DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 RCE, filed 05/01/2026, has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-12 are now pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 7341802 B1) in view of Lee (KR20160031640A), Wu (CN 111082156 A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations), and Ringel (DE102018200159A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Ota teaches a button cell (Fig. 4, 40) comprising:
an electrode assembly (Fig. 2, 18) comprising an electrode current collector (16) and an electrode tab (16);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (Fig. 2, 11),
a cap assembly (Fig. 2, 20) comprising a cap plate (Fig. 2, 26) coupled to an opening of the case (Fig. 2. opening covered by 20);
a thermal fusion member (Fig. 2, 24; wherein 24 is a thermal fusion member because heat is used to attach cap assembly 20 to the battery (see 14, “sealed by brazing”),
and a terminal plate (Fig. 2, 32) extending through a through hole of the thermal fusion member (Fig. 2, center of 24) coupled to the cap plate in an insulating state (Fig. 2, 26; (14)) via thermal fusion member 24 (as the thermal fusion member in Ota is an insulator, and Ota explicitly states in (14) that the terminal plate and cap plate (32 and 26) are properly insulated by ceramic 24 such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not electrically connect the two during brazing as that teaches away from the disclosure of Ota. It is the examiner’s position that the brazing disclosed in Ota is describing a ceramic-to-metal braze),
and a conductive adhesive member applied to a first connection between the second electrode tab and the terminal plate (see (16), “conductive adhesive”);
wherein the through hole of the thermal fusion member is aligned with and is the terminal hole of the cap plate (see Fig. 2)
wherein the thermal fusion member is spaced apart from the terminal hole of the cap plate (wherein Fig. 2, 24 is spaced above hole within cap 25)
wherein the thermal fusion member is fused to both the terminal plate and the cap plate by being melted (see 14, sealed by brazing, wherein it is the examiner’s position brazing is a joining process in which two or more items are joined by melting)
Ota fails to specifically teach a first and second electrode tab and wherein the first conductive double-sided adhesive member is a first conductive double-sided tape wherein the through hole of the thermal fusion member is larger than the terminal hole of the cap plate. However, Lee teaches an acceptable embodiment thereof, comprising a first and second electrode tab ([0007]), wherein a first electrode tab is connected to the case [0007], and wherein the cap plate electrically connected to the second electrode tab (Fig, 3, 713, 723, [0003] [0007]). Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to arrange the first and second connections of Ota, which utilize conductive adhesive, in the manner of Lee, using first and second electrode tabs, as this is a known and suitable arrangement of electrode tabs in the art. Lee fails to teach using a conductive, double-sided adhesive wherein the conductive double-sided adhesive member comprises a conductive double-sided tape and wherein the through hole of the thermal fusion member is larger than the terminal hole of the cap plate.
Wu teaches a button cell using conductive, double-sided adhesive wherein the conductive double-sided adhesive member comprises a conductive double-sided tape (Fig. 1, 4; [014], “double-sided adhesive”, [038], “tape”). Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to arrange the conductive double-sided adhesive members of Ota in the manner of Wu, as a tape, as the tape is an acceptable embodiment thereof. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
While Wu does teach the conductive double-sided adhesive member to melt at high-temperatures, this does not dissuade combination with the thermal fusion member placed within the proximity of the double-sided adhesive member of modified Ota because the thermal fusion process is taught to be local, not spreading to other parts of the cell, such that any risk of premature melting of the adhesive would be mitigated (see 16 of Ota, “laser welding”).
Wu also fails to teach wherein the through hole of the thermal fusion member is larger than the terminal hole of the cap plate. Ringel teaches wherein the through hole (Fig. 2, 112) of an adhesive ring (functionally equivalent to a thermal fusion member because they both seal battery cells) is larger than the terminal hole (Fig. 2, hole penetrated by 108, see also Fig. 4 illustratively) of the cap plate (Fig. 2, 114). Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the geometry provided it is a suitable disclosed geometry of a sealing member in the art.
Furthermore, it has been held that “a change in form, proportions, or degree “will not sustain a patent… It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions” (MPEP 2144.05 II); see also “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 IVA).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 7341802 B1) in view of Lee (KR20160031640A), Wu (CN 111082156 A), Ringel (DE102018200159A1), and Sumihara (CN 101897059 A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 4,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Ringel teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the first conductive double-sided adhesive member comprises an anisotropic conductive film. Sumihara teaches an anisotropic conductive film (Fig. 12, 14; [0276], wherein [0276] states the shape of the anisotropic conductive member may be modified for uniform contact.” Given the BRI of the term “film”, meaning a thin flexible trip of plastic, 14 meets the limitations of this claim. Sumihara describes the anisotropic conductive adhesive as a beneficial for as providing electrical conductivity only in the height or thickness direction of the double-sided adhesive, and does not conduct electricity in the planar direction, allowing for controlled electrical connections within the battery (see section regarding the fourth embodiment). Additionally, Sumihara teaches the composite composition responsible for anisotropy thereof also has beneficial properties due to materials selection, wherein the fibrous metal component imparts excellent, one-way conductivity and voltage resistance, and the rubber core provides electrolyte resistance, ensuring a secure and durable electrical connection. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use the double-sided adhesive member comprising an anisotropic conductive film, as taught by Sumihara, within the battery of modified Ota in order to impart controlled electrical connections within the battery, preventing unintended electrical conduction or short-circuiting between the tab and other battery components, and also to realize the improved conductivity and electrolyte resistance of the composite.
Regarding claim 5,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Ringel teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising a second conductive double-sided tape applied to a second connection between the first electrode tab and the case, wherein the second connection electrically and mechanically connects with the second conductive double-sided tape that is arranged between a lower surface of the first electrode tab and an inner surface of the case facing each other (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Ringel teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second connection electrically and mechanically connects with a second conductive double-sided tape of the conductive double-sided adhesive member that is arranged between an upper surface of the second electrode tab and a lower surface of the terminal plate facing each other (see Sumihara, Fig. 12, 14 and 12; see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 7,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, Ringel, and Sumihara teaches the button cell of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the terminal plate comprises: a flange part on an outside of the cap plate, and electrically insulated and attached to an outer surface of the cap plate with the thermal fusion member therebetween (Fig. 2, top of 32 attached to 26 with 24 therebetween); and a tab connection part protruded from a center of the flange part to an inside and protruded toward the electrode assembly through the through hole of the thermal fusion member and the terminal hole of the cap plate (Fig. 3, 22; which protrudes through 24 and 26), and wherein the first conductive double-sided tape is electrically and mechanically connected between the second electrode tab and an inner surface of the tab connection part (see rejection of claim 1 above, “tape”; Fig. 2, 22; wherein (16) describes that 22 is connected with electrode 18 with conductive adhesive).
Regarding claim 8,
Modified Ota teaches the button cell of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein the terminal plate comprises: a flange part on an inside of the cap plate (Fig. 2; flanging part 24 on inside of cap plate 26) and electrically insulated attached to an inner surface of the cap plate with a thermal fusion member therebetween (see rejection of claim 7 above); and a protruded terminal protruded from a center of the flange part to an outside and passing through a through hole of the thermal fusion member and a terminal hole of the cap plate, and the first conductive double-sided tape is mechanically and electrically connected between the second electrode tab and an inner surface of the flange part (see rejection of claim 7 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 7341802 B1) in view of Lee (KR20160031640A), Wu (CN 111082156 A), Sumihara (CN 101897059 A) and Kusaba (CN 105990540 A), evidenced by Lazada (see enclosed document) (refer to enclosed translations for citations)
Regarding claim 3,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Sumihara teaches the button cell of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), including a rubber double-sided adhesive to form the first connection and the second connection (see rejection of claim 1 above; [0267], “rubber”). Modified Ota also teaches the rubber double-sided adhesive to be in the form of a tape (Wu, see rejection of claim 2 above; [038], “jiasheng’ brand aluminum foil tape”, evidenced by Jiasheng tape taught by Lazada (see enclosed reference)). However, while it is the examiner’s position that aluminum foil tape is commonly reinforced by glass fiber surrounded by a butyl rubber adhesive, modified Ota fails to explicitly teach this. Kusaba teaches a conductive adhesive (Fig. 1, 40) wherein the conductive adhesive comprises: a conductive mesh part ([079, having a mesh structure with conductivity ([079], “mesh”); and an rubber adhesive filled around the conductive mesh part, wherein the rubber adhesive of the tape surrounds the mesh ([079], “rubber”) such that the adhesive exhibits fluid and solid-like properties, ensuring the adhesive stay fixed [0103]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify the rubber double-sided adhesive tape of Ota with the conductive mesh adhesive surrounded by rubber adhesive taught by Kusaba, such that the conductive adhesive exhibits fluid and solid-like properties, further strengthening a first and second connection.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 7341802 B1) in view of Lee (KR20160031640A), Wu (CN 111082156 A), Sumihara (CN 101897059 A) and Lee’ (KR 20090035226 A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations)
Regarding claim 9,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Ringel teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the terminal plate comprises: a flange part on an outside of the cap plate, and electrically insulated and attached to an outer surface of the cap plate with a thermal fusion member therebetween; and a tab connection part protruded from a center of the flange part to an inside of the flange part and protruded toward the electrode assembly through a through hole of the thermal fusion member and a terminal hole of the cap plate (see rejection of claim 8 above), and conductive adhesive which can reduce volume and improve capacity (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a third double sided adhesive in a third connection that connects the terminal plate to a set. Lee’ teaches a set ([015], “battery pack”; the examiner notes that the BRI of the term “set”, which is not defined in the present specification, means a group of items that belong together), a double-sided adhesive member of the third connection is connected between a second external tab connected to an outer surface of the case and the set ([015], “hot-melt resin”; it is the examiner’s position that the hot-melt resin is a double-sided adhesive member because it adheres two surfaces), which would allow the core pack to be connected to multiple different battery cells, improving energy density. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to combine the button cell of Ota with the third connection of the third double-sided adhesive with a set, taught by Lee’, in order to effectively increase energy density.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to apply the use of conductive double-sided adhesive taught by Ota with the double-sided adhesive in Lee’ because Wu specifically discloses how avoiding welding can avoid defective products and save costs [019]. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 10,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Ringel teaches the button cell of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), including a conductive adhesive (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a fourth double-sided adhesive in a fourth connection that connects the case to the set. Lee’ teaches a set ([015], “battery pack”; the examiner notes that the term “set” is a broad term not defined in the present specification that means a group of items that belong together), a double-sided adhesive member of the fourth connection is connected between a second external tab connected to an outer surface of the case and the set ([015], “hot-melt resin”; it is the examiner’s position that the hot-melt resin is a double-sided adhesive member because it adheres two surfaces), which would allow the core pack to be connected to multiple different battery cells, improving energy density. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to combine the button cell of Ota with the fourth connection of the fourth double-sided adhesive with a set, taught by Lee, in order to effectively increase energy density.
Furthermore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to apply the use of conductive double-sided adhesive taught by Ota with the double-sided adhesive in Lee’ because Wu specifically discloses how avoiding welding can avoid defective products and save costs [019]. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Regarding claim 11,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Ringel teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the terminal plate comprises: a flange part on an inside of the cap plate and electrically insulated and attached to an inner surface of the cap plate with a thermal fusion member therebetween; and a protruded terminal protruded from a center of the flange part to an outside and passing through a through hole of the thermal fusion member and a terminal hole of the cap plate, and in a third connection connecting the terminal plate to a set, a third conductive double- sided adhesive member of the third connection is connected between a first external tab connected to an outer surface of the protruded terminal and the set (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 7341802 B1) in view of Lee (KR20160031640A), Wu (CN 111082156 A), and Kiyoshi (JPS62133664A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 12,
Ota in view of Lee, Wu, and Ringel teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the thermal fusion member comprises a polymer. However, Kiyoshi teaches wherein the thermal fusion member comprises a polymer ([0001], “hot-melt adhesive…CMC”) to seal the cap of a button type battery [0001]. It is the examiner’s position brazing and hot-melt adhesives are both types of thermal fusion due to both methods using heat to bond objects together. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein the thermal fusion member comprises a polymer, as taught by Kiyoshi, as that is an acceptable type of thermal fusion member within the art, and is taught to help in sealing the button type battery. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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 MARTIN can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights