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 amendment received 01/20/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 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 considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of JPH06231742A (Takahisa) further in view of US20120189889A1 (Kim)
Regarding claim 1, Takahisa teaches a sealed storage battery [abs]. Kim teaches a battery [abs]; a case [#1] including an opening in one side and receiving the electrode assembly; and a cap assembly covering the opening and closing and sealing the case, wherein the cap assembly includes a cap plate [#2; i.e. cover plate] covering the opening and including a terminal hole, a terminal plate [#12, i.e. metal top plate] coupled the top of the cap plate in a height direction to cover the terminal hole, an upper insulator [#4; top part of gasket] disposed at the top of the cap plate to be provided between the cap plate and the terminal plate in the height direction, and a lower insulator [#4; bottom part of the gasket] disposed at a bottom of the cap plate, the lower insulator including an edge disposed near the case and extending downward [fig. 1; 0014-0016]. In fig. 1 of Takahisa, it is not explicitly clear that the edge of the lower insulator that extends downwards abut a first inner side surface of the case and wherein the edge abuts a second inner side surface of the case opposite the first inner side surface in a cross-sectional view. Takahisa additionally does not teach the electrode assembly as claimed. Kim teaches a rechargeable battery comprising: an electrode assembly [#120] including a first electrode, a second electrode, and a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode; and teaches the lower insulator extends downwards abut a first inner side surface of the case and wherein the edge abuts a second inner side surface of the case opposite the first inner side surface in a cross-sectional view [illustrated below in annotated fig.2 and fig3; 0032-0043]. 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 Takahisa in view of Kim to incorporate the electrode assembly as claimed, as these are key structural components for a battery assembly to function and one would have a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, modifying the lower insulator as taught by Kim to extend downwards and abut the inner side surface of the casing allows the can 110 t be electrically independent from the electrode terminals 150 and 151 and the current collectors 140. Further, in one embodiment, the first insulation members 160 fix the electrode assembly 120 in the can 110 so that the electrode assembly 120 does not move in the can 110 [0041].
PNG
media_image1.png
616
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
609
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, modified Takahisa teaches wherein the lower insulator includes a base portion having a first thickness and disposed at the bottom of the cap plate, and a blocking portion [i.e. the extension of the lower insulator extending downwards] connected to an edge of the base portion and having a second thickness that is greater than the first thickness to define the edge disposed near the case [ Kim 0042, fig. 2] .It is noted, as can be seen in Fig 2, the thickness of the blocking portion is thicker than the thickness of the lower insulator. The specification does not specify any particular measurements that further define the two different thicknesses. Therefore, per the Examiner’s interpretation, Kim teaches the claimed limitations accordingly and in view of the specification and the figures provided in the instant specification, fig. 2 of Kim read on the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 3, Takahisa in view of Kim teaches wherein the case includes a bottom plate and a lateral plate extending upward from an edge of the bottom plate and defining the inner side surface of the case, and the blocking portion is disposed between the lateral plate of the case and the electrode assembly [Kim: depicted below].
PNG
media_image3.png
616
948
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Takahisa teaches wherein the cap assembly further includes a connecting insulator contacting a circumference portion of the terminal hole and passing through the terminal hole to connect the upper insulator and the lower insulator [depicted below].
PNG
media_image4.png
338
476
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Takahisa teaches wherein the upper insulator, the lower insulator, and the connecting insulator [above in claim 4]; but does not explicitly teach that they are integrally formed. As noted in the instant specification, the lower/upper and connecting insulator are integrally formed by using nuts #190 [0040], and that is considered a product-by-process limitation. 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). Therefore, Takahisa teaches the upper/lower and connecting insulator as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Takahisa teaches the claimed, “wherein the cap plate, the terminal plate, the upper insulator, the lower insulator, and the connecting insulator are integrally formed”. However, does not teach it is formed by an insert molding method”. The insert molding method is considered product-by-process claim. 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). Takahisa teaches the claimed upper/lower and connecting insulator, and as it is clearly seen in fig.1, the insulator is continuous one-piece structure that is made up of an upper/lower and connecting part that joins the upper and lower parts of the insulator, thus meets the requirements of the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Takahisa in view of Kim teaches a first electrode tab for electrically connecting the first electrode [#150, 0031] and the terminal plate [0031- 0033]; and a second electrode tab [#151] for electrically connecting the second electrode and the case, and the cap plate [Kim- 0031-0033].
Regarding claim 8, Takahisa in view of Kim teaches wherein the electrode assembly is wound with respect to a rotation axis by which the first electrode, the second electrode, and the separator are arranged in a perpendicular direction to a lowest side of the case [ Kim fig. 2; 0033].
Regarding claim 11, Takahisa teaches wherein the terminal plate includes an inserting portion [#3; through hole] inserted into the terminal hole [fig. 1; 0012-0016].
Regarding claim 12, Takahisa teaches wherein the connecting insulator is disposed between the inserting portion and the terminal hole [fig. 1 and noted in claim 4].
Regarding claim 13, Takahisa teaches wherein an upper side of the terminal plate is flat [fig. 1].
Regarding claim 14, Takahisa teaches wherein an upper side of a position corresponding to the inserting portion on the terminal plate is concave downward [fig. 1; 0012-0016].
Regarding claim 15, Takahisa teaches wherein an edge of the upper insulator extends upward to cover a cross-section of an edge of the terminal plate [fig. 1].
Regarding claim 16, Takahisa teaches the cap plate is welded and combined to an opening of the case [002, 007], and the cap plate is welded to the one side having the opening of the case. However, is silent with respect to wherein the case is cylindrical. The case being cylindrical is considered to be a change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). 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 Takahisa battery case to be cylindrical as one would expect a reasonable expectation of success without changing how the battery functions.
Regarding claim 17, Takahisa is silent with respect to wherein a ratio of height to diameter of the rechargeable battery is equal to or less than 1. However, it is the Examiner’s position, 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 Takahisa and adjust the height and diameter as required by the instant claim as doing would not affect the function of the battery. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.
Regarding claim 18, Takahisa teaches wherein, in a plan view, the edge of the lower insulator extends farther than an edge of the upper insulator in a direction away from the terminal hole [fig. 1].
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of JPH06231742A (Takahisa) in view of US20120189889A1 (Kim) further in view of US20170194619 (Kim4619).
Regarding claim 9, Takahisa in view of Kim teaches wherein the first electrode tab [#31] extends to a top of the electrode assembly and is welded to an internal lateral side of the terminal plate [fig. 2; 0045], and the second electrode tab [#32] however is silent with respect to the second tab extends to a bottom of the electrode assembly and is welded to an internal lateral side of the case.
Kim4619 teaches a secondary battery [abs] and teaches he second electrode tab extends to a bottom of the electrode assembly and is welded to an internal lateral side of the case [fig. 2; #190 tab and 200 is internal lateral side of case 0042-0044]. 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 as doing so one would expect a reasonable expectation of success and it wouldn’t change how the battery actually functions. It is noted, changing the position of the electrode tab to be at the bottom or the top, does not affect how the battery will operate, therefore, one skilled in the art would easily be able to modify Kim in view of Kim4619 and arrive at the claimed invention. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kim teaches a first insulating member disposed between the first electrode tab and an upper side of the electrode assembly [fig. 2; claim 1]; and a second insulating member disposed between the second electrode tab and a lower side of the electrode assembly [Kim fig. 2; #230-insulating member, #190 tab; 0042-0045].
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 SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached on 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights