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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action regarding Application No. 19/292,268 to Li et al. assigned to Contemporary Amperex, Ningde, China, and iled08/06/2025 is in response to applicant's request for continued examination, RCE, and claim 1 amendment file 05/08/2026.
This application is a continuation of International application PCT/CN2023/141927 filed on 12/26/2023 that claims priority to Chinese Patent Application No. 202310446541.6 filed on 04/24/2023.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/08/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
In the RCE response filed 05/08/2026 applicant has amended claim 1 by incorporation of limitation of claim 12. The status of the claims of the application stand as follows:
Currently amended 1
Original 2-3, 13-15, 17-20
Canceled 4, 7, 12
Previously presented 5-6, 8-11, 16, 21
Claim 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-21 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in the prior Office Action.
Claim 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0223465) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0190950)
Regarding claims 1 and 8 Kanda discloses a battery cell, comprising a can (equivalent to the casing) provided with an accommodation cavity; a sheet-shaped positive electrode, a sheet- shaped negative electrode, are stacked or laminated with a separator interposed between them (Kanda paragraph 0014). The positive electrode and the second electrode are equivalent to the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate. The stacked positive electrodes and negative electrode are considered equivalent to the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate arranged according to a preset order. The staking direction of the electrodes is considered equivalent the first direction. The stacked electrodes are arranged in the can (Kanda paragraph 0014), the inside of the can is equivalent to the accommodation cavity, and arranged in the can is equivalent to being disposed in the accommodation cavity. Thus, Kanda discloses the electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate and a second electrode plate (positive and negative) arranged according to a preset order in a first direction. Kanda discloses the negative electrode 3, (equivalent to the first electrode plate) comprising a first portion overlapping the positive electrode 2 (equivalent to the second electrode plate) and a second portion extending beyond the positive electrode plate 2 (second electrode plate) (Kanda Fig. 1B, 3).
Kanda discloses a first and second insulating auxiliary plates 8 arranged to sandwich the group of electrodes from sides of the group corresponding to the long-side (Fig. 3, paragraph 0014) and are disposed between the stacked electrode assembly and the battery can 1 (Kanda Fig. 3). Kanda discloses wherein the material and/or thickness of the insulating auxiliary sheet is adjusted to provide a plate having tension or that which is difficult to bend or deform, thus making it possible to prevent deformation of the electrodes more reliably (Kanda paragraph 0022), Thus, while preventing deformation of the electrodes, it will also provide support to the electrodes; and are considered equivalent to the support member, where at least part of the support member is disposed between the electrode assembly and the casing in the first direction (Kanda Fig. 3).
Kanda is silent about explicitly reciting a bending strength of the insulating auxiliary sheet, considered equivalent to the support member, is greater than a bending strength of the first electrode plate. Kanda, however, discloses the plate is difficult to bend or deform making it possible to prevent deformation of the electrode (Kanda paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the bending strength of the insulating plate, considered equivalent to the support plate, greater than the bending strength of the electrode in order to prevent the deformation of the electrode (Kanda paragraph 0022), and also provide the necessary support. According to the MPEP such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Kanda discloses a projection of the insulating auxiliary sheet 8, equivalent to the support member in the first direction covers a projection of the second portion of the electrode 3 in the first direction (Kanda Fig. 3).
Kanda discloses the insulating auxiliary sheet or plate has holes bored through the sheet (Kanda paragraph 0086) equivalent to the hollowed rejoin. And the projection of the support region (not hollowed region) covers the projection of the second rejoin of the electrode (Kanda Fig. 3, 4A, B, C).
Regarding the material of the support member Kanda is silent out the insulating auxiliary sheet or plate, considered equivalent to the claimed support member, is made of stainless steel. Zeng discloses a battery comprising a pair of electrodes wound together and an outer wrapper enclosing the pair of electrodes (Zeng paragraph 0002, 0021), equivalent to the casing provided with an accommodation cavity. Zeng discloses stainless steel or aluminum sheets can be coated with polypropylene for both support and inner surface packaging of the wound electrode (Zeng paragraph 0024), considered equivalent to the support member.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the insulating auxiliary sheet or plate of Kanda by the disclosure of Zeng and to have made it of stainless steel coated with polypropylene for both support and inner surface packaging of the wound electrode (Zeng paragraph 0024), and insulating of the electrode body as well. Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C). Furthermore, according to the MPEP Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I F).
Kanda discloses the insulating auxiliary sheet, equivalent to the support member has a face facing the electrode assembly, a second face facing away from the electrode assembly, and a third outer surface connecting the first surface and the second surface, (Kanda 3). Kanda is silent about the inner end surface and the first surface are connected by an inclined surface or an arc as recited in claim 1, and also the third outer end surface and the second surface are also connected by an inclined surface or arc as recited in claim 8. However, such a change of making the connecting surface be inclined surface or an arch is considered change in shape, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the connecting surfaces inclined or are shape. A change in shape or size is generally considered as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(IV).
Regarding claim 2 the outer edge of the insulating auxiliary sheet, considered equivalent to the support member, in the second direction (equivalent to L2) is greater than the maximum dimension of the first electrode in the second direction (equivalent to L1).
Regarding claim 3 Kanda discloses the outer edge dimension of the insulating auxiliary sheet, equivalent to the support member, in the second direction is greater than the outer edge of the electrode in the second direction (Kanda Fig. 3), but is silent wherein the outer edge dimension of the insulating auxiliary sheet, equivalent to the support member, in the second direction is L2≤1.05L1. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized by routine experimentation the dimensions of the plate without it being excessively wider or longer than is necessary to of fer the optimum support. According to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A).
Regarding claim 5 Kanda shows the insulating auxiliary sheet has holes considered equivalent to the hollowed-out region (Kanda 4A, B, C), but is silent about the dimensions of the hollowed-out (L4) region is less than the minimum dimension (L3) of the second electrode plate such that L4<L3 as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the dimension of the hollowed region less than the minimum dimension of the second electrode plate so that the periphery of the support member (not hollowed region) will have enough surface to support the electrode plate (Kanda Fig. 3, 4B, 4C).
Regarding claim 6 Kanda discloses the insulating auxiliary sheet, equivalent to the support member, has first surface facing the electrode assembly, and a second surface facing away from the electrode assembly (Kanda Fig.3), and an inner end surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (Kanda Fig. 3). Kanda also discloses the first electrode plate comprise a first outer end surface, and the second electrode plate has a second outer surface (Kanda Fig. 3). But Kanda is silent relative dimension of the minimum distance between the inner end surface the support member and the second outer surface (P1) and the minimum distance between the first outer end surface of the support member and the second outer end surface of the electrode (P2) and the ratio P1/P2. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have optimized the dimension for an optimum support of the electrode by the support member. According to the MPEP, "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A)
Regarding claim 9 Kanda is silent regarding the thickness of the insulating auxiliary sheet or plate, but discloses that the thickness of the sheet is adjusted to provide a plate which is difficult to bend or deform to as to making it possible to prevent deformation of the electrodes more reliably (Kanda paragraph 0022), thus providing adequate support to the electrodes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized through routine experimentation the thickness of the insulating auxiliary sheet. (In re Aller, 220F.2d454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). (MPEP 2144.05 II A)).
Regarding claim 10 the insulating auxiliary sheet, considered equivalent to the support member is fixedly connected to a side surface of the electrode assembly facing the case 1 (Kanda Fig. 1B, 3).
Regarding claim 11 the insulating auxiliary sheet or plate, considered equivalent to the support member, comprises of a first support member and a second support member being located at the two sides of the stacked electrode assembly facing the can 1, equivalent to the casing, in the first direction (Kanda Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 19 Kanda discloses a battery and a battery system (Kanda paragraph 31. 0018), equivalent to the battery cell and the battery comprising the battery cell.
Regarding claim 20 Kanda discloses a power storage system has a rechargeable battery 32. and a power generating equipment installed on a vehicle, a bicycle an elevator or the like (Kanda paragraph 0018) equivalent to the electric device.
Claim 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 USC U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (U.S. PG Publication) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0190950) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nishikawa et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2022/0231380).
The discussion of Kanda and Zeng as applied to claim 1 above is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 13 and 14 Kanda discloses the insulating auxiliary sheet may be made of 38. plastic resin (Kanda paragraph 0019), but Kanda is silent that the plastic resin is a thermosetting plastic recited in claim 13 or are one or more of phenolic plastic, epoxy plastic, aminoplast, unsaturated polyester, alkyd plastic, and fiberglass reinforced recited in claim 14. Nishikawa discloses a plurality of battery cells having planar surfaces (Nishikawa Fig. 3, paragraph 0046), and insulating sheet interposed between battery cells arranged to face each other (Nishikawa Fig. 5, paragraph 0011). Nishikawa discloses the battery cell include an electrode assembly which includes a positive electrode, a negative electrode and a separator membrane disposed therebetween (Nishikawa paragraph 0046), and the insulating sheets interposed the battery cells are essentially interposed on both surfaces of the electrode assembly, and are considered to be analogous to the insulating auxiliary sheet of Kanda. It is also obvious that such insulating sheet provides a support to the battery cell and by extension to the electrode assembly. Nishikawa discloses the insulating sheet may be a resin composition (Nishikawa paragraph 0021), the resin component may be any of various resins (polymers or plastics) (Nishikawa paragraph 0021), and produced at high temperature (Nishikawa paragraph 0065); thus, the insulating sheet are thermosetting plastics as recited in claim 13. Further Nishikawa discloses typical examples of the resin component include an epoxy resin, a phenolic resin, and unsaturated polyester resin (Nishikawa paragraph 0021), which are plastics (Nishikawa paragraph 0021) and all are recited in claim 14.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person ordinary skill in the art to have modified the insulating auxiliary sheet of Kanda by the disclosure of Nishikawa and use the thermosetting plastic of Nishikawa (Nishikawa paragraph 0021, 0065), such as the disclosed resins or plastics an epoxy resin, a phenolic resin, and unsaturated polyester resin (Nishikawa paragraph 0021). Such a modification according to the MPEP is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Regarding claim 15 Kanda discloses the insulating auxiliary sheet may be made of plastic resin (Kanda paragraph 0019), but Kanda is silent about the bending strength of the plastic resin being in the claimed range (50 MPa to 300 MPa). Nishikawa discloses typical examples of the resin component include an epoxy resin, a phenolic resin, and unsaturated polyester resin (Nishikawa paragraph 0021), which are plastics (Nishikawa paragraph 0021) and all are recited in claim 14. Nishikawa disclose at least three of the claimed plastics, namely, an epoxy resin, a phenolic resin, and unsaturated polyester resin (Nishikawa paragraph 0021) that are the same thermosetting plastics as claimed. Therefore, the plastic resin of Kanda as modified by the disclosure of Nishikawa will have the same properties as the claimed thermosetting plastic since both are the same materials (an epoxy resin, a phenolic resin, and unsaturated polyester resin) and will have the same properties, thus the plastic resin material of Kanda will have bending strength in the claimed range. According to the MPEP "Products of identical chem composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present." (In re Spada, 911 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658, Fed. Cir. 1990See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (U.S. PG 40. Publication 2011/0223465) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0190950), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kejha (U.S. PG Publication 2023/0013240)
The discussion of Kanda and Zeng as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claims in this section.
Regarding claim 16 and 21 Kanda is silent about the energy density of the battery cell. Kejha discloses that the desired energy density of electric vehicle batteries is approximately 500 Wh/kg or more (Kejha paragraph 0003), and discloses the disclosed invention provides magnesium/magnesium sulfide batteries with high energy density approximately 500 Wh/kg and good cycle life at low cost (Kejha paragraph 0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have modified the battery Kanda by the disclosure of Kejha (paragraph 0003, 0006) made the battery of Kanda a high energy battery in the claimed range of energy density of 360 Wh/g to less than or equal 520 Wh/kg since such a battery can have sufficient energy density of 500 Wh/kg or more for an electric vehicle as taught by Kejha (Kejha paragraph 0003). Such a modification is considered the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 I C).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda (U.S. PG Publication 2011/0223465) in view of Zeng et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2018/0190950) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sachdev et al. (U.S. PG Publication 2020/0388824).
The discussion of Kanda and Zeng as applied to claim 1 is fully incorporated here and is relied upon for the limitation of the claim in this section.
Regarding claim 17 and 18 Kanda is silent that the battery has a silicon-based material among active substances of the first electrode plate is greater than 20% and less than or equal to 100%. Sachdev discloses a battery cell utilizing an anode that include silicon particles embedded within a copper matrix (Sachdev Abstract, paragraph 0002, 0003), wherein the anode can be 40 at. % to 75 at. % silicon (Sachdev paragraph 0003). In another embodiment the anode can comprise about 35 at. % to about 80 at. %, about 40 at. % to about 75 at. %, or about 60 at. % to about 70 at. % silicon, wherein the balance of the anode can comprise the copper matrix (Sachdev paragraph 0027). Sachdev teaches silicon has the highest known theoretical charge capacity for lithium, making it one of the most promising anode host materials 13 for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries (Sachdev paragraph 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used in the battery of Kanda a silicon-based material as disclosed by Sachdev in the disclosed content for the benefit of its high theoretical charge capacity of lithium as taught by Sachdev (Sachdev paragraph 0024). Such a modification is the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP 2143 IC). The range disclosed by Sachdev is included in the claimed range of 20% to 100% of claim 17 and significantly overlaps with the range 30% to 70% recited in claim 18.
Response to Argument
In the RCE response applicant has amended claim 1 of the application by incorporation of limitation of claim 12 regarding the material of the support member being stainless steel and is insulated from the electrode assembly. Applicant traverses the rejection of the claims presented in the final Office action, with particular reference to the specific shape of the support member wherein the inner end surface and the first support member surface are connected by an inclined surface or an arc surface; and the material of the support member being stainless steel. Applicant argues that the instant specification discloses a concentrated force applied to the first electrode plate by the support member during expansion of the first electrode plate may be relieved, thereby improving the performance of the battery, and that change in the shape of the support member as claimed is not obvious as presented in the previous rejection of the claims. Applicant presents disclosure from the specification and cites the disclosure in paragraph [0093] wherein states, “the application explicitly recites (see for example paragraph [0093] of the Description, emphasis added) that "The inner end surface 2313 and the first surface 2311 being connected by the inclined surface or the arc surface may achieve a smooth transition connection. In this way, a force applied to the first electrode plate 221 in contact with the support member 23 is more uniform, so that a concentrated force applied to the first electrode plate 221 by the support member 23 during expansion of the first electrode plate 221 may be relieved, thereby improving the performance of the battery cell 20".
Examiner notes that the extent or significance of the relief of the force applied to the first electrode plate due to the claimed inclined or arc surface of the support member as cited by applicant is not known and/or quantified to any extent and in any form. Thus, it remains to lack any supporting experimental evidence, and to argue it is not obvious to a person of ordinary skill is not persuasive in the absence of any supporting experimental evidence. Therefore, such a change to an inclined or arc surface is considered to be a change in shape that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill.
Regarding the material of the supporting member being stainless steel applicant argues that the battery of Zeng has a different shape than the battery of Kanda and argues that the modification of the material of support member of Kanda by the material of the support member of Zeng is not obvious change or modification. Examiner notes that Kanda specifically teaches wherein the material and/or thickness of the insulating auxiliary sheet, considered equivalent to the support member, is adjusted to provide a plate having tension or that which is difficult to bend or deform, thus making it possible to prevent the stainless steel or aluminum sheets can be coated with polypropylene for both support and inner surface packaging of the wound electrode (Zeng paragraph 0024), Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have used the stainless steel or aluminum sheets coated with polypropylene as a support member material in the battery of Kanda as it would provide the desired strength. Examiner also notes that the above discussion is extended to the rejection of the dependent claims as resented above in this Office action where appropriate in the Office action.
Applicant also argues that at least because Zeng teaches using a steel plate to make an outer casing of a battery, and not an auxiliary insulating plate inside a casing as plate 8 of Kanda, it would not have been obvious for the skilled person to look into the material of the outer casing of Zeng to make the internal insulating plate of Kanda. Examiner disagrees and notes that the MPEP states that known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 I F). Thus, modifying the battery of Kanda by the casing wrapper of Zeng for a material in the middle of Kanda would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant also argues that the insulating sheet of Kanda may be made of insulating sheet and has through holes, and replacing the insulating, and replacing the apertured plastic resin insulating sheet 8 of Kanda with a polypropylene-coated apertured steel sheet, such an apertured steel sheet would have been prone to damage by the electrolyte of the battery, at least in the aperture of the sheet, where the polypropylene would not be present, and the electrolyte could also seep between the steel plate and the polypropylene coating, and that the skilled person would therefore immediately have concluded that a polypropylene-coated apertured steel sheet would be damaged by an electrolyte solution, and is not suitable for Kanda. This argument assumes that the through-hole formed in the casing wrapper of Zeng will have an exposed portion that is not coated with the polypropylene, and would allow contact of the electrolyte and the stainless steel, wherein the electrolyte would damage the stainless steel. However, there is not compelling reason to assume that the skilled person will coat the whole surface of the stainless steel with polypropylene but leave the through-hole uncoated. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Examiner notes that the combined teaching of the applied references renders the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR M KEKIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5918. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-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, NIKI BAKHTIARI can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/JONATHAN G JELSMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/OMAR M KEKIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights