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
The amendments filed 3/12/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 8, and 18 are amended and Claim 21 is new.
Support for the amendments can be found in original Claims 8 and 18 and paragraph 0041 of the instant specification.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-16, 18, and 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8, Applicant argues that the modification of modified Ohira with Daidoji would not have been feasible and would not achieve predictable results, namely, wherein an orthogonal projection of the injection space onto the second housing covers at least a part of the injection opening and bypasses the laminated cell.
However, Ohira teaches the injection space and Daidoji is cited only for the welding of a tab to a terminal. In this regard, modified Ohira comprises a terminal/pole that is connected to an electrode tab (Ohira: Fig. 1, part 4; O’Phelan: 0096) and Daidoji teaches that a terminal can be connected to a tab through welding. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the terminal/pole and tab of modified Ohira through welding as Daidoji teaches it as a known method of connecting a terminal and tab.
On page 9, Applicant states that Ohira teaches various problems that can occur with different configurations, specifically citing the configuration of Fig. 5, the two holes (see paragraph 0004 of Ohira), the longer-side standing state (see paragraph 0112 of Ohira), and the filling device of Fig. 7. Applicant argues that these problems would mean that modifications to the battery structure would not lead to predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regards to Fig. 5, the comparison between the configurations of Figs. 4 and 5 focuses on the length of the wires 8 used to connect the terminals to the tabs: The longer wires in Fig. 4 allow for the absorption of impacts and therefore improved strength (0104-0108). However, Ohira does not require the terminals and tabs to be connected using a wire (See Fig. 3) and therefore this difference taught by Ohira would not be relevant for the modification with O’Phelan.
With regards to the longer-side standing state, this appears to mean that the largest surface of the battery faces down (See Fig. 3). This would not be mutually exclusive with the configuration of modified Ohira.
With regards to the housing of Ohira having two holes, the current claim language does not exclude having multiple holes in the housing.
With regards to Fig. 7, the pressure risk associated with Fig. 7 appears to be directed toward filling devices and methods (0117-0122). This does not appear to be relevant to the configuration of the battery itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11-16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohira (US 20140023912 A1) in view of O’Phelan (US 20190027775 A1) and Daidoji (US 20080060189 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 Ohira teaches a battery (part 1 – secondary battery) comprising a laminated cell (part 3 – electrode laminate, part 4 – current collection terminal), a first housing accommodating the laminated cell (part 2a – case), and a second housing mounted to the first housing (part 2b – cover) (Fig. 1). The laminated cell comprises an electrode assembly (part 3), a first tab, and a second tab (Fig. 1, part 4 – the current collection terminals can be viewed as first and second tabs). The electrode assembly comprises a first side face, wherein the first tab is connected to the first side face (Fig. 1 and 3-5 – the battery comprises two tabs 4). The first housing, the first tab, and the first side face together define an injection space (Fig. 1 – the space between those components can be viewed as an injection space) and the second housing is provided with an injection opening (part 7 – hole), wherein an orthogonal projection of the injection space onto the second housing covers at least a part of the injection opening and bypasses the laminated cell (0058; Fig. 1, part 7c).
The battery can comprise external terminals (poles) on the second housing that are electrically connected to the current collection terminals/tabs (0025, Fig. 4 – parts 6 and 2b). As the external terminals are on the outside of the battery and the electrode laminate is in the inside of the battery (Fig. 4), there would have to be a through hole in the second housing in order to electrically connect the external terminals to the current collection terminals (Fig. 4). The external terminals/poles would not be electrically connected to the second housing (Figs. 1 and 3-5 – at least one external terminal/pole would have to be electrically insulated from the first housing to prevent a short).
The electrode assembly comprises a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate, and a separator located between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (0011). The plates and separator are stacked (0049). The first tab is connected to the first electrode plate (Claims 8 and 18) and a second tab is connected to the second electrode plate (0051).
Ohira does not teach that the external terminals/poles are provided in the through hole, that they are directly contacted with the first or second tab, or that the second tab is electrically connected to the first housing or the second housing.
O’Phelan teaches a battery comprising a laminated cell, a first housing, and a second housing mounted to the first housing (Title; Fig. 1). O’Phelan teaches a feedthrough post (external terminal/pole) that passes through the second housing (is provided in a through hole) and is electrically insulated from the second housing (0096 – part 36). The post is connected to a tab (0096).
Ohira and O’Phelan are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries and battery housings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the external terminals of Ohira to pass through the through hole as taught by O’Phelan as it is a known connection method between an external terminal and a tab/current collecting terminal and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of an external terminal connected to a tab/current collecting terminal in a known manner.
Modified Ohira teaches that the external terminals (poles) are connected to the current collection terminals (tabs) (0025) but does not teach that the external terminal/pole directly contacts the first tab or the second tab or that the second tab is electrically connected to the first housing or the second housing.
Daidoji teaches that positive and negative current collection tabs can be welded to positive and negative terminals, respectively (0034).
Daidoji is considered analogous to the claimed invention as it relates to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries. Although Daidoji welds multiple tabs to a terminal (0034; Fig. 3B), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is also possible to weld a single tab to a terminal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have connected the tabs/current collection terminals to their respective poles/external terminals through welding them together as Daidoji teaches welding as a known method of connecting tabs to terminals. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a tab connected to a terminal (pole) in a suitable manner.
Modified Ohira does not teach that the second tab is electrically connected to the first housing or the second housing.
O’Phelan further teaches that a tab can be directly connected between the first and/or second housing such that the housing itself acts as a terminal (0096).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery of modified Ohira such that the housing(s) act as a terminal and the second tab (first tab for Claim 18) is electrically connected to the first and/or second housing as taught by O’Phelan as it is a known type of terminal and a known connection type between a tab and a terminal and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a battery with a suitable form of terminal and a suitable electrical connection between a tab and the terminal.
As such, modified Ohira teaches the battery of Claim 1. Ohira teaches that the battery can be used (0093, 0120) for an electrical purpose (0082; Fig. 2 – cycle tests are conducted on the battery) but does not explicitly disclose an electrical apparatus comprising the battery.
However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that, in order to use a battery for an electrical purpose (such as a cycle test), the battery must be a part of some type of electrical apparatus (Claim 11).
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, modified Ohira teaches the battery of Claim 1 and the electrical apparatus of Claim 11. The central axis of the injection opening is located inside the injection space (Ohira: 0058; Fig. 1, part 7c).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, modified Ohira teaches the battery of Claim 2 and the apparatus of Claim 12. The first tab comprises a first face, a second face, and a second side face connected between the first face and the second face, the first face is a face of the first tab towards the laminated cell and the second face is a face of the tab away from the laminated cell (Fig. 1, part 4). The first side face comprises a flat region (part 3), wherein the flat region, the second side face, and the first housing together define the injection space (Fig. 1). Ohira teaches that there are no limitations on the shape of the electrode laminate and that the terminals/tabs can be located on opposite sides or the same side (0049; Figs. 1 and 3-5) but does not teach that the first side face comprises a chambered region connected to the flat region.
O’Phelan teaches a battery comprising a laminated cell, a first housing, and a second housing mounted to the first housing (Title; Fig. 1). The laminated cell comprises a first side face that comprises a flat region and a cambered region connected to the flat region (Fig. 1, part 24). Batteries with this shape can be used in devices such as implantable medical devices (0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laminated cell of Ohira to comprise the shape taught by O’Phelan (cambered region connected to the flat region) as it is a known shape for a laminated cell and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a laminated cell with a suitable shape.
Regarding Claims 4 and 14, modified Ohira teaches the battery of Claim 3 and the apparatus of Claim 13. Modified Ohira does not disclose the distance between the second side face and a joint of the flat region and cambered region (L) or that the distance between the central axis of the injection opening and the second side face is less than 0.5L.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the placement of the second side face, joint of the flat region and cambered region, and/or the injection opening of modified Ohira such that the distance between the central axis of the injection opening and the second side face is less than half the distance between the second side face and a joint of the flat region and cambered region as a change in relative dimensions, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 5 and 15, modified Ohira teaches the battery of Claim 4 and the apparatus of Claim 14. Modified Ohira does not disclose the distance between the central axis of the injection opening and the second side face.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the distance between the central axis of the injection opening and the second side face of modified Ohira to be 0.4 mm to 1 mm as a change in relative dimensions, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (See MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, modified Ohira teaches the battery of Claim 1 and the apparatus of Claim 11. A sealing piece is provided in the injection opening (0021 – portion closing the hole). The hole can have a round shape (0094 – circle), meaning that the sealing piece would also have a round shape. Ohira does not teach that the second housing is rounded or that a distance between a center of the injection opening and a center of the second housing is defined as M, a radius of the second housing is defined as R1, and radius of the sealing piece is defined as R2, and M = R1 – R2 – 0.2 mm.
O’Phelan teaches a battery comprising a laminated cell, a first housing, and a second housing mounted to the first housing (Title; Fig. 1). The first and second housings have rounded corners (Fig. 1 – parts 27 and 28).
Ohira and O’Phelan are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely batteries and battery housings.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the housings of Ohira to have the rounded corners taught by O’Phelan as it is a known shape for a battery housing and the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP 2143 B). Doing so would provide nothing more than a battery housing with a suitable shape.
Modified Ohira does not teach that a distance between a center of the injection opening and a center of the second housing is defined as M, a radius of the second housing is defined as R1, and radius of the sealing piece is defined as R2, and M = R1 – R2 – 0.2 mm.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distance between a center of the injection opening and a center of the second housing (M), the radius of the second housing (R1), and the radius of the sealing piece (R2) such that M = R1 – R2 – 0.2 mm as a change in relative dimensions, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (See MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 20210075051 A1) in view of Kim (US 20150221925 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Zhou teaches a button cell (Title) comprising a first housing, a cell accommodated in the first housing, and a second housing mounted to the first housing (Abstract, Fig. 2 – parts 1-3), wherein the cell comprises an electrode assembly and a first tab (0027). The second housing is provided with an injection opening (Fig. 2 – part 11).
Zhou does not teach that the cell is a laminated cell, that the electrode assembly comprises a first side face, wherein the first tab is connected to the first side face; and the first housing, the first tab, and the first side face together define an injection space; that the first tab comprises a first face, a second face, and a second side face connected between the first face and the second face; the first face is a face of the first tab facing towards the laminated cell and the second face is a face of the tab facing away from the laminated cell; and the first side face comprises a flat region and a cambered region connected to the flat region.
Kim teaches a button battery (Fig. 1) a laminated cell comprising an electrode assembly (0008) and a first tab (Figs. 1 and 2 – parts 131a and 132a), wherein the electrode assembly comprises a first side face, and the first housing, the first tab, and the first side face together define an injection space (0042). The first tab comprises a first face, a second face, and a second side face connected between the first face and the second face (Fig. 2 – parts 131a and 132a); the first face is a face of the first tab facing towards the laminated cell and the second face is a face of the tab facing away from the laminated cell (Fig. 1 – parts 131a and 132a are angled, meaning that they comprise a face facing towards the laminated cell/electrode assembly and a face facing away); and the first side face comprises a flat region and a cambered region connected to the flat region (Fig. 2 – the electrode assembly has a first side face with a flat region connected to a cambered region).
Zhou and Kim are considered analogous to the claimed invention as they relate to the same field of endeavor, namely button cells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the electrode assembly of Zhou with the electrode assembly/laminated cell of Kim as it is an electrode assembly known to function in a button cell. Doing so would provide nothing more than the predictable results of a button cell with an electrode assembly suitable for a button cell (See MPEP 2143 B).
A projection of the injection space onto the second housing would cover at least a part of the injection opening and a central axis of the injection opening would be located inside the injection space (Zhou: Fig. 2; Kim: Fig. 1). The first housing, the first tab, and first side face together define an injection space and the flat region, second side face, and the first housing together define the injection space (Zhou: Fig. 2; Kim: Fig. 1).
Modified Zhou does not disclose the distance between the second side face and a joint of the flat region and cambered region (L) or that the distance between the central axis of the injection opening and the second side face is less than 0.5L.
However, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the placement of the second side face, joint of the flat region and cambered region, and/or the injection opening of modified Zhou such that the distance between the central axis of the injection opening and the second side face is less than half the distance between the second side face and a joint of the flat region and cambered region as a change in relative dimensions, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (See MPEP 2144.04).
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 ZIHENG LU whose telephone number is (703)756-1077. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 - 5 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, Nicholas Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/ZIHENG LU/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights