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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (JP-2016076346-A; previously cited; see also English translation filed 01/11/2023 for citations) in view of Hirose et al. (JP-2016143508-A; previously cited; see also English translation filed 01/11/2023 for citations) as evidenced by Muroya et al. (US-20180351140-A1; previously cited) and in further view of Fujita et al. (JP-2014099351-A; previously cited; see also English translation provided 06/27/2024 for citations).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Miyamoto discloses a battery (10, Fig. 1; [0008, 0013]), comprising:
an electrode body (20, Figs. 2-3; [0011]) which has a positive electrode and a negative electrode [0018-0021];
an outer package (case body 31, Fig. 2; [0014-0015]) which has an opening and which houses the electrode body [0019];
a sealing plate (lid member 41, Figs. 2, 12) with an approximately rectangular shape which seals the opening of the outer package [0016] and which has a through-hole (liquid injection hole 45, Fig. 12; [0023]) and a recessed portion (105, Fig. 12; [0045, 0056]) provided around the through-hole and defined into a surface of the sealing plate on a side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body [0045-0046, 0056] such that a remaining thickness of the sealing plate in the location of the recessed portion in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the sealing plate is smaller than a minimum thickness of a base portion of the sealing plate with an approximately uniform thickness surrounding the recessed portion (see annotation of Miyamoto Fig. 12, below); and
a sealing member (plug member 50, Fig. 12) which seals the through-hole of the sealing plate [0002, 0011, 0023].
PNG
media_image1.png
485
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Miyamoto Fig. 12.
Miyamoto discloses that the sealing member (plug member 50) is made of metal and welded to the sealing plate (lid member 41) [0023, 0039-0040, 0045, 0056]. Miyamoto does not teach that the sealing member is a blind rivet.
Hirose teaches a similar prismatic battery including a cover body comprising a liquid injection hole which is sealed by a metal sealing member [0001, 0008, 0018, 0025, 0027-0028]. The metal sealing member is a blind rivet (see Fig. 2; [0027-0028, 0032-0033]). Advantageously, the sealing member is able to successfully prevent the leakage of gas and electrolytic solution from inside the case of the battery [0030]. Additionally, Muroya evidences that a sealing plug, which is preferably a blind rivet, can be welded to the sealing plate [0049].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected a blind rivet as taught by Hirose as the sealing member of Miyamoto with a reasonable expectation that such a selection would result in a successful sealing member capable of preventing gas and electrolytic solution from leaking.
The sealing member rendered obvious by modified Miyamoto is therefore a blind rivet having (see annotation of Hirose Fig. 2, below) “an inserted portion” inserted into the through-hole and “an enlarged diameter portion” which extends from the inserted portion to inside of the outer package and which is formed with a larger diameter than the inserted portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
311
501
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotation of a portion of Hirose Fig. 2.
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach that at least a part of the enlarged diameter portion is arranged inside the recessed portion of the sealing plate, Hirose teaches that the outer peripheral surface of the caulking portion (48, Fig. 2; reads on enlarged diameter portion) is in close contact with the periphery of the liquid injection hole on the inner surface of the lid in order to seal the liquid injection hole [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have arranged the blind rivet such that the outer peripheral surface of the enlarged diameter portion is placed within close contact with the periphery of the liquid injection hole, thereby placing at least part of the enlarged diameter portion within the recessed portion of the sealing plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would have resulted in a successful seal between the through-hole (i.e. liquid injection hole) and the sealing member.
The enlarged diameter portion rendered obvious by modified Miyamoto is understood to inherently have a maximum width portion with a maximum width in a longitudinal direction of the sealing plate.
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach the claimed “cross section X1” and “cross section X2”, these cross sections do not require addition structure, and are understood to be inherently present in the structure rendered obvious by the prior art. In other words, Examiner notes that the cross sections X1 and X2 require the sealing member to have an enlarged diameter portion with a maximum width portion. Since the prior art teaches such a structure, the claimed cross sections are understood to be present.
Additionally, although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach the “straight line A”, Examiner notes that the claimed “straight line A” depends on the position of the electrode body within the battery (i.e. the straight line A must pass the first end and the second end of the maximum width portion and not intersect the electrode body). That is to say, the structural limitation imparted by the straight line A relates to the position of the electrode body with respect to the sealing member within the outer packing.
Fujita teaches a sealing plug (120E, Fig. 13) which seals a liquid injection hole (112, Figs. 4, 6) of a battery cover (102, Fig. 2) [0032, 0043]. Fujita teaches that there is a gap between the bottom surface of the battery cover and a power generation element [0046]. The gap allows the lower end of the sealing plug to protrude into the inside of the battery without creating interference between the sealing plug and the power generation element, which can cause a short circuit and deterioration of the battery characteristics [0045-0046].
Applying the teachings of Fujita to modified Miyamoto, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have positioned the electrode body of modified Miyamoto such that a gap is maintained between the electrode body and the blind rivet with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would prevent interference.
Examiner notes that the size of the gap between the electrode body and the sealing member influences whether the straight line A intersects the electrode body. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the size of the gap. If the gap is too small, a short circuit could occur between the sealing member and the electrode body. On the other hand, if the gap is too large, the energy density of the battery is decreased, since the gap does not participate electrochemically.
The recited “straight line A” represents a line which falls within a particular range of gaps that are within the scope of all the gaps within the prior art. Therefore, absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation that optimizing the gap such that “a straight line A” defined in each of the cross section X1 and the cross section X2 and passes “through the sealing plate”, passes “the first and second ends at opposite ends of the maximum width portion” and does not intersect with the electrode body as required by Claim 1 and such that the straight line A further “passes through the recessed portion of the sealing plate” as required by Claim 4 would result in a successful battery capable of preventing a short circuit while maximizing energy density. An illustration of such a configuration is depicted, below.
PNG
media_image3.png
216
246
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Illustration of distance between the electrode body and the sealing member which results in a straight line A which does not intersect the electrode body.
Regarding Claims 5-6, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses that the recessed portion has a bottom surface and a side surface that extends toward the side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body from an outer edge of the bottom surface as required by Claim 5 (see annotation of Miyamoto Fig. 12, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
355
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Miyamoto Fig. 12.
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach that “in each of the cross section X1 and the cross section X2, the straight line A passes through the bottom surface of the recessed portion” as required by Claim 5, or that “in each of the cross section X1 and the cross section X2, the straight line A does not pass through a surface of the base portion on the side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body” as required by Claim 6, Examiner notes that the angle of the straight line A depends on the location of the electrode body, as laid out in the rejection of Claim 1 (above). Absent persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, selecting the angle of the straight line A such that it fulfils the requirements of Claims 5 and 6 is understood to be within the scope of possible angles of the straight line A. In seeking to prevent a short circuit while maximizing energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the size of the gap between the electrode body and the sealing member such that straight line A also passes through the bottom surface of the recessed portion as required by Claim 5 and does not pass through a surface of the base portion on the side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body as required by Claim 6.
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 10, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the base portion has an approximately rectangular shape (see Miyamoto: Figs. 2, 4 and 12 and [0016]), and that the recessed portion has a bottom surface and a side surface that extends toward the side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body from an outer edge of the bottom surface as required by Claims 7 and 10 (see annotation of Miyamoto Fig. 12, below).
PNG
media_image4.png
355
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Miyamoto Fig. 12.
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach the claimed “point A”, the claimed “straight line B”, the claimed “point B”, or the claimed “straight line C” in the cross section X1, or the corresponding structures (i.e. point A’, straight line B’, point B’, or straight line C’) in the cross section X2 as required by Claim 7, or the claimed “point X”, the claimed “straight line D”, the claimed “point Y” or the claimed “straight line E” in the cross section X1, or the corresponding structures (i.e. point X’, straight line D’, point Y’, or straight line E’) in the cross section X2 as required by Claim 10, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the structure necessary to achieve the claimed points and lines. Specifically, Examiner notes that the claimed points (i.e. points A/A’, points B/B’, points C/C’ and points D/D’) reference particular points in the battery, and do not require additional structure. The “straight line B” and the “straight line D” each depends on the position of the electrode body within the battery since they are lines tangent to a surface of the electrode body. The “straight line C” is parallel to the straight line B, and the “straight line E” is parallel to the straight line D, and therefore these lines also depends on the position of the electrode body within the battery. The same relationships apply to the straight lines B’, C’, D’ and E’. Therefore, as laid out in the analysis above, the structural limitations of Claims 7-8 and 10 relate to the position of the electrode body with respect to the sealing member within the outer packing.
As laid out, above (see rejection of Claim 1, above), modified Miyamoto provides motivation to optimize the gap between the sealing member and the electrode body, thereby optimizing the position of the electrode body within the outer packing. In seeking to prevent a short circuit while maximizing energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the size of the gap between the electrode body and the sealing member such that the electrode body is placed in a position which satisfies the limitations “the straight line B and the straight line C pass through one of the bottom surface of the recessed portion or the side surface of the recessed portion” and “the straight line B' and the straight line C' pass through one of the bottom surface of the recessed portion or the side surface of the recessed portion” as required by Claim 7, and the limitation “wherein the straight line B and the straight line B' pass through the bottom surface of the recessed portion” as required by Claim 8, and the limitations “the straight line D and the straight line E pass through one of the bottom surface or the side surface of the recessed portion” and “the straight line D’ and the straight line E’ pass through one of the bottom surface or the side surface of the recessed portion” as required by Claim 10. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that positioning the electrode body such that it meets the requirements of Claims 7, 8 and 10 would result in a balance between maximizing energy density while allowing a sufficient gap between the electrode body and the sealing member to prevent a short circuit.
Regarding Claim 9, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Miyamoto does not teach the distance between the straight line C and the side surface of the recessed portion, or the distance between the straight line C’ and the side surface of the recessed portion, Examiner notes that the straight line C and the straight line C’ depend on the location of the straight lines B and B’, and therefore depend on the size of the gap between the electrode body and the sealing member (see rejection of Claim 7, above). In seeking to optimize a gap which both prevents a short circuit while maximizing energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to optimized the size of the gap, including selecting a gap which results in the distance between the straight lines C/C’ and the side surface of the recessed portion being 15 mm or less.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Modified Miyamoto further renders obvious (see annotation of Hirose Figs. 2 and 4, below) that the blind rivet includes a sleeve portion inserted into the through-hole and a collar-shaped flange (annular flange 46) extending from one end of the sleeve portion.
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach that “a bag portion” wherein “the bag portion is plastically deformed to form the enlarged diameter portion”, Hirose teaches that the body portion (45, Fig. 4) of the blind rivet is enlarged to form a caulking portion (48, Fig. 2; reads on enlarged diameter portion) [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the blind rivet such that it has “a bag portion” which is a part of the sleeve portion at an opposite end of the sleeve portion from the collar-shaped flange, and which is plastically deformed to form the enlarged diameter portion, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful blind rivet capable of sealing the battery.
PNG
media_image5.png
503
1150
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Hirose Fig. 4 (left) and Fig. 2 (right)
Regarding Claim 15, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses that the recessed portion includes a side surface formed with a tapered shape (see Miyamoto: Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (JP-2016076346-A; see also English translation filed 01/11/2023 for citations) in view of Hirose et al. (JP-2016143508-A; see also English translation filed 01/11/2023 for citations) as evidenced by Muroya et al. (US-20180351140-A1) and in further view of Fujita et al. (JP-2014099351-A; see also English translation provided 06/27/2024 for citations) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Miyazaki et al. (JP-4111621-B2; see also English translation provided 06/27/2024 for citations).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Miyamoto further discloses that the sealing plate can be made of an aluminum alloy or steel [0016]. Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the sealing plate to be made of an aluminum alloy with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful sealing plate.
Although modified Miyamoto does not teach that “a distance of a portion of the straight line A that passes through the sealing plate is 10 mm or less”, Miyazaki teaches a similar battery including a sealing plate (sealing lid) sealed with a sealing plug (Pg. 5; Background of Invention). Miyazaki further teaches that the sealing plate is set as thin as possible within a range necessary for strength to be maintained in order to increase the capacity of the battery as much as possible [0015].
Therefore, in seeking to increase the capacity of the battery of modified Miyamoto, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the sealing plate of modified Miyamoto to be as thin as possible, including a thickness which results in the distance of a portion of the straight line A that passes through the sealing plate in each of the cross sections X1 and X2 to be 10 mm or less (MPEP 2144.05, II) with a reasonable expectation that such a thickness would result in a successful battery with both the necessary strength and high capacity.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto et al. (JP-2016076346-A; see also English translation filed 01/11/2023 for citations) in view of Hirose et al. (JP-2016143508-A; see also English translation filed 01/11/2023 for citations) as evidenced by Muroya et al. (US-20180351140-A1) and in further view of Fujita et al. (JP-2014099351-A; see also English translation provided 06/27/2024 for citations) as applied to Claim 1, above, and in view of Harayama et al. (US-20150325833-A1; previously cited).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above, including that the base portion has an approximately rectangular shape (see Miyamoto: Figs. 2, 4 and 12 and [0016]).
Although modified Miyamoto does not teach that “a surface of the sealing plate on a side of the sealing plate opposite from the side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body is provided with a groove portion”, Harayama teaches a similar prismatic battery [0027-0031, 0036]. The portion of the sealing plate located around the peripheral edge of the through-hole (circumferential outer surface 13c; [0030]) is taught by being substantially flat (see Fig. 3), but Harayama further teaches that the area may be provided with a protrusion or a recess [0057].
Additionally, Hirose teaches that when a liquid passage has a tapered shaped wherein the opening width gradually narrows it is possible to successfully guide the electrolytic solution toward the electrode assembly by the tapered surface of the liquid passage [0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a groove portion around the through-hole of modified Miyamoto on a surface of the sealing plate on a side of the sealing plate opposite from the side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery capable of successfully guiding the electrolytic solution toward the electrode assembly.
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach the claimed “cross section C1”, the claimed “point C”, or the claimed “line passing through the groove portion and through the point C”, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the structure necessary to render obvious the claimed point and line. Specifically, Examiner notes that the “cross section C1” and the “point C” reference a particular cross section / point in the battery, and do not require additional structure. The relationship between the “a line passing through the groove portion” and “the point C” requires a particular positioning of the electrode body (i.e. the line must pass through the groove portion, the point C, and be a tangent to a surface of the electrode body). In other words, the structural limitation of Claim 11 relates to the position of the electrode body with respect to the sealing member within the outer packing.
As laid out, above, modified Miyamoto provides motivation to optimize the gap between the sealing member and the electrode body (see rejection of Claim 1, above). In seeking to prevent a short circuit while maximizing energy density, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found it obvious to have optimized the size of the gap between the electrode body and the sealing member such that “a line passing through the groove portion and through the point C is tangent to a surface of the electrode body on a side of the electrode body opposing the sealing plate”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that positioning the electrode body in such a manner would result in a balance between maximizing energy density while allowing a sufficient gap between the electrode body and the sealing member to prevent a short circuit.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Miyamoto renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Although modified Miyamoto does not teach a second recessed portion, Harayama teaches a similar prismatic battery [0027-0031, 0036]. The portion of the sealing plate located around the peripheral edge of the through-hole (circumferential outer surface 13c; [0030]) is taught by being substantially flat (see Fig. 3), but Harayama further teaches that the area may be provided with a protrusion or a recess [0057].
Furthermore, Hirose teaches that when a liquid passage has a tapered shaped wherein the opening width gradually narrows it is possible to successfully guide the electrolytic solution toward the electrode assembly by the tapered surface of the liquid passage [0014].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a second recessed portion around the through-hole on an outer surface of the sealing plate on a side of the sealing plate opposite from the side of the sealing plate opposing the electrode body, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery capable of successfully guiding the electrolytic solution toward the electrode assembly.
Modified Miyamoto further renders obvious (see annotation of Hirose Figs. 2 and 4, below) that the blind rivet includes a sleeve portion inserted into the through-hole and a collar-shaped flange (annular flange 46) extending from one end of the sleeve portion.
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach that “a bag portion” wherein “the bag portion is plastically deformed to form the enlarged diameter portion”, Hirose teaches that the body portion (45, Fig. 4) of the blind rivet is enlarged to form a caulking portion (48, Fig. 2; reads on enlarged diameter portion) [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have formed the blind rivet such that it has “a bag portion” which is which is a part of the sleeve portion at an opposite end of the sleeve portion from the collar-shaped flange, and which is plastically deformed to form the enlarged diameter portion, with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful blind rivet capable of successfully sealing the battery.
PNG
media_image5.png
503
1150
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Hirose Fig. 4 (left) and Fig. 2 (right)
Modified Miyamoto renders obvious that the collar-shaped flange has an outer diameter larger than the through-hole (see Hirose: Fig. 3; [0030-0033]).
Although modified Miyamoto does not explicitly teach that the collar-shaped flange is disposed in the second recessed portion, Hirose teaches that the sealing member is fastened to the lid by the enlarged diameter portion and the collar-shaped flange [0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have disposed the collar-shaped flange in the second recessed portion in order to form a tight seal such that electrolyte does not leak out of the battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that placing the collar-shaped flange in the second recessed portion would result in a successful battery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/09/2025 have been carefully considered. Examiner notes that a new combination of refences is used to reject the claims, and therefore the arguments directed towards Harayama with respect to Claim 1 are moot.
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 DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 12/18/2025
Prosecution Insights