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 amendment, filed, 10/15/2025, has been entered. Claims 1, 16, 24, 26, 30, 42, 56, 57, 60-62, 75, 89, and 97 have been amended. Claim 107 is cancelled. Claims 1-8, 10-30, 32, 34-35, 37, 41-60, 62, 65-93, and 95-106 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.
Claims 1, 2, 41, 46-47, 55-57, 84, 87, and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US-20140087225-A1) in view of Fuhr (US-20140162097-A1) and Fuhr’ (US-20090208836-A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 1,
Zhang teaches a battery (see Fig. 1) comprising :
an electrode assembly (Fig. 1, 2, [0039]) including a first electrode (Fig. 2, 16; [0044]),
a second electrode (Fig. 2, 17, [0043])
and a separator (Fig. 2, 15; [0041]) between the first electrode 16 and second electrode 17;
wherein the first electrode 16, the second electrode 17, and the separator 15are wound about an axis (see Fig. 2),
wherein the first electrode16 has a pair of first sides (Fig. 2, top and bottom sides of 16) and a pair of second sides extending between the pair of first sides (Fig. 2, left and right sides of 16 between the top and bottom sides),
a first portion including an active material extending between the pair of first sides (Fig. 2, 16, centered active material layer),
and a second portion extending between the pair of first sides and exposed beyond the separator (Fig. 2, top and bottom sides of 16 wherein foil is exposed; [0041]),
wherein at least a part of the second portion includes an electrode tab (Fig. 1, 10; [0041]);
a battery housing (Fig. 1, 1) having a first end (Fig. 1, left end) with a first opening (Fig. 1, left end opening covered by 13),
a second end (Fig. 1, right end) with a second opening (Fig. 1, right end opening covered by 6) opposite the first end (see Fig. 1),
and an inner surface (Fig. 1, interior surface of 1), the battery housing 1 accommodating the electrode assembly 2 through the first opening formed at the first end (Fig. 1, wherein either end may be an insertion opening for 2);
a first current collector (Fig. 1, 14; [0039]),
and a cap (Fig. 1, 13) covering the first opening (left opening) of the battery housing 1,
Zhang fails to teach the first current collector comprising a tab coupling portion coupled to the second portion of the first electrode and a housing coupling portion extending from the tab coupling portion and electrically coupled to the inner surface of the battery housing, and wherein the cap is electrically isolated from the electrode assembly to prevent current flow through, the cap the cap being a single body member and being free of apertures there through,
Fuhr teaches a first current collector (Fig. 24C, 640; [0101]) comprising a tab coupling portion (Fig. 24C, 658) coupled to the second portion (Fig. 13, portion of 38 extending beyond separator 32) of the first electrode (Fig. 18, 342) and a housing coupling portion (Fig. 24C, 648) extending from a tab coupling portion and electrically coupled [0105] to the inner surface of the battery housing (Fig. 24C, 648; [0105]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Zhang by substituting the first current collector 14 with the current collector of Fuhr to connect the current collector to the housing of Zhang as Fuhr teaches that radial welding improves the current flow [0081]. However, Fuhr also fails to teach wherein the cap is electrically isolated from the electrode assembly to prevent current flow through the cap, the cap being a single body member and being free of apertures there through.
Fuhr’ teaches wherein a cap is electrically isolated from the electrode assembly to prevent current flow through the cap (see Figs 12 and 13; cap 930; [0070], “cover may be… insulated from container”; demonstrating it is a known alternative to form the insertion opening near the bottom) the cap being a single body member (see 930) and being free of apertures there through (Fig. 13, wherein 930 has no apertures). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein a cap is electrically isolated from the electrode assembly, as suggested by Fuhr’ ([0070]) to prevent current flow through the cap [0070], and the cap being a single body member and being free of apertures there through, as Fuhr’ teaches this is a known alternative arrangement for arranging a spiral wound cell.
Regarding claim 2,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the battery housing comprises a beading portion (Fig. 1, 5; [0047]) formed on an end portion (left end of 1) adjacent to the first opening (Fig. 1, left opening covered by 13) at the first end (left end) and press-fitted inward ([0047], “pressing type sealing”; see also Fig. 1 wherein the structure of 5 reads on the structural aspects of the product-by-process limitation).
Claim 2 is considered a product-by-process claim because of the term “press-fitted inward”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 41,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein at least a part of the second portion of the first electrode comprises a plurality of segments divided in a winding direction of the electrode assembly, and wherein the plurality of segments are bent in a radial direction of the electrode assembly to form a bent surface. Fuhr teaches wherein at least a part of the second portion of the first electrode comprises a plurality of segments (Fuhr, Fig. 18B) divided in a winding direction of the electrode assembly (see Fig. 18B, horizontal winding), and wherein the plurality of segments are bent in a radial direction (see Fig. 18B) of the electrode assembly to form a bent surface (see Fig. 18B, bent surface of 30). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the contact structure of Fuhr when substituting the first current collector as Fuhr teaches that a substantially continuous surface improves the weld to the first current collector [0091].
Regarding claim 46,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the first current collector (Fuhr, 640) comprises a circular hole at a central portion of the first current collector. However, in another embodiment, Fuhr teaches a circular hole at a central portion (Fig. 17, 348; [0100]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the first current collector of Fuhr with central aperture of Fig. 17 for alignment purposes [0092].
Regarding claim 47,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), wherein a diameter of the circular hole of the first current collector equal to a diameter of a winding central hole formed in a core of the electrode assembly ([0100], “roughly aligning with the central authorities of the device).
Regarding claim 55,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein Fuhr teaches wherein the first current collector 640 has a leg structure (Fig. 24C, leg structure between 648 and 658) where the tab coupling portion 658 and the housing coupling portion 648 are connected to each other and extending in a radial direction (Fig. 24C).
Regarding claim 56,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 55 (see rejection of claim 55 above), wherein the leg structure (Fuhr, Fig. 24C, plurality of leg structures 650) is provided as a plurality of leg structures (Fig. 24, plurality of leg structures 650).
Regarding claim 57,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 56 (see rejection of claim 56 above), wherein the plurality of leg structures are arranged in a radial shape, a cross shape, or a combined shape thereof based on a central portion of the first current collector (Fig. 24, plurality of leg structures 650 which have combined radial and cross shape).
Regarding claim 84,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein one or more holes for injecting an electrolytic solution are formed in the tab coupling portion [0064], stuffing hole 41).
Regarding claim 87,
Zhang in view of Fuhr fails to teach a battery pack. Fuhr teaches a battery pack ([0005], “battery system” [0008] “battery system or module…improve the distance of vehicle”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to arrange the cells of Zhang in view of Fuhr in a battery pack for a vehicle comprising the battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) in order to improve the distance range of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 90,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches a vehicle (see rejection of claim 87 above) comprising the battery pack ([0005], “battery system” [0008] “battery system or module…improve the distance of vehicle”) according to claim 87 (see rejection of claim 87 above).
Claims 3-8, 10-18, 21, 27-29, 32-37, 43-45, 47-54, 58-60, 62, 65-83, 86, 91, 95-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2014087225A1), Fuhr (US2014162097A1), Fuhr’ (US20090208836A1), and Saito (CN1275817A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 3,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but fails to teach wherein the battery housing comprises a crimping portion formed at a position between the first opening at the first end and the beading portion, and extending and bent toward the first opening. Satio teaches wherein the battery housing comprises a crimping portion formed at a position between the first opening at the first end and the beading portion, and extending and bent toward the first opening (Fig. 9E; near 16; [0062]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Zhang with the crimping portion of Saito as Saito teaches that fixing with a crimping portion improves the strength of sealing [0062].
Regarding claim 4,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the housing coupling portion is press-fixed by the crimping portion (Saito, Fig. 9E; [0062], wherein housing coupling portion 9 is press-fixed by the crimping portion near 16).
Regarding claim 5,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches battery of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein Saito teaches the housing coupling portion comprises: a contact portion coupled to the beading portion of the battery housing (Fig. 9E, portion of 9 overlapping with the beading portion, wherein the contact portion is fixed by, and thus coupled to, a surrounding housing, including the beading portion); and a connecting portion to connect the tab coupling portion to the contact portion (Figure 9E, connecting portion 9 connecting a tab coupling portion near 24 to the beading portion discussed above).
Regarding claim 6,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the Fuhr teaches the connecting portion is upwardly convex based on an imaginary straight line that connects an end portion of the contact portion to an end portion of the tab coupling portion (Fig. 24C, upwardly convex connection portion 650).
Regarding claim 7,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein Saito teaches the connecting portion is lifted upward above the beading portion (Fig. 9E, connecting portion 9 lifted upward above the beading portion near 2).
Regarding claim 8,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), wherein Fuhr teaches the connecting portion comprises at least one bent part (Fig. 24C, bent part along connection portion 650).
Regarding claim 10,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein Fuhr teaches the at least one bent part is bent at an obtuse angle so as not to overlap itself when viewed along a longitudinal axis of the battery housing (Fig. 24C, bent part along connection portion 650).
Regarding claim 11,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), wherein Fuhr teaches a boundary point between the contact portion and the connecting portion is bent at an obtuse angle (Fig. 24C, bent part along connection portion 650).
Regarding claim 12,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein Fuhr teaches an inclination of the connecting portion is reduced stepwise or gradually toward the beading portion (Fig. 24C, wherein the inclination of a connection portion is reduced gradually toward the beading portion)
Regarding claim 13,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein Fuhr teaches an angle between the tab coupling portion and the connecting portion ranges from 0 to 90 (Fig. 23, wherein the angle between the tab coupling portion 744 and the connecting 750 portion is zero).
Regarding claim 14,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5), wherein Fuhr teaches the connecting portion supports the cap (see rejection of claim 1 above). The examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term support, since the current collector is welded to the region above the beading portion (see rejection of claim 2 above), the connecting portion (Saito, Fig. 1, 9) is under the cap such that it indirectly supports the cap.
Regarding claim 15,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein Fuhr teaches the tab coupling portion and the contact portion are located at a same height (Fig. 23, 844 and 848).
Regarding claim 16,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein Saito teaches the contact portion comprises a flat surface coupled to a top surface of the beading portion facing the first opening (Fig. 9E, 9 coupled to contact portion near 2 on inner surface of housing onto the beading portion).
Regarding claim 17,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the beading portion comprises: a beading portion top surface located over an innermost point that is press-fitted inward (Saito Fig. 1, top surface of beading portion on left and right of cell); and a beading portion bottom surface located under the innermost point that is press- fitted inward (Saito Fig. 1, bottom surface of beading portion on left and right of cell).
Claim 17 is considered a product-by-process claim because of the term “press-fitted inward”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 18,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein Fuhr teaches the tab coupling portion is located at a lower position than the beading portion bottom surface (Fig. 24C, 658 lower than 648).
Regarding claim 21,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein at least one of the beading portion top surface (Fig. 1, top surface of 5) and the beading portion bottom surface (Fig. 1, bottom surface of 5) is parallel to a bottom surface of the battery housing (Fig. 1, right bottom surface of 1 parallel with the flat surfaces of 5)
Regarding claim 27,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the contact portion is welded to the beading portion (see rejection of claim 24 above).
Regarding claim 28,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches battery of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above) wherein the contact portion is welded to a flat top surface of the beading portion (see rejection of claim 24 above).
Regarding claim 29,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28), wherein a welding region between the contact portion and the beading portion is narrower than the flat top surface of the beading portion (see rejection of claim 24 above) wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a welding portion narrower than the region being welded such that the integrity of the weld is not compromised.
Regarding claim 32,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), wherein Saito teaches at least one welding bead is formed between the beading portion and the contact portion, and wherein the at least one welding bead forms a welding pattern having an arc shape extending in a circumferential direction (Fig. 9E, wherein 9 is welded to the circumferential direction of the can between the beading portion and the contact portion, such that it must have an arc shape extending in a circumferential direction (see [0062], “ultrasonic welding”).
Regarding claim 34,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), wherein a plurality of welding beads are formed between the beading portion and the contact portion (see rejection of claim 32 above).
Regarding claim 35,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 28 (see rejection of claim 28 above), wherein a width of a welding bead formed between the beading portion and the contact portion is equal to or greater than 0.1 mm (see rejection of claim 25 above).
Regarding claim 37,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the tab coupling portion is welded to the second portion of the first electrode while being parallel to a bottom surface of the battery housing (see Fuhr, Fig. 9 and 9A, wherein tab coupling portion (present where the current collector contacts the electrode assembly) is welded to the second portion of the first electrode and parallel to the bottom of the housing (Fig. 24, wherein electrode assembly bottom and thus the top are parallel).
Regarding claim 43,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 42 (see rejection of claim 42 above), wherein the tab coupling portion is coupled to the bent surface to overlap the stack number uniform section (Fuhr, tab coupling portion 242 coupled to bent surface 30 to overlap the stack number uniform section (see rejection of claim 42 above)).
Regarding claim 44,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches battery of claim 43 (see rejection of claim 43 above), but fails to teach wherein the number of overlapping layers in the stack number uniform section is 10 or more. However, the amount of overlap, i.e., contact area, as discussed in claim 42 above, impacts the degree of heat transfer. Therefore, the number of overlapping layers can be considered a results-effective-variable for improving contact area and thus heat transfer. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to try optimizing the number of overlapping layers in order to achieve a certain degree of heat transfer within the cell, which is an integral aspect in optimizing its performance and prolonging its service life.
Regarding claim 45,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 44 (see rejection of claim 44 above), wherein the tab coupling portion is welded to the bent surface [0084], and a welding region of the tab coupling portion overlaps the stack number uniform section by at least 50% in the radial direction of the electrode assembly (see rejection of claim 44 above, wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the amount of overlap to achieve a certain degree of heat transfer within the cell, which is an integral aspect in optimizing its performance and prolonging its service life).
Regarding claim 47,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), wherein Fuhr teaches a diameter of the circular hole of the first current collector equal to a diameter of a winding central hole formed in a core of the electrode assembly ([0100], “roughly aligning with the central authorities of the device).
Regarding claim 48,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), further comprising a sealing gasket provided between the battery housing and the cap (Saito, Fig.9A-E, spacer 15; [0059]).
Regarding claim 49,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 48 (see rejection of claim 48 above), wherein the contact portion is located between the sealing gasket and the beading portion (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 50,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 48 (see rejection of claim 48 above), wherein Saito teaches a thickness of the sealing gasket varies in a circumferential direction [0043-0044] wherein it is the examiner’s position that deformations result in a varying thickness of the separator.
Regarding claim 51,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 48 (see rejection of claim 48 above), wherein a thickness of the sealing gasket is alternately increased and decreased in a circumferential direction (see rejection of claim 50 above).
Regarding claim 52,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 50 (see rejection of claim 50 above), wherein Saito teaches the sealing gasket has a same compressibility in a region where the sealing gasket contacts the contact portion and in a region where the sealing gasket does not contact the contact portion (wherein Saito is silent to any variation in compressibility/composition of the spacer material).
Regarding claim 53,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches battery of claim 50 (see rejection of claim 50 above), but fails to teach wherein a compressibility of the sealing gasket in a region where the sealing gasket does not contact the contact portion is less than a compressibility of the sealing gasket in a region where the sealing gasket contacts the contact portion. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a greater compressibility for regions that have greater amounts of contact in order to improve the volume energy density of the cell.
Regarding claim 54,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 48 (see rejection of claim 48 above), wherein a thickness of the sealing gasket in a region where the sealing gasket does not contact the contact portion is greater than a thickness of the sealing gasket in a region where the sealing gasket contacts the contact portion (see rejection of claim 53 above, wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that objects with less compressibility under less contact pressure have a greater thickness).
Regarding claim 58,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 56 (see rejection of claim 56 above), wherein Fuhr teaches a plurality of the housing coupling portions are provided (see Fig. 24C, wherein 648 has four quadrants wherein arc welds may attach to housing, see combination in rejection of claim 1 above), and wherein the plurality of housing coupling portions are connected to one another and integrally formed (see integrally formed 648 of Fuhr).
Regarding claim 59,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the connecting portion (see rejection of claim 1 above) comprises at least one bending portion (Fig. 24C, bending portion along 650) in which an extension direction is changed at least once (Fig. 24C, warped bending portion along 650).
Regarding claim 60,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 59 (see rejection of claim 59 above), wherein Fuhr teaches a protruding outermost point of at least one bending portion is spaced apart by a certain interval from an innermost point of the beading portion (Fuhr, Fig. 24C, bending portion along 650 which is spaced apart 648 the outer member which is intended for contact with the can).
Regarding claim 62,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 59 (see rejection of claim 59 above), wherein the connecting portion is elastically biased upward by at least one bending portion (Fuhr, Fig. 24C, 650; [0112-0114]).
Regarding claim 65,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein a circumferential length of the contact portion is greater than a circumferential length of the tab coupling portion (Fuhr, Fig. 24, wherein the circumferential length of 648, portion intended for contact with the can, is greater than a circumferential length along the inner member 644, which the top side of the tab coupling portion.
Regarding claim 66,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein a circumferential length of the contact portion is greater than a circumferential length of the connecting portion (Fig. 24, wherein circumferential length of 648 is greater than that of 650).
Regarding claim 67,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the contact portion has an arc shape extending in a circumferential direction along the beading portion of the battery housing (see Saito, [0043]).
Regarding claim 68,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the contact portion has an arc shape extending in opposite directions to each other along a circumferential direction from an intersection point of the connecting portion and the contact portion (see Saito, [0043]).
Regarding claim 69,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 67, wherein a sum of lengths of the contact portions extending in the circumferential direction corresponds to a length of an inner circumference of the battery housing (wherein 648 of Fuhr corresponds with the inner circumference of the battery housing; [0113] [0111-0114].
Regarding claim 70,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 67, wherein the connecting portion has an arc shape extending in the circumferential direction along the contact portion (Fuhr, Fig. 24C, wherein 650 has an arc shape extending in the circumferential direction along the contact portion 648).
Regarding claim 71,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 2, wherein a boundary region between the tab coupling portion and the housing coupling portion is bent such that an end portion of the housing coupling portion faces towards the beading portion (Fig. 24, wherein the boundary region 650 between the tab coupling portion 644 and the housing coupling portion 648 is bent such that an end portion of the housing coupling portion faces towards the beading portion).
Regarding claim 72,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5, wherein a connected portion between the contact portion and the connecting portion is bent (Fig. 24, 650, 648).
Regarding claim 73,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein Fuhr a connected portion between the contact portion and the connecting portion (see Fig. 24C, 648 connected to 5 of Zhang) has a complementary shape corresponding to an inner surface of the beading portion (wherein 648 is complementary to the beading portion, and wherein any parallel flat surfaces meet this limitation).
Regarding claim 74,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito the battery of claim 5, wherein a connected portion between the contact portion and the connecting portion is coupled to the beading portion while having a shape matching an inner surface of the beading portion (see rejection of claim 72 and 73 above).
Regarding claim 75,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 2, wherein a boundary region between the tab coupling portion 658 and the housing coupling portion 648 is located farther inward than an innermost point of the beading portion formed on the battery housing (see combination with Saito above now incorporated herein, wherein 650 is farther inward than where 648 contacts the beading portion of Saito).
Regarding claim 76,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein, when viewed along a longitudinal axis of the battery housing, the tab coupling portion does not overlap the beading portion (wherein Fig. 24C, along the longitudinal axis, tab coupling portion 658 does not overlap beading portion where 648 attaches to Saito).
Regarding claim 77,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the second electrode has a pair of third sides and a pair of fourth sides extending between the pair of third sides, a third portion including an active material layer extending between the pair of third sides, and a fourth portion extending between the pair of third sides, and the fourth portion is exposed beyond the separator, at least a part of the fourth portion includes an electrode tab, and wherein the battery further comprises a terminal provided opposite to the first opening at the first end of the battery housing and electrically connected to the fourth portion (wherein the electrodes can be regarded as rectangular prisms such that there are a pair of third sides and a pair of fourth sides extending between the pair of third sides (Fig. 2, top and bottom, and left and right sides, respectively, and a fourth portion extending and a fourth portion extending between the pair of third sides, and the fourth portion is exposed beyond the separator (see Fig. 2, exposed foil portion of 17 near top and bottom sides), wherein at least part of the fourth portion functions as an electrode tab at such that it includes an electrode tab, and wherein the battery further comprises a terminal provided opposite to the first opening at the first end of the battery housing and electrically connected to the fourth (see Fig. 18B of Fuhr and combination of claim 2 above now incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 78,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 77 (see rejection of claim 77), further comprising a second current collector (Fig. 1, 4; [0039]) between the fourth portion of the second electrode (see Fig. 2, sides of 17)and the terminal (Fig. 24B, 640, wherein current collector is along the bottom (Fig. 1, right side of 1) and thus between the fourth portion (exposed foil edges of 17) and the terminal (see Fig. 1)), however; Zhang fails to teach the second current collector comprising a tab coupling portion coupled to the fourth portion of the second electrode and a terminal coupling portion coupled to the terminal. Similar to the combination seen in the rejection of claim 1 above (see rejection of claim 1 above), it would be obvious to substitute the current collector 640 of Zhang with the current collector of Fuhr to connect the current collector to the terminal of Zhang as Fuhr teaches that radial welding improves the current flow [0081].
Regarding claim 79,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 78 (see rejection of claim 78 above), wherein the Fuhr teaches the terminal coupling portion covers a winding central hole of the electrode assembly (see Fig. 7, 50 and Fig. 24B, 640, wherein 640 must cover the winding central hole within 50.
Regarding claim 80,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 79 (see rejection of claim 79), wherein a longest radius from a center of the terminal coupling portion of the second current collector to an end of the tab coupling portion of the second current collector is greater than a longest radius from a central portion of the first current collector to an end of the tab coupling portion of the first current collector, wherein it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that the radius drawn from two parts of a battery on opposite sides is larger than the radius drawn between elements on the same side..
Regarding claim 81,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 78, but fails to teach wherein the tab coupling portion of the second current collector is coupled to a bent end portion of the fourth portion of the second electrode. However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, duplicating the tabless connection structure on the opposite side of the battery is obvious. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). obviousness statement].
Regarding claim 82,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 81 (see rejection of claim 81 above), but fails to teach further comprising a welding region coupling the tab coupling portion of the second current collector to the bent end portion of the fourth portion of the second electrode, wherein a distance from a center of the terminal coupling portion of the second current collector to the welding region of the second current collector is the same as , or deviates by 5% or less from, a distance from a central portion of the first current collector to a welding region on the tab coupling portion of the first current collector. However, the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In the instant case, duplicating the weld pattern on the opposite side of the battery is obvious (see MPEP § 2144.04). Regarding “wherein a distance from a center of the terminal coupling portion of the second current collector to the welding region of the second current collector is the same as , or deviates by 5% or less from, a distance from a central portion of the first current collector to a welding region on the tab coupling portion of the first current collector”, since the press fitting depth can be considered a REV for optimizing the battery performance.
Regarding claim 83,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 82 (see rejection of claim 82 above), but fails to teach wherein the welding region of the second current collector has a length greater than a length of the welding region on the tab coupling portion of the first current collector. However, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 86,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein resistance measured between a positive electrode and a negative electrode is equal to or less than 4 mohm. However, as suggested above in the rejection of claim 85, lowering the ohmic resistance of a cell can optimize it’s performance, such that ohmic resistance can be a result effective variable. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize the ohmic resistance of the cell such that it is lower and the performance of the battery is improved.
Regarding claim 91,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches a current collector comprising: at least one tab coupling portion to be coupled to a portion of an electrode of an electrode assembly (Fig. 18, 342) and a housing coupling portion extending from the tab coupling portion and electrically coupled to the inner surface of the battery housing and at least one housing coupling portion extending from the tab coupling portion and to be electrically coupled to an inner surface of the battery housing (Fig. 24C, 648). However, Zhang fails to disclose the housing coupling portion coupled to a beading portion of a battery housing. Saito teaches wherein the housing coupling portion (Fig. 9E, portion near 16 wherein 9 is enclosed by the housing) coupled to the beading portion (Fig. 9A-E, beading portion on either side of housing, adjacent to opening; [0013], “bracket protruding portion for supporting the conductive member on an inner surface of the container”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the battery housing such that the housing coupling portion coupled to a beading portion of a battery housing in order to support the conductive member on an inner surface of the container.
Regarding claim 95,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 3, wherein an innermost point of the beading portion is located farther inward in a radial direction than a distal point of the crimping portion (Saito, Fig. 9E, innermost point of beading portion near 2 vs innermost point of crimping portion near 16).
Regarding claim 96,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 48, wherein Saito teaches the sealing gasket 45 surrounds the cap 42, but fails to teach wherein a radial length of a portion of the sealing gasket covering a bottom surface of the cap is less than a radial length of a portion of the sealing gasket covering a top surface of the cap. However, the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2014087225A1) in view of Fuhr (US2014162097A1), Fuhr' (US20090208836A1), Saito (CN1275817A), and Wu (CN102057516A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 19,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), but fails to teach wherein at least one of the beading portion top surface and the beading portion bottom surface is inclined at a certain angle with respect to a bottom surface of the battery housing. However, Wu teaches wherein at least one of the beading portion top surface and the beading portion bottom surface is inclined at a certain angle with respect to a bottom surface of the battery housing (Fig. 1, 16 vs bottom surface of the battery housing; in order to allow for insertion and removal of support tools used during the closing process). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have an inclined beading portion in order to allow the insertion and removal of support tools during the closing process, allowing for the manufacturing of the battery to be improved.
Regarding claim 20,
Zhang in view of Fuhr, Saito, and Wu teaches battery of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), wherein the contact portion is mounted on a top surface of the beading portion (Saito, Fig. 9E) wherein Wu teaches the top surface of the beading portion is inclined (Fig. 1, 16 vs bottom surface of the battery housing).
Regarding claim 22,
Zhang in view of Fuhr, Saito, and Wu teaches the battery of claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein the beading portion top surface and the beading portion bottom surface are asymmetric with respect to an imaginary reference plane that passes through the innermost point of the beading portion to be parallel to a bottom surface of the battery housing (see Wu, Fig. 1, asymmetric 16 vs imaginary line that passes through the center of the beading portion).
Regarding claim 21,
Zhang in view of Fuhr, Saito, and Wu teaches the battery of claim 21 (see rejection of claim 21 above), wherein the contact portion is mounted on a flat top surface of the beading portion (Saito, Fig. 9E, wherein the contact portion, the portion of 9 overlapping with the beading portion, is mounted on a flat top surface of the beading portion).
Claims 24-26, 30, 98-100, and 102-106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2014087225A1) in view of Fuhr (US2014162097A1), Fuhr' (US20090208836A1), and Kwon (WO 2018117457 A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 24,
Zhang in view of Fuhr, Saito, and Wu teaches the battery of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein Fuhr teaches configuring the can to receive the current collector, and teaches welding the current collector to the can (see citations in the rejection of claim 1 above). Additionally, Zhang teaches the positive terminal on the bottom of the can, wherein the beading portion remains on top of the can and is used to weld the current collector (see rejection of claim 2 above). However, Zhang fails to teach a certain press-fitting depth. Kwon teaches a cylindrical battery where a beading portion with a flat section parallel to a bottom surface (Fig. 2, 212, 230; [0058-0066]) in order to better seat the cap [0058], increasing the contact area and improving the sealing of the cap assembly [0051-0066]. While Kwon doesn’t specifically teach welding between the current collector and the beading portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize this gasket is used to prevent short between the positive terminal and the casing, such that when the positive terminal is moved to the bottom of the cell, an insulating gasket at the top would not need to separate the current collector and the case.
PNG
media_image1.png
41
242
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rather than any bodily incorporation, Kwon generally teaches that increasing the surface area of a welding surface improves the strength of the weld, particularly with the incorporation of a flat beading portion and resultingly flat crimping portion. Thus, one can consider the press-fitting depth a result-effective-variable for improving the strength of the weld. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, would optimize the parameters that determine the flatness of the weld region (i.e. weld bead size, edge distance, beading radius of curvature) such that a minimum optimal flatness is achieved and the weld of Fuhr is strengthened, improving the integrity of the battery. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to arrive at a press-fitting depth of the beading portion PD satisfies the following formula:
wherein R1,min is a minimum value of a radius of curvature of the beading portion, Wbead,min is a minimum value of a welding bead width, and R2,min is a minimum value of a radius of curvature at a boundary region between the beading portion and the inner surface of the battery housing such that a minimum optimal flatness is achieved, improving the weld of Fuhr.
Claim 24 is considered a product-by-process claim because of the term “press-fitted inward”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 25,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), but fails to teach a certain press fitting depth range. However, as discussed above in claim 24, one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, would optimize the parameters that determine the flatness of the weld region (i.e. weld bead size, edge distance, beading radius of curvature) such that a minimum optimal flatness is achieved and the weld of Fuhr is strengthened, improving the integrity of the battery. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to optimize the press-fitting depth of the beading portion PD such that the press-fitting depth of the beading portion ranges from 0.2 mm to 10 mm .
Regarding claim 26,
PNG
media_image2.png
47
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but fails to teach wherein a press-fitting depth (PD) of the beading portion and a maximum value of the press-fitting depth PDmax satisfies the following formula:
wherein OV is an overlap length that is a shortest distance from an end portion of the contact portion to a vertical line that passes through an innermost point of the beading portion, Ri,min is a minimum value of a radius of curvature of the beading portion.
PNG
media_image2.png
47
419
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, as discussed above in claim 24, Kwon generally teaches that increasing the surface area of a welding surface improves the strength of the weld, particularly with the incorporation of a flat beading portion and resultingly flat crimping portion. Thus, one can consider the press-fitting depth a result-effective-variable for improving the strength of the weld. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, would optimize the parameters that determine the flatness of the weld region (i.e. weld bead size, edge distance, beading radius of curvature) such that a minimum optimal flatness is achieved and the weld of Fuhr is strengthened, improving the integrity of the battery. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to arrive at a press-fitting depth of the beading portion PD satisfies the following formula such that a minimum optimal flatness is achieved, improving the weld of Fuhr.
Claim 26 is considered a product-by-process claim because of the term “press-fitted inward”. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 30,
PNG
media_image3.png
60
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches battery of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but fails to teach a certain formula regarding the press-fitting depth:
However, as discussed above in claim 24, Kwon generally teaches that increasing the surface area of a welding surface improves the strength of the weld, particularly with the incorporation of a flat beading portion and resultingly flat crimping portion. Thus, one can consider the press-fitting depth a result-effective-variable for improving the strength of the weld. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, would optimize the parameters that determine the flatness of the weld region (i.e. weld bead size, edge distance, beading radius of curvature) such that a minimum optimal flatness is achieved and the weld of Fuhr is strengthened, improving the integrity of the battery. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to optimize the press-fitting depth (PD) of the beading portion, as well as any relevant contributing parameters regarding controlling the weld contact area, to at the following formula such that a minimum optimal flatness is achieved, improving the weld of Fuhr.
PNG
media_image3.png
60
483
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 30 is considered a product-by-process claim because of the term “press-fitted inward.” The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 98,
PNG
media_image4.png
60
201
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 30, wherein a minimum value of a distance from the innermost point of the beading portion to the central point of the outermost welding bead in the radial direction WI and a distance from the innermost point of the beading portion to the central point of an outermost welding bead in the radial direction W satisfy the following formula:
wherein OV is the overlap length, and R1 is a radius of curvature of the beading portion. wherein, similar to claim 11, Kwon teaches optimizing an increased length of a flat welding region, such that the length of a flat welding region, and thus the overlap length, can be considered a result-effective-variable for achieving improved welding strength (see rejection of claim 11 above) such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at an equation thereof in order to improve weld by optimizing the proportion of the weld area and the overlap contact area.
Regarding claim 99,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 30 (see rejection of claim 30), but fails to teach wherein the beading portion has a flat section parallel to a bottom surface of the battery housing in at least a region, and when the overlap length is OV and a radius of curvature of the beading portion is RI, a length of the flat section of the beading portion contacting the first current collector is OV-R1.
Wherein, similar to claim 11, Kwon teaches optimizing an increased length of a flat welding region, such that any welding parameter can be considered a result-effective-variable for improving the strength of the weld. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize a length of a flat section of the beading portion contacting the first current collector such that the strength of the weld may be improved and thus the battery integrity.
Regarding claim 100,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 99 (see rejection of claim 99), wherein a width in the radial direction of a welding pattern formed between the beading portion and the contact portion is equal to or greater than Wbead,min and equal to or less than OV - R1. wherein, similar to claim 99, Kwon teaches optimizing an increased length of a flat welding region, such that any welding parameter can be considered a result-effective-variable for improving the strength of the weld. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize a width in the radial direction of a welding pattern formed between the beading portion and the contact portion is equal to or greater than Wbead,min and equal to or less than OV - R1 in order to improve the strength of the weld.
Regarding claim 101,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 100 (see rejection of claim 100), wherein a ratio of the width in the radial direction of the welding pattern to a length of the flat section ranges from 10% to 40%. wherein, similar to claim 11, Kwon teaches optimizing an increased length of a flat welding region, such that the length of a flat welding region, can be considered a result-effective-variable for achieving improved welding strength (see rejection of claim 11 above) such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at in the radial direction of the welding pattern to a length of the flat section ranges from 10% to 40% in order to improve the weld.
Regarding claim 103,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein Fuhr teaches a ratio of an area where the first current collector does not contact a top surface of the electrode assembly to an area of a circle having an outer diameter of the electrode assembly is equal to or greater than 60% and less than 100% (Fig. 29, hole in current collector 940 not contacting electrode assembly 30 in a diameter greater than 60% and less than 100% of the diameter of the electrode assembly).
Regarding claim 104,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), wherein a diameter of the circular hole of the first current collector is less than a diameter of a winding central hole formed in a core of the electrode assembly (see Fuhr, Fig. 17, 340 vs aperture 348, and embodiment combination of claim 46 above now incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 105,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 104, but fails to teach wherein a diameter of the circular hole of the first current collector is equal to or greater than 0.5*R3 and less than R3, wherein R3 is a diameter of the winding central hole. However, while not to scale, 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 first current collector is equal to or greater than 0.5*R3 and less than R3 of the first current collector is equal to or greater than 0.5*R3 and less than R3 (based off Fig. 17, 348 compared to the hole in 30).
Regarding claim 106,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 104, wherein a diameter of the circular hole of the first current collector is equal to or greater than 0.7*R3 and less than R3, wherein R3 is a diameter of the winding central hole (Fig. 29, wherein current collector 940 has a hole which appears almost as wide as R3, the diameter of the central winding hole housing 50, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein a diameter of the circular hole of the first current collector is equal to or greater than 0.7*R3 and less than R3, wherein R3 is a diameter of the winding central hole.
Claims 42 and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2014087225A1) in view of Fuhr (US2014162097A1), Fuhr' (US20090208836A1), and Tsuruta (US20200144676A1) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 42,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 41 (see rejection of claim 41 above), with a plurality of segments (see tab portions in the rejection of claim 1 above) but fails to teach wherein the plurality of segments overlap. Tsuruta teaches wherein the plurality of segments overlap in multiple layers in the radial direction of the electrode assembly to form the bent surface wherein the bent surface comprises a stack number increasing section in which the number of overlapping layers of the segments is sequentially increased to a maximum value from an outer circumference to a core of the electrode assembly and a stack number uniform section from a radius point at which a number of overlapping layers is the maximum value to a radius point at which an innermost segment exists (Fig. 6B, overlapping layers 118, wherein the amount of overlap is sequentially increased to a maximum value from an outer circumference to a core of the electrode assembly and the stack number is highest at the innermost segment.) The examiner notes Fig. 6B depicts the effect of the boundary condition of the cylindrical battery casing has on implementing the “tabless” design which has the current collector extending outside the electrode assembly to function as a “tab”, wherein employing the increased contact area thereby improving heat transfer and optimizing performance, as described in [0054]. Since the can biases the direction of the overlap away from the can, in order to maximize the contact area the amount of overlap should increase towards the center of the cell, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to implement the structure of Tsuruta as it is an acceptable embodiment of the tabless electrode and an acceptable embodiment of optimizing the heat transfer as discussed in [0054].
Regarding claim 85,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a form factor ratio obtained by dividing a diameter of the battery by a height is greater than 0.4. While not to scale, Fig. 1 represents the proportionality of the battery as significantly taller than its diameter, such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a form factor ratio obtained by dividing a diameter of the battery by a height as at least greater than 0.4. Additionally, Tsuruta teaches a cell form factor to be most beneficial when a height of an electrode is 5% to 20% of its length which reduces the ohmic resistance by 5 to 20 times. The form factor of Tsuruta is proportional to the diameter of the battery divided by its height. Therefore, the diameter divided by the height can too be considered a result effective variable for optimizing ohmic resistance. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to optimize, through routine experimentation, the form factor of the battery in order to achieve a low ohmic resistance, improving the performance of the cell.
Claims 88-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2014087225A1) in view of Fuhr (US2014162097A1), Fuhr' (US20090208836A1), Saito (CN1275817A), and Suzhou (CN211208547U) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 88,
Zhang in view of Fuhr teaches the battery pack of claim 87 (see rejection of claim 87 above), but fails to teach wherein a plurality of batteries are arranged in a certain number of columns, and wherein a terminal and an outer surface of the second end of a battery housing of each of the plurality of batteries are positioned vertically upward. However, Suzhou teaches a plurality of batteries are arranged in a certain number of columns, and wherein a terminal and an outer surface of the second end of a battery housing of each of the plurality of batteries are positioned vertically upward as an acceptable embodiment of a battery pack within the art (see Fig. 2-4). Therefore, since the rejection of claim 87 above teaches the use of a battery pack (Fuhr, [0005], “battery system” [0008] “battery system or module…improve the distance of vehicle”), it would be obvious to use the battery module of Suzhou with the battery of Zhang as an acceptable embodiment of a battery pack as intended.
Regarding claim 89,
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Suzhou teaches the battery pack of claim 88 (see rejection of claim 88 above), wherein Suzhou teaches further comprising a plurality of bus bars connecting the plurality of batteries in series (see example 2) and in parallel (see example 2), wherein each of the plurality of bus bars is located on adjacent batteries among the plurality of batteries, wherein each of the plurality of bus bars (see Fig. 2-4, 1/21) comprises: a body portion 1 extending between the adjacent batteries; a plurality of first bus bar terminals extending in a first side direction of the body portion (Figs. 2-4, upper side direction facing upward wherein terminals are exposed) and electrically coupled to terminals of the adjacent batteries located in the first side direction (terminals located on upper side); and a plurality of second bus bar terminals (Figs, 2-4, 2) extending in a second side direction (bottom side direction facing downward) of the body portion opposite the first side direction (top side direction facing upward) and electrically connected to an outer surface of the second end of the battery housing of each of the adjacent batteries located in the second side direction (see Figs. 2-4, wherein the busbar 2 is connected to the housing of the cells).
Claims 97 and 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2014087225A1) in view of Fuhr (US2014162097A1), Fuhr' (US20090208836A1), Saito (CN1275817A), and Shiozaki (CN107851769A) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 97,
PNG
media_image5.png
33
156
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Zhang in view of Fuhr and Saito teaches the battery of claim 41, wherein the outer diameter of the outer member 648 is clearly shown in Fig. 24C as less than outer diameter of the cell element, i.e. T< JR, but fails but fails to teach the whole relation wherein a total radial length (T) of the tab coupling portion satisfies the following formula:
wherein JR is an outer diameter of the electrode assembly, and F is a height of an outermost segment of the electrode assembly. However, Shiozaki teaches how a secondary battery is produced, wherein [0049] and [0082] show that the width of the current collector 11, i.e., the total length T of the tab coupling portion, is 110 mm to 1,200 mm) and wherein, a diameter, i.e., JR, is 18 mm. Based on the above disclosure, the width of the positive electrode collector 11 is greater than or equal to twice the length of the lead-out portion, i.e., JR-2*F<T is disclosed. 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 dimensions of Shiozaki in the battery in the battery of Zhang since these dimensions are not disclosed in Zhang and the invention of Shiozaki is an acceptable reference embodiment of a secondary battery.
Regarding claim 101,
Zhang in view of Fuhr, Saito, and Shiozaki teaches the battery of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a ratio of an area where the first current collector does not contact a top surface of the electrode assembly to an area of a circle having an outer diameter of the electrode assembly is equal to or greater than 30% and less than 100% (Shiozaki; [0049] ,”20 to 95%”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 92 and 93 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The closest prior art is Fuhr (CN102217116A) and Morihiko (JP5796623B2) (refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 92,
Fuhr teaches a battery (Fig. 3, 24) comprising:
an electrode assembly (Fig. 6, 30) including a first electrode, a second electrode (Fig. 5, 38, 36),
and a separator between the first electrode and second electrode (Fig. 13, 32 between 38, 36),
wherein the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator are wound about an axis (Fig. 5, wherein 32, 38, 34, and 36 are wound around axis 50),
wherein the first electrode has a pair of first sides and a pair of second sides extending between the pair of first sides (Fig. 13, 38 wherein rectangular shape indicates two pairs of sides),
a first portion including an active material extending between the pair of first sides (Fig 13, portion of 38 between separator 32),
and a second portion extending between the pair of first sides and exposed beyond the separator (Fig. 13, portion of 38 extending beyond separator 32),
wherein at least a part of the second portion includes an electrode tab (Fig. 13A, bent part of 38 which functions as a tab as it an exposed part of the electrode extending outside the boundary of the electrode assembly to serve as a medium for electrical connection, see [0081] & [0095], “exposed”);
a battery housing in which the electrode assembly is accommodated through a first opening formed at a first end (Fig. 4, housing 25 having a first end with a first opening covered by cap 42);
a first current collector electrically connected to the second portion of the first electrode and an inner surface of the battery housing (Fig. 18, 342; [0113] ,”inner surface of the housing”);
a sealing gasket 45 located between the first opening of the battery (opening covered by 42) housing and the first current collector 342.
wherein a portion of the first current collector contacting the inner surface of the battery housing is located between the inner surface of the battery housing and the sealing gasket ([0113], wherein 648 is described as connected to the shell of the housing, and wherein 648 is between the inner surface of the battery housing and sealing gasket 45).
However, Fuhr fails to teach wherein the current collector directly contacts the sealing gasket. Morihiko teaches wherein the current collector directly contacts the sealing gasket (Fig. 8, 17 contacts 6) and teaches that adding extra thickness to impart compression during crimping improves the sealing [0053-0054]. However, it is unclear in this case how the current collector would still contact the housing given that this would short the battery of Morihiko. Therefore, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have the current collector contact the sealing gasket, as suggested by Morihiko, without hindsight reasoning, as this would prevent the current collector from contacting the housing. In light of the above, nothing in the prior art, either alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the combination of features now claimed in claim 92. As such, claim 92 and, by virtue of dependence, claim 93, is allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kimura (JP4436587B2) relevant to a lid/current collector structure disposed directly on an electrode assembly, wherein the lid/current collector structure fits onto the upper surface of the beading portion of the can and wherein the cap assembly is insulated from the can.
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 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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (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 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