, when predetermined pressure or higher occurs, it conducts a current in the direction of the pressure (see e.g., paragraph [0033]), exhibiting an increase in electrical conductivity when pressure is applied. Cho teaches experimental results in which an increasing pressure is applied caused the voltage of the cell to drop abruptly (indicating an increase in electrical conductivity) (see e.g., Figures 4-6). To determine the pressure in which the electrical conductivity increase, an approximate value of the force (kgf)/temperature (°C) was selected when the voltage abruptly dropped. For Figures 4-6, this force (kgf)/temperature (°C) is approximately 300 kgf/(°C·10). To convert to kPa, the 300 kgf/(°C·10) value is divided by the area of a circle with a diameter of 1 cm (see e.g., paragraph [0057] in which the pressure is applied by a rod having a diameter of 1 cm) and multiplied by 70 °C (see e.g., paragraph [0058], in which that is the temperature of the cell at the abrupt drop) and 98066.5 (which is the conversion factor for kgf/cm2 to Pa) to arrive at approximately 535 kPa (“wherein a pressure applied to the SOC reduction device is greater than 10 kPa”). Cho teaches the exhibition of electrical conductivity when pressure is applied produces a safer battery by converting the charged state of the battery to the discharged state before the battery is damaged by a pressure caused by external impact (see e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0011])
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill would modify the test device of Kluge to exhibit an increase in electrical conductivity when a pressure of approximately 535 kPa is applied, as taught by Cho, in order to produce a safer battery by converting the charged state of the battery to the discharged state before the battery is damaged by a pressure caused by external impact (see e.g., paragraphs [0008] and [0011]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Katherine N Higgins whose telephone number is (703)756-1196. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays - Thursdays 7:30-4:30 EST, Fridays 7:30 - 11:30 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KATHERINE N HIGGINS/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights