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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, it depends from canceled claim 4. For the purpose of this Office Action, claim 5 has been taken to depend from claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3, 8-10, 13, 15-16, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen et al. (US 2006/0257728 A1) in view of Ebi et al. (JP 2005/310569 A, see enclosed machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Mortensen teaches a seal assembly 22 for a battery cell 2 (Abstract, [0004], [0344], fig. 1), the seal assembly 22 comprising:
• a grommet (“gasket” 45a) having an opening (in the “central hub” 63a) and comprising a polymer (the selected polymer is nylon, although a variety of other polymers are listed as suitable materials, [0369]; [0370], [0371]; figs. 40 and 41); and
• a current collector 47a having a head and a stem extending from the head disposed in the opening, the stem and the cross-linked grommet 45a forming an interference fit at the opening ([0007], [0367], [0375], fig. 40).
Mortensen teaches that the grommet is made of a polymer such as nylon, nylon reinforced with glass, or various other suitable polymers ([0369]), but Mortensen is silent as to the grommet being a cross-linked grommet comprising a cross-linked polymer.
Ebi teaches a gasket 20 for a battery, the gasket being interference-fitted with a sealing plate 28 ([0001], [0017] to [0019], fig. 1). Specifically, Ebi teaches that the gasket is made of a cross-linked polymer ([0042] to [0044], [0072]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cross-linked polymer resin of Ebi for the gasket of Mortensen, since Ebi teaches that using the cross-linked gasket improves the sealing properties of the gasket and the safety of the battery cell ([0016], [0044], [0089]). Such a person would have reasonably expected the cross-linked polymer of Ebi to provide a successful material for the gasket for the battery cell of Mortensen. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B). Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Mortensen as modified by Ebi further teaches that the cross-linked polymer comprises a radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon ([0072], see also [0042] to [0044], noting that nylons are known generically as polyamides).
Regarding claim 3, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen further teaches that the current collector 47a comprises a brass alloy ([0007]; see also the test cell in [0454]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen as modified by Ebi teaches that the cross-linked polymer comprises a radiation-induced, cross-linked polymer ([0042] to [0044], [0072] of Ebi), and that the radiation-induced, cross-linked polymer is prepared by a process comprising exposing a pre-formed grommet (having “a predetermined shape”) comprising a precursor polymer material (“resin”) to one or more types of radiation chosen from electron beam radiation and gamma ray radiation ([0046] of Ebi). The Examiner also notes that Claim 8 is considered product-by-process claim. 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 9, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen as modified by Ebi teaches that the radiation dose is 150 kGy, which falls in the claimed range of at least 40 kGy ([0072]; see also [0047]). The Examiner also notes that Claim 9 is considered product-by-process claim (see MPEP § 2113).
Regarding claim 10, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen as modified by Ebi further teaches that the cross-linked polymer comprises a radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon ([0072], see also [0042] to [0044], noting that nylons are known generically as polyamides).
Claim 10 is considered a product-by-process claim. The cited prior art Mortensen as modified by Ebi teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product, namely a cross-linked grommet comprising a cross-linked polymer. 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). The product of the product-by-process claim 10 is a cross-linked grommet comprising a cross-linked polymer, which is obvious over Mortensen in view of Ebi (see [0369] of Mortensen and [0072] of Ebi). Thus, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process, i.e. radiation-induced cross-linking rather than by reacting a cross-linking agent with a precursor polymer.
Regarding claim 13, Mortensen teaches a battery cell 2 (Abstract, [0004], [0344], fig. 1) comprising:
a housing (“container” 8) including a first cover (“negative terminal plate” 28) at a first (top) housing end and a second cover (“end wall” 10) at a second (lower) housing end, and an anode 18 and a cathode 16 disposed within the housing 8 ([0092], [0344], fig. 1); and
a seal assembly 22 proximate the first cover 28, the seal assembly 22 including: a current collector 47a having a head and a stem extending from the head, and a grommet (“gasket 45a”) having an opening (in the “central hub” 63a) and comprising a polymer, the stem extending through the opening and forming an interference fit with the grommet 45a ([0007], [0367] to [0375], figs. 40 and 41).
Mortensen teaches that the grommet is made of a polymer such as nylon, nylon reinforced with glass, or various other suitable polymers ([0369]), but Mortensen is silent as to the grommet being a cross-linked grommet comprising a cross-linked polymer.
Ebi teaches a gasket 20 for a battery, the gasket being interference-fitted with a sealing plate 28 ([0001], [0017] to [0019], fig. 1). Specifically, Ebi teaches that the gasket is made of a cross-linked polymer ([0042] to [0044], [0072]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cross-linked polymer resin of Ebi for the gasket of Mortensen, since Ebi teaches that using the cross-linked gasket improves the sealing properties of the gasket and the safety of the battery cell ([0016], [0044], [0089]). Such a person would have reasonably expected the cross-linked polymer of Ebi to provide a successful material for the gasket for the battery cell of Mortensen. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B). Additionally, the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Mortensen as modified by Ebi further teaches that the cross-linked polymer comprises a radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon ([0072], see also [0042] to [0044], noting that nylons are known generically as polyamides).
Regarding claim 15, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen further teaches that the grommet 45a comprises a short boss (65a has a portion that extends below 73a thus reading on the claim limitation “short boss”, [0370]; figs. 40 and 41).
Regarding claim 16, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen further teaches an alkaline electrolyte (Title, [0089], [0197]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen further teaches that the grommet 45a comprises a long boss (65a has portions that extends both above and below 73a thus reading on the claim limitation “long boss”, [0370]; figs. 40 and 41).
Claim(s) 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen et al. (US 2006/0257728 A1) in view of Ebi et al. (JP 2005/310569 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoppolo (US 2004/0191610 A1).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen as modified by Ebi further teaches that the cross-linked polymer comprises a radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon ([0072], see also [0042] to [0044], noting that nylons are known generically as polyamides). However, Mortensen and Ebi are silent as to the specific type of nylon used.
Yoppolo teaches an insulating sealing disk 120 (i.e. grommet) that is interference fit with a current collector 60 ([0027], figs. 1-3). Specifically, Yoppolo teaches that the grommet is preferably made of nylon 66 or 612 (i.e. Nylon 6/6s, Nylon 6/12s) or could be made of other polymeric materials ([0039], [0049], [0052], [0056]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Nylon 6/12s as taught by Yoppolo for the radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon of Mortensen modified by Ebi. Such a person would have reasonably expected Nylon 6/12s to be a suitable type of nylon for the cross-linked grommet since Yoppolo teaches the use of Nylon 6/12s for an insulating grommet (see [0039] of Yoppolo). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding claim 23, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen as modified by Ebi further teaches that the cross-linked polymer comprises a radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon ([0072], see also [0042] to [0044], noting that nylons are known generically as polyamides). However, Mortensen and Ebi are silent as to the specific type of nylon used.
Yoppolo teaches an insulating sealing disk 120 (i.e. grommet) that is interference fit with a current collector 60 ([0027], figs. 1-3). Specifically, Yoppolo teaches that the grommet is preferably made of nylon 66 or 612 (i.e. Nylon 6/6s, Nylon 6/12s) or could be made of other polymeric materials ([0039], [0049], [0052], [0056]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select Nylon 6/12s as taught by Yoppolo for the radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon of Mortensen modified by Ebi. Such a person would have reasonably expected Nylon 6/12s to be a suitable type of nylon for the cross-linked grommet since Yoppolo teaches the use of Nylon 6/12s for an insulating grommet (see [0039] of Yoppolo). The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Mortensen as thus modified by Ebi and Yoppolo to teach that the radiation-induced, cross-linked polymer is Nylon 6/12s thus reads on the limitation that “the cross-linked grommet comprises a polymer having an oxygen atom content as a percentage of non-hydrogen atoms content of less than 12%”, since Nylon 6/12s has an oxygen atom content as a percent of non-hydrogen atoms of 9.1%, within the claim range of less than 12% (see [0055] of the original instant specification regarding the oxygen atom content as a percent of non-hydrogen atoms for Nylon 6/12s).
Claim(s) 11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen et al. (US 2006/0257728 A1) in view of Ebi et al. (JP 2005/310569 A) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Janmey (US 6312850 B1).
Regarding claims 11 and 17, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen as modified thus far teaches that the cross-linked grommet and current collector form an interference fit at the opening of the grommet ([0367], [0375], fig. 1B). However, Mortensen is silent as to the percentage of engagement interference (as defined at [0041] of the original instant specification, “engagement interference” refers to the ratio of the outer diameter of the current collector less the internal diameter of a bore of the grommet, i.e., the grommet opening, to the internal diameter of the grommet opening).
Janmey teaches a nylon grommet (“seal” 30) which is interference fit with a current collector (“collector nail” 28), (col. 4, lines 15-55; figs. 1-2). Specifically, Janmey teaches that the interference fit must be sufficient to prevent electrolyte leakage while being minimal enough to prevent mechanical breakdown of the seal (col. 2, lines 46-60).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the engagement interference of the grommet of modified Mortensen according to the teachings of Janmey that the interference fit must be sufficient to prevent electrolyte leakage while minimal enough to prevent mechanical degradation of the seal (see col. 2 of Janmey. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim(s) 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mortensen et al. (US 2006/0257728 A1) in view of Ebi et al. (JP 2005/310569 A) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and as evidenced by, or in the alternative, as further obvious in view of Linggawati, Amilia, Abdul Wahab Mohammad, Zulkafli Ghazali. "Effect of electron beam irradiation on morphology and sieving characteristics of nylon-66 membranes." European Polymer Journal, vol. 45, no. 10, 2009, pp. 2797-2804.
Regarding claim 12, modified Mortensen discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Mortensen as modified by Ebi further teaches that the cross-linked polymer comprises a radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon ([0072], see also [0042] to [0044], noting that nylons are known generically as polyamides). Ebi teaches that the cross-linked nylon is produced by cross-linking with electron beam radiation with an absorbed dose of 150 kGy ([0072]). However, Mortensen and Ebi are silent as to the gel content of the nylon.
Linggawati teaches cross-linked nylon having a gel content of at least 71%, with increasing gel content depending on the amount of radiation (first column on p. 2799; fig. 5).
As evidenced by the teachings of Linggawati, the cross-linked nylon of modified Mortensen inherently has a gel content of at least 70% based on the findings of Linggawati (see fig. 5), which falls within the claimed range of over 50%.
Alternatively, assuming for the sake of argument that the claimed gel content is not inherent to the grommet of Mortensen as modified by Ebi, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a gel content of greater 70% for the grommet of modified Mortensen, in order to ensure adequate cross-linking (“Gel content has been used to demonstrate crosslinking, and these results are summarized in Fig. 5.”, the second column on p. 2799 of Linggawati). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Mortensen as proposed by the Office since Mortensen is directed to primary batteries while Ebi is to secondary batteries.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that both Mortensen and Ebi are directed to sealing components of batteries and solving problems pertaining to sealing the batteries. Thus, the difference between primary and secondary batteries is irrelevant here. Mortensen already discloses that nylon is a viable polymer for their seal and simply is unconcerned with the specific type of nylon and thus doesn’t mention that it is cross-linked. However, as established in the rejections of record, Ebi teaches that for battery sealing components, radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon would have been a viable specific choice for Mortensen’s Nylon. Thus, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues benefits for radiation-induced, cross-linked nylon seals that could not have been predicted based on the disclosure of the cited references.
The examiner initially agrees that, at least, Table 1 appears to show unexpected results with respect to leakage when comparing non-irradiated N 6/12 having an engagement interference of 12.28% against examples comprising irradiation doses in the range of 200kGy-350kGy for N6/12 or HDPE having engagement interferences of 12.28% or 20.45%. The examiner notes that the above descriptions of the test examples are non-limiting, the instant specification at [0074]+, discusses the specifics of each example which, on their own, seem critical to the achievement of their results, and yet are unclaimed in at least the broadest claims. The showing of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claims as there does not appear to be any technical discussions or other evidence on the record attempting to bridge the difference in scope such that there remains significant doubt that the unexpected results would exist throughout the scope of, at least, the broadest independent claim (MPEP 716.02(d)). Thus, the applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 JONATHAN G LEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8am-5pm ET.
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, Srilakshmi Kumar can be reached at 5712727769. 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.
/JONATHAN G LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 11/4/2025