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 . If status of the application as subject to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 & 16 are pending in the application. Claims 5-11 are withdrawn. Claims 1-4 & 12-15 were rejected in the 4/21/2026 office action. Applicant cancelled claim 15 and added new claim 16. Claims 1-4, 12-14, & 16 are presently examined.
Response to Amendment / Arguments
The 7/9/2026 amendment, in response to the 4/21/2026 office action, has been entered. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Applicant’s claim amendments overcame the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections; nevertheless, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to additional prior art.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-4 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210399389A1 (Ko) in view of KR20170050440A machine translation (Ko2), CN111354911A machine translation (Chang), CN108832037A (Wang), and US20220216544A1 (Lee).
With regard to claim 1, Ko teaches the following claim limitations:
A button cell (paragraph 35: button cell; paragraph 39; figures 1-3: rechargeable battery 1) comprising a housing (paragraph 39; figures 1-3: case 20 & cap assembly 60) and a roll core (paragraph 39; figures 1-3: electrode assembly 10);
the housing comprises a housing body (20) and a top cover assembly (60), wherein the housing body (20) comprises a bottom wall and a side enclosure wall provided along an outer edge of the bottom wall and extending upward (Figure A below), the top cover assembly (60) is covered on a top of the side enclosure wall (Figure A below) and sealed with the side enclosure wall (paragraph 46; figure 3: “the cap assembly 60 seals an opening 21 of the cylindrical case 20”), the housing body and the top cover assembly jointly enclose an accommodating cavity (Figure A below) for accommodating the roll core (10);
the roll core (10) comprises a positive sheet (paragraph 44; figure 3: second electrode 12, e.g. positive electrode) and a negative sheet (paragraph 44; figure 3: first electrode 11, e.g. negative electrode), a cavity (Figure A below) is formed in a center of the roll core (10), one of the positive sheet (12) and the negative sheet (12) is provided with a first tab (paragraphs 47-48; figure 3; Figure A below: first electrode tab 51) extending toward a direction of the bottom wall…
the other of the positive sheet and the negative sheet is provided with a second tab (paragraphs 47-48; figure 3; Figure A below: second electrode tab 52)…
Figure A: Annotated Ko Partial Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
533
1021
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ko, however, fails to teach the following claim 1 limitation, which is taught by Ko2:
the first tab is welded to the bottom wall of the housing body by laser welding (page 3, lines 37-40); and
a welding area of the first tab has a welding mark (page 3, lines 37-40 and figure 2: welding portion 230), and the welding mark is located in a portion where the bottom wall overlaps with the cavity (Figure B below: 230 is located where the bottom wall overlaps the cavity)
Figure B: Ko2 Annotated Partial Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
503
575
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 also recites:
after a laser welds the first tab and the bottom wall together, the welding mark is formed only on a side of the first tab facing away from the bottom wall
Ko2 doesn’t explicitly state that the welding portion 230 is formed only on a side of the negative electrode tab 211 facing away from the bottom wall. Nevertheless, Ko2 teaches forming this weld by a laser directed at this side (page 3, lines 37-40 and figure 2). This is the same method taught by the present specification (paragraphs 61, 64, & 81) for achieving this claim limitation. Therefore, presumably Ko2’s mark is located as claimed.
Ko2 is directed to laser welding an electrode to a bottom of a battery case, in order to overcome an incomplete weld (abstract; page 3, lines 7-13). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ko’s first electrode tab 51 to be laser welded as taught by Ko2, for a complete weld to the bottom wall of the battery case 20.
Ko fails to fully teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Lee:
wherein the top cover assembly (Figure C below) comprises an upper cover (paragraph 45; figures 1-2; Figure C: cap plate 30) having a center hole (paragraph 45; figures 1-2; Figure C: terminal hole 31), and a top cover (paragraph 46; figures 1-2; Figure C: electrode terminal 40) covering the center hole (31) of the upper cover (30); the top cover (40) is insulatively sealed (paragraph 46; figure 2; Figure C: insulating sealing material 60) with the upper cover (30), and the second tab (paragraph 40; figure 2; Figure C: second lead tab 51) is welded (paragraph 40) to the top cover (40)…
wherein an outer surface (Figure C) of the top cover (40) away from the roll core is flush (Figure C) with an outer surface (Figure C) of the upper cover (30) away from the roll core (paragraph 59; figure 1:electrode assembly 10)
Figure C: Annotated Lee Partial Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
296
1286
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee is directed to a battery with improved “connection of the lead tab to the electrode terminal by reducing the thickness at which the electrode terminal is installed” (abstract). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, for Ko’s top cover assembly to have the features of Figure C above, as taught by Lee, for a battery with improved “connection of the lead tab to the electrode terminal by reducing the thickness at which the electrode terminal is installed”.
Claim 1 also recites:
wherein the second tab is welded to an inner side of the top cover assembly facing the roll core…
wherein the second tab is welded to a portion of the top cover assembly covering the center hole
Ko illustrates the second electrode tab 52 located as claimed, but fails to teach welding to the cap assembly 60. Chang teaches welding the positive electrode tab 21 to the positive electrode shell 11, and the negative electrode tab 22 to the negative electrode shell 12, at welding points 50 (page 10, line 17 through page 11, line 26; figure 7). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ko’s cylindrical battery 200 to have tabs of both electrodes welded to the positive and negative electrode shells 11 & 12, as taught by Chang for convenience (page 1, line 34), and to provide secure electrical connections.
Ko fails to teach the following claim limitations, which are taught by Wang:
a side of the top cover assembly facing the roll core is attached with an insulation rubber ring, wherein the insulation rubber ring is coaxially arranged with the top cover assembly and the second tab is provided on a portion of the top cover assembly located in an inner side of the insulation rubber ring
Wang describes a sealing ring 3, which can be a rubber ring (page 7, lines 3-5). The sealing ring 3 encircles a negative electrode 6, including where the negative electrode 6 contacts a negative electrode cover 1 (page 7, lines 8-11; figure 16).
Wang’s sealing ring 3 seals anode shell gaps (page 3, lines 1-4). Wang’s battery has improved stability, is leak-proof, and has prolonged service life (page 1, lines 30-34). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ko’s cylindrical battery 200 to have a sealing ring, as taught by Ko, to seal anode shell gaps, and as part of a battery with improved stability, that is leak-proof, and that has prolonged service life.
With regard to claim 2, modified Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ko2 teaches the following claim 2 limitation (see Figure D below):
a distance from the top of the side enclosure wall to the welding mark is greater than a length from an end point of the first tab out of the roll core to the welding mark
Figure D: Ko2 Annotated Partial Figure 2
PNG
media_image4.png
347
342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ko2 doesn’t explicitly state the location of the negative electrode tab 211 end point out of the electrode assembly 210 [claimed end point of the first tab out of the roll core]; however, this end point cannot be farther than distance L2 as illustrated above. Therefore, L1 must be greater than L2. Ko teaches similar relative distances.
With regard to claim 3, modified Ko teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as described above. Ko2 teaches the following claim 3 limitation:
a diameter of the spot-like welding mark is not less than 50 µm (page 7: lines 27-28: “a focal diameter of the laser beam in the welded portion is 0.3 mm to 0.4 mm”)
The welding mark would be approximately as large as the laser beam focal diameter. Ko teaches a 0.3-0.4 mm (300-400 µm) focal diameter, which would certainly result in a welding mark that is at least 50 µm.
With regard to claim 4, modified Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Ko fails to fully teach the following claim 1 limitations, which are taught by Lee:
the upper cover (30) is welded (paragraph 45; figure 2: cap plate 30 is welded to the opening 21) with the side enclosure wall (paragraph 45; figure 2: case 20) and extends from the top of the side enclosure wall towards a direction of a central axis of the housing body (figure 2), and
the center hole (31) of the upper cover (30) is surrounding the central axis of the housing body (figure 2)
With regard to claim 12, modified Ko teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 12 recites:
an outer surface of the bottom wall of the housing body facing away from the first tab has no welding mark
Ko2 doesn’t teach a welding mark on the bottom wall, so presumably there is no welding mark there. Furthermore, as discussed under claim 1, Ko2 teaches forming the weld by the same method taught by the present specification (paragraphs 61, 64, & 81); therefore, presumably Ko2’s mark is located as claimed and not on the bottom wall.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210399389A1 (Ko) in view of KR20170050440A machine translation (Ko2), CN111354911A machine translation (Chang), and CN108832037A (Wang), and US20220216544A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US20160204463A1 (Lee2).
Ko fails to explicitly teach the following claim limitation:
the second tab is configured to not cover an injection hole
It would have been obvious, however, for Ko’s second electrode tab 52 to not cover an injection hole in order to allow injection of electrolyte.
Lee2 provides additional guidance. Lee2’s tabs 181 & 182 don’t cover an electrolyte injection hole 29 (paragraphs 44, 47, 53; figure 2).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ko’s second tab to not cover an injection hole, as taught by Lee2, to allow injection of electrolyte.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210399389A1 (Ko) in view of KR20170050440A machine translation (Ko2), CN111354911A machine translation (Chang), and CN108832037A (Wang), and US20220216544A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US4591539A (Oltman). Ko fails to explicitly teach the following claim 14 limitation, which is taught by Oltman:
the bottom wall of the housing body protrudes outwardly of the button cell to form a convex surface (column 4, lines 20-25)
Oltman is directed to a button cell which can be manufactured “with less difficulty and less defects due to out of tolerance product” and with “a greater amount of anode material in any given cell size” (column 4, lines 26-32). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, for Ko’s battery bottom wall to have a convex surface, as taught by Oltman, as part of a button cell manufactured “with less difficulty and less defects due to out of tolerance product” and with “a greater amount of anode material in any given cell size”.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20210399389A1 (Ko) in view of KR20170050440A machine translation (Ko2), CN111354911A machine translation (Chang), and CN108832037A (Wang), and US20220216544A1 (Lee), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US6509114B1 (Nakai). Ko fails to explicitly teach the following claim 16 limitation, which is taught by Nakai:
an outer diameter of the roll core is 0.2 mm to 0.4 mm smaller than an inner diameter of the housing body
Ko illustrates an outer diameter of the electrode assembly 10 is smaller than an inner diameter of the case 20 (see Figure A above). Ko, however, fails to provide guidance for how to adjust these relative diameters, or to specify the amount of diameter difference.
Nakai provides guidance. Nakai teaches that winding group diameter A should be less than battery container inner diameter B to allow room for winding group expansion (abstract; column 1, lines 41-63; column 2, line 65 through column 3, line 29; figure 2). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to optimize Ko’s diameter difference, as taught by Nakai, to allow room for electrode assembly / winding group expansion.
Nakai’s Example A-1 has winding group diameter A = 38.2 and battery container inner diameter B = 39 mm. The difference is thus 0.8 mm. Although Nakai’s 0.8 mm diameter difference is outside of the claimed range of 0.2-0.4 mm, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust this difference to allow insertion of the electrode assembly / winding group into the case / container, and to leave room for electrode assembly / winding group expansion. Based on principles taught by Nakai, the diameter difference for batteries of different size and type can be optimized.
Here is an example of using the teachings of Nakai to optimize the diameter difference: Nakai teaches
K
=
B
-
A
*
10,000
W
x
H
, K≥0.89, & W≥40 (column 3, lines 39-40; column 6, lines 16-40).
Nakai’s Example A-1 has winding group diameter A = 38.2, battery container inner diameter B = 39 mm, W=54.1, H=90, & K=1.67. The B-A difference is 0.8, which is outside of the claimed range of 0.2-0.4 mm.
This example, however, has a higher K & W than the required K≥0.89, & W≥40, respectively. Selecting lower K & W values, within the allowed range, the claimed range of 0.2-0.4 mm can be achieved:
B
-
A
=
K
*
W
*
H
10,000
=
0.89
*
40
*
90
10,000
=
0.24
. A battery with a different H value can also be selected to achieve B-A within the claimed range.
Thus, although Nakai fails to teach an example that falls within the claimed range, Nakai provides the equation and boundaries for achieving this. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to adjust the B-A difference to allow insertion of the electrode assembly / winding group into the case / container, and to leave room for electrode assembly / winding group expansion. Based on principles taught by Nakai, the diameter difference for batteries of different size and type can be optimized.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm 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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights