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 Status
Claim 1 was amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, however claims 6-20 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habuka et al. (JP 2003217669A, presented in IDS submitted 06/16/2023, Espacenet translation provided for reference) in view of Kawakami et al. (U.S. 20080003503).
With respect to claim 1, Habuka discloses a nonaqueous electrolyte secondary battery structure ([0068]), comprising:
an electrode junction body (4 – wound electrode body) (Fig. 1), and
an exterior member (7 – case) having a housing chamber (71 – battery case) housing the electrode junction body (4) (Fig. 3, [0062]),
wherein the housing chamber (7) includes no electrolytic solution, and the housing chamber (7) containing the electrode junction body (4) and no electrolytic solution is hermetically sealed, with an interior thereof being in a low humidity state (the housing is sealed, the sealed housing is then heated to remove water, and then the electrolyte solution is introduced, [0062-0067]).
Habuka does not specifically disclose a low humidity state relying on the dew-point temperature of the interior of the housing.
Kawakami discloses the process of sealing a battery case ([0182]) and teaches that the sealing should take place where the dew-point temperature is controlled ([0182]). Kawakami further teaches that controlling the dew-point temperature allows for the battery to be sealed in a dry air or dry inert atmosphere ([0182]), thus preventing liquid from entering the sealed battery.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application one way to obtain the sealed housing void of water as disclosed by Habuka is to control the dew-point temperature in a dry air environment to seal the battery as taught by Kawakami.
Although a specific dew-point temperature is not given by Kawakami, applicant’s disclosure reasons that the dew-point temperature of -20℃ is critical as it is a “highly dry state…in an environment without such a water content to impair the function of the battery,” ([0050]). Therefore, Kawakami teaches the same rational as to why optimizing the dew-point temperature to a dry air state is important. Further, applicant is reminded that "[W]here 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).
With respect to claim 2, Habuka discloses the exterior member (7) has a liquid injection port (75 – pipe) through which the electrolytic solution can be injected into the housing chamber (71) (Fig. 3, [0067]), and
the liquid injection port (75) is sealed ([0067]).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habuka in view of Kawakami as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Uwai et a. (U.S. 20180034097, presented in IDS submitted 06/16/2023).
With respect to claim 3, Habuka discloses the exterior member is composed of a film,
an external electrode terminal (15 and 25 – positive and negative electrode terminals) penetrating the exterior member (7) from inside to outside and connected to the electrode junction body (4) is provided (Fig. 3, [0060]), and
the exterior member (7) includes the housing chamber (71) housing the electrode junction body inside (4) (Fig. 3, [0062]).
Habuka does not disclose the materials comprising the exterior member, however does disclose that the materials are not limiting so long as they are an electrochemically stable material in relation to the non-aqueous electrolyte injected into the inside ([0041]), or that the exterior member includes an electrolyte introduction portion communicating with the housing chamber.
Uwai discloses an exterior member (13 – casing) and teaches the exterior member (13) is composed of a laminate film ([0031]). Uwai further teaches that the material used is suitable to house an electrode junction body (20 – power generation element) (Fig. 9, [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to compose the external member disclosed by Habuka using a film as taught by Uwai as a suitable material for housing an electrode body.
Uwai also teaches the exterior member (13) includes a electrolyte introduction portion (131 – surplus portion) and further teaches that electrolyte introduction portion (131) is used to house excess electrolytic solution ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to include the electrolyte introduction portion as taught by Uwai to the exterior member disclosed by Habuka in order to house excess electrolytic solution once introduced in the battery structure of Habuka.
With respect to claim 4, Habuka discloses the exterior member (7) is hermetically sealed such that an outer periphery of the electrode junction body (4) is continuously joined over a circumferential direction (Fig. 3, [0062]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Habuka in view of Kawakami and Uwai as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR20180080921A, presented in IDS submitted 10/23/2024, Espacenet translation provided for reference).
With respect to claim 5, Habuka and Uwai both disclose an exterior member to be injected with electrolyte, but does not explicitly disclose an electrolyte introduction portion.
Kim discloses a housing chamber (14 – pouch case) and teaches a liquid injection portion (O – opening) that has a height greater than the height of the housing chamber (14) in a direction in which the housing chamber (14) and the electrolyte introduction portion (O ) are arranged side0by-side (Figs. 4 and 5). Kim further teaches that this arrangement makes it possible to prevent the electrolyte from leaking to the outside of the pouch case during the electrolyte injection process ([0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was filed to include an electrolyte introduction portion with a height greater than the height of the housing chamber as taught by Kim to the secondary battery of Habuka in order to make it possible to prevent the electrolyte from leaking to the outside of the pouch case during the electrolyte injection process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are premised on the assertion that because the invention of the instant application aims to provide a secondary battery structure capable of suppressing moisture absorption by the electrode connectors within a battery case by sealing the interior of the battery in a low-humidity state prior to electrolyte injection, thereby enabling transportation as a secondary battery structure, and the prior art aims to lower the pressure into a sealed case and then injecting the electrolyte in a shorter time frame later, the claimed subject matter of the two inventions have “different purposes and categories.” However, applicant is reminded that "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Although the intended use of the invention for transportation has not even been claimed by the applicant, and therefore holds no patentable weight, the purpose of the sealed battery structure to be used in transportation cannot be patented in apparatus claims.
Applicant further argues that because of Habuka’s description never stating that the pipe (75) and lid (72) are integrally formed, and that it is stated that electrode body (4) is housed within the case (7) and hermetically sealed, that one having ordinary skill in the art would interpret this to mean the terminal portion is sealed within the case. Thus, there is no disclosure of sealing occurring using the lid (72), and it is a “terminal portion” that makes use of a gasket. However, Habuka’s disclosure explicitly states the use of “ a gasket is sandwiched between the case, the lid, and the positive and negative terminal portions in order to maintain the sealing property, the insulating property, and the like,” ([0042]).
Applicant further argues that “the internal state of the case (7) is not described” after the sealing has occurred. However, Habuka clearly states the overall process steps of the invention as “An electrode body inserting step of [(1)] inserting the electrode body into the case, an electrode body drying step of [(2)] reducing the pressure inside the case with the electrode body inserted, and [(3)] drying the electrode body with the inside of the case decompressed; A non-aqueous electrolyte battery injecting step for [(4)] injecting an aqueous electrolyte solution, wherein the non-aqueous electrolyte injection step maintains the reduced pressure in the electrode body drying step. Thus the interior state of the case before injecting has been explicitly described and the arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant further reiterates arguments from the previous response. The response to these remarks can be found in the non-final and final rejections previously submitted in prosecution. It is the observation of the examiner that several of the arguments and key components of the invention relate to the order of operation of forming the battery structure, as well as the intended use and purpose of the battery structure. In order for more of these features to be patentable, examiner would urge the applicant to pursue litigation of process-style claims, as more of these technical details would be patentable.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727