DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US20230369585A1 in view of Fuhr US20120015235A1 and Anglin US20040131924A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a battery cell (Kim, Fig. 14A, cell 120), comprising:
a container that forms a protective enclosure (Kim, Fig. 12, housing 205) for and that is configured to accommodate the battery cell (Kim, [0042]), including:
a positive electrode (Kim, [0039]),
a negative electrode (Kim, [0039]),
an ionically conductive separator (Kim, [0039]),
and an electrolyte (Kim, [0039]),
a lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) positive electrode active material (Kim, [0031], LiMnxFe1-xPO4, 0<x<1),
at least one conductive carbon additive (Kim, [0033]),
and at least one binder (Kim, [0033]),
a first busbar (Kim, Fig. 11, first busbar 145) configured to carry electrical current (Kim, [0041]), a second busbar (Kim, Fig. 11, second busbar 150) configured to carry electrical current (Kim, [0041]). While Kim does not explicitly teach a positive electrode terminal forming an electrical connection with the first busbar, and a negative electrode terminal forming an electrical connection with the second busbar, Kim teaches the busbar is a current collector element to connect or otherwise electrically couple the battery modules or battery cells (Kim, [0041]). Therefore the skilled artisan would find it obvious wherein the first and second busbar of Kim satisfy the claim limitation thereby connecting the battery cells to provide electrical power (Kim, [0041]).
While modified Kim does not explicitly teach in the embodiment of Fig. 14A a prismatic battery cell, Kim does however disclose in a different embodiment wherein the battery cells may be prismatic (Kim, [0039]). Therefore it would be obvious the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery cell of modified Kim to a prismatic battery cell because Kim teaches the battery cell shape can be different (Kim, [0039]), that a prismatic battery cell is recognized in the art as a suitable battery shape (Kim, [0039]) for general energy storage and other applications (Kim, [0040]). Modified Kim does not teach a first busbar comprising copper, a second busbar comprising aluminum and a lid laser welded to the container.
Fuhr teaches wherein multiple bus bars (Fuhr, Fig. 5, multiple 1116) are known in the art to comprise art known effective materials such as copper and aluminum (Fuhr, [0059]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Kim substituting the busbars with the art known effective material of multiple busbars, such as copper and aluminum, as taught by Fuhr, thereby electrically coupling to one or more other cells through the terminals and busbar (Fuhr, [0059]) and having a reasonable expectation of success as they are art known effective materials used in a similar environment for a similar purpose. See MPEP § 2143.02. Modified Kim as modified by Fuhr does not teach a lid laser welded to the container.
Anglin teaches wherein the lid is laser welded to the container (Anglin, [0081]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lid of Anglin in modified Kim as further modified by Fuhr thereby securely holding the lid in place and sealing the open end of the container (Anglin, [0081]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim also teaches wherein the LMFP active material contains a ratio of manganese to iron between 1.2:1 and 9:1 (Kim, [0031], LiMnxFe1-xPO4, 0<x<1, 0.1:1 to 9:1), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at between 1.2:1 and 9:1, see MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim additionally teaches wherein the at least one conductive carbon material comprises carbon particles, graphene, or a combination of carbon and graphene (Kim, [0033]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kim further teaches wherein the conductive carbon material is monolayered (Kim, [0033], SWCNT), multilayered (Kim, [0033], MWCNT), or comprises a network of carbon allotropes selected from the group comprising carbon nanotubes, graphite, and graphene (Kim, [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kim further teaches wherein a lid is rectangular (Kim, as reasonably suggesting in Fig. 12, unlabeled lid on housing 205), see claim interpretation above.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kim also teaches wherein at least one of a positive electrode terminal is circular (Kim, as reasonably suggested by Fig. 14B, terminal 235).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kim teaches wherein the positive electrode terminal is welded to the first busbar (Fuhr, [0059]), but does not explicitly disclose laser welded. In another embodiment, Fuhr teaches wherein the welding can be laser welding (Fuhr, [0068]), therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the welding of modified Kim with the laser welding taught by Fuhr thereby coupling the busbar to the cell (Fuhr, [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kim teaches wherein the positive electrode terminal is welded to the second busbar (Fuhr, [0059]), but does not explicitly disclose laser welded. In another embodiment, Fuhr teaches wherein the welding can be laser welding (Fuhr, [0068]), therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the welding of modified Kim with the laser welding taught by Fuhr thereby coupling the busbar to the cell (Fuhr, [0063]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Kim does not teach wherein each of the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal further comprises a welding surface.
Fuhr teaches wherein each of the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal further are connected to the busbar via welding (Fuhr, [0059]), satisfying the limitation wherein each of the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal further comprises a welding surface. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the positive and negative electrodes of Kim with those of Fuhr, thereby facilitating coupling to the busbar (Fuhr, [0059]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US20230369585A1 in view of Fuhr US20120015235A1 and Anglin US20040131924A1 and further in view of Li US20100173197A1.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim does not teach wherein the positive electrode comprises, by weight: at least 80% active material; between 1% and 10% conductive material; and between 1% and 10% binding material.
Li teaches wherein the positive electrode comprises, by weight: at least 80% active material (Li, [0118], 86 wt%), between 1% and 10% conductive material (Li, [0118], 10%), and between 1% and 10% binding material (Li, [0118], 4%). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the positive electrode weight percentages of Li in the positive of modified Kim thereby obtaining a high capacity and capable of improving stability or low-temperature characteristics (Li, [0007]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US20230369585A1 in view of Fuhr US20120015235A1 and Anglin US20040131924A1 and further in view of Nakamaru US20040061476A1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim does not teach wherein at least one of a positive electrode terminal or a negative electrode terminal comprises nickel-plated steel.
Nakamaru teaches wherein at least one of a positive electrode terminal comprises nickel-plated steel (Nakamaru, [0032]). Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan to substitute the positive electrode of Nakamaru in modified Kim thereby being capable of charging and discharging with a large current (Nakamaru, [0014]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US20230369585A1 in view of Fuhr US20120015235A1 and Anglin US20040131924A1 and further in view of Hermann US20160218401A1.
Regarding claim 16, modified Kim does not teach wherein each of the first busbar and second busbar is between 0.1 mm and 2 mm in thickness.
Hermann teaches wherein each of the first busbar and second busbar is between 0.1 mm and 2 mm in thickness (Hermann, [0081], 0.5 and 3 mm), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at between 0.5 mm and 2 mm, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the busbar thickness of Hermann in Kim, thereby interconnecting two or more terminals of different electrochemical cells in the battery pack without shorting the cells in the pack (Hermann, [0006]).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US20230369585A1 in view of Fuhr US20120015235A1 and Anglin US20040131924A1 and further in view of Darolles US20220140307A1.
Regarding claim 17, modified Kim does not explicitly teach for an LMFP active material (claim 1) having a cell energy density between 400Wh/L and 700Wh/L.
Darolles teaches a cathode material comprising a combination of lithium manganese and lithium iron phosphate (Darolles, [0020]) having a cell energy density between 400Wh/L and 700Wh/L (Darolles, [0022], about 600 to about 1600 Wh/L), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at between 0.5 mm and 2 mm, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell energy density of modified Kim with that of Darolles, thereby the cell can be used in battery-powered electric vehicles (Darolles, [0022]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Kim does not explicitly teach for an LMFP active material (claim 1) having a specific energy between 200Wh/kg and 500Wh/kg.
Darolles teaches a cathode material comprising a combination of lithium manganese and lithium iron phosphate (Darolles, [0020]) having a specific energy between 200Wh/kg and 500Wh/kg (Darolles, [0023], 10 Wh/kg, alternatively at least about 500 Wh/kg), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at between 200Wh/kg and 500Wh/kg, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell specific energy of modified Kim with that of Darolles, thereby the cell can be used in battery-powered electric vehicles (Darolles, [0022]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US20230369585A1 in view of Fuhr US20120015235A1 and Anglin US20040131924A1 and further in view of Ovshinsky US20020121396A1.
Regarding claim 19, modified Kim does not teach having a power density between 1,200W/L and 8,400W/L.
Ovshinsky teaches having a power density between 1,200W/L and 8,400W/L (Ovshinsky, [0069], generally ≧1500 W/L, preferably ≧1800 W/L, and most preferably ≧2700 W/L), the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 1500 W/L or greater and 2700 W/L or greater, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell power density of modified Kim with that of Ovshinsky, thereby having a higher peak power for improved performance (Ovshinsky, [0060]).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim US20230369585A1 in view of Fuhr US20120015235A1 and Anglin US20040131924A1 and further in view of Chiang US20120251896A1.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kim does not teach having a specific power between 600W/kg and 6,000W/kg.
Chiang teaches having a specific power between 600W/kg and 6,000W/kg. (Chiang, [0139], greater than 300, 600, 1200 W/kg) , the claimed range is found to be obvious for overlapping the prior art range at least at 600 W/kg or greater and 1200 W/kg or greater, see MPEP § 2144.05. Therefore it would be obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cell specific power of modified Kim with that of Chiang, thereby achieving high power density (Chiang, [0139]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 5, filed 20 July 2026, with respect to the objection to claim 2 and the 112 rejection of claims 7-10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 2 and the 112 rejection of claims 7-10 have been withdrawn as they have been overcome by applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 20 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kim's disclosure of LMFP (LiMnxFel-xPO4) is merely incidental; it is listed among many "illustrative cathode active materials" that could be used with Kim's sacrificial additive system and the Examiner has not articulated a reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select LMFP from Kim's extensive list of illustrative cathode materials and combine it with the specific busbar configuration and laser welded lid and a skilled artisan looking at Kim would have no reason to select LMFP and combine it with copper and aluminum busbars and a laser welded lid. This is not persuasive.
As set forth above, Kim discloses a lithium manganese iron phosphate (LMFP) positive electrode active material (Kim, [0031], LiMnxFe1-xPO4, 0<x<1), and Kim does disclose in a different embodiment wherein the battery cells may be prismatic (Kim, [0039]). Therefore it would be obvious the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery cell of modified Kim to a prismatic battery cell because Kim teaches the battery cell shape can be different (Kim, [0039]), that a prismatic battery cell is recognized in the art as a suitable battery shape (Kim, [0039]) for general energy storage and other applications (Kim, [0040]). Fuhr teaches wherein multiple bus bars (Fuhr, Fig. 5, 1116) are known in the art to comprise art known effective materials such as copper and aluminum (Fuhr, [0059]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device as taught by Kim substituting the busbars with the art known effective material of multiple busbars, such as copper and aluminum, as taught by Fuhr, thereby electrically coupling to one or more other cells through the terminals and busbar (Fuhr, [0059]). Modified Kim as modified by Fuhr does not teach a lid laser welded to the container. Anglin teaches wherein the lid is laser welded to the container (Anglin, [0081]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lid of Anglin in modified Kim as further modified by Fuhr thereby securely holding the lid in place and sealing the open end of the container (Anglin, [0081]).
"The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hosokawa US20120079713A1 (discloses a LMFP prismatic battery comprising a laser welded lid).
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 JARED HANSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/JARED HANSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights