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 Status
Claim 3 has been previously canceled.
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended; support for claim 1 is found in fig. 3 of the instant specification, claim 16 has been amended to correct indefiniteness.
Claims 20 and 21 have been added; support for claims 20, and 21 is found in fig. 3 of the instant specification.
Claims 1, 2, 4-21 are currently pending in this office action.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goda et al. (US2003/0077505A1), in view of Hirakawa et al. (US2009/0077794A1), and in further view of Kato et al.(JP2001266804A).
As to claim 1, Goda discloses a power storage device (battery-[abstract] ) comprising: an electrode assembly (13-electrode group [0028])
an exterior can (1-battery case) accommodating the electrode assembly (13) and an electrolyte solution [0028] therein,
the exterior can including a side wall portion having a tubular shape and an opening (opening 14) provided at least at one end of the side wall portion (Figure 1 – depicts the sidewall as a prismatic can thus forming a tubular shape with an opening at the top); and
a sealing plate (17) closing the opening of the exterior can (figure 3),
wherein a peripheral edge of the sealing plate is joined to the opening at a joint ([0028] discloses the battery case is sealed with the sealing plate by laser welding thus is joined, and
the side wall portion includes a pair of side walls facing each other in a first direction (figure 1 the pair of side walls include the cutting groove 10 the thickness of the battery is the first direction) , each of the pair of side walls including a groove which corresponds to a thin part (10-cutting groove [0027], as shown in figure 1) extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (the width of the battery is the second direction).
and the groove has a recess (cutting groove (10) bottom portion (10a) [0027] figure 2B), and the recess has an upper step (1a figure 2B) having an are shape convex upward when viewed in the first direction and a lower step having an are shape convex downward when viewed in the first direction (two curved groove bottom portions 10b and 10c extending curvedly from both ends of the linear groove bottom portion 10a toward the outer surface of the elongated side surface 1a of the battery case 1 [0027] figure 2B).
Goda discloses an electrode group but does not explicitly teach an electrode assembly including a positive-electrode plate, a negative-electrode plate, and a separator such that the positive-electrode plate and a negative-electrode plate are stacked with a separator interposed between the positive-electrode plate and the negative-electrode plate.
In the same field of endeavor Hirakawa discloses a battery and further teaches an electrode group is comprised of a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate are spirally wound with a separator interposed therebetween [Abstract] and the present invention relates to a method for producing a rectangular flat secondary battery with excellent stability in battery properties and high capacity.[0001]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modified Goda with the electrode group of Hirakawa to improve the battery stability and capacity.
Goda discloses all the claimed structure but does not explicitly teach the structure when viewed from the first direction (depth / thickness direction of the battery cell).
In the same field of endeavor Kato discloses a battery [Abstract] and teaches when viewed from the first direction (fig. 2), the groove (explosion-poof valve (18) has a first shape with four sides connecting with each other, (As shown in fig. 4, in the shape treatment of the tip portions of both ends of the explosion-proof valve (18), [0037] fig. 4. Where the shape treatment at both ends of the of the explosion-proof valve (18) provide fours sides connecting to each other. See annotated fig. 4),
PNG
media_image1.png
222
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Kato, annotated fig. 4)
the upper step and the lower step constitute two sides of the shape, and another two sides of the shape connect the upper step and the lower step.(As shown in annotated fig.3 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
295
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Kato, annotated fig. 3 as viewed from the centerline AA’ of fig. 2 or first direction)
As illustrated in annotated fig. 3 of Kato above the upper and lower step would be extending in a width (second) direction in and out of the page, as the explosion-proof valve 18 of Kato extends in a width direction as shown in fig. 2 of Kato.
Kato further teaches, [0013] the present invention object thereof is to provide a sealed secondary battery having an extremely safe explosion-proof valve structure.
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Goda with the with the structure of Kato in the first direction because Kato discloses it would provide an extremely safe explosion-proof valve structure.
As to claim 2. Goda discloses, cutting grooves 10 and 25 provided in the vicinity of the upper edge of the elongated side surface 1a [0043], but does not explicitly teach the thin part (10) is provided between the electrode assembly and the joint.
In the same field of endeavor Kato discloses a battery with a sidewall explosion-proof vale(18) [0029] and the valve (18) is located at the upper end of the electrode body (3) [0038], thereby positioning the valve (groove or thin part) between the electrode assembly and the lid or joint. Kato further teaches, the present invention has been made based on these circumstances, and an object thereof is to provide a sealed secondary battery having an extremely safe explosion-proof valve structure. [0013]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modified Goda with the position of the thin part of Kato to achieve an extremely safe explosion-proof valve structure.
As to claim 4, Goda discloses the groove is provided in each of the pair of side walls of the exterior can such that an outer surface of each of the pair of side walls of the exterior can has the recess therein at the groove. (figure 1 cutting grooves 10 and 25)
As to claim 5, rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, modified Goda discloses each of the upper step and the lower step of the recess is an inclining step. (See annotated figure 3 of Kato)
As to claim 6, Goda discloses the first direction is parallel to a direction in which the positive-electrode plate and the negative-electrode plate are stacked (the electrode group is stacked in the thickness direction see figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
741
822
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Goda, figure 3)
Regarding claim 11, the groove is provided in each of the pair of side walls of the exterior can such that an inner surface of each of the pair of side walls of the exterior can has the recess therein at the groove. It has been held that if a claimed invention reads on the prior art except with regard to the position of a component of a device, the invention is unpatentable if switching the position of the component would have not modified the operation of the device. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, switching the positions of the grooves would not modify the operation of the device, which is to allow for stress relief.
As to claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated, the limitation of “each of the pair of side walls includes a second groove which corresponds to a second thin part extending in the second direction perpendicular to the first direction, and wherein the second groove is provided in each of the pair of side walls of the exterior can such that an outer surface of each of the pair of side walls of the exterior can has the recess therein at the second groove,” it should be noted the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As to claim 13, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Goda discloses when viewed from the second direction (Kato, [0030] fig. 2), the groove includes a bottom surface (Kato (20)) and two side surfaces extending upward from the bottom surface (Kato, annotated fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
295
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Kato, annotated fig. 3 as viewed from the centerline AA’ of fig. 2 or first direction)
As to claim 14, rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, modified Goda discloses each of the side surface forms an angle with the bottom surface (Kato, D annotated fig. 3 below), and the angle is equal to or more than 90 degrees (The range of the angle D from 93 degrees to 123 degrees is suitable for the explosion-proof valve 18 [Kato, 0032]) Examiner notes that as shown in annotated fig. 3 angle D is an alternative interior angle of parallel lines cut by a traversal and as such is equal to angle E, an angle formed with the bottom surface.
PNG
media_image4.png
297
445
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Kato, annotated fig. 3)
Regarding claim 15, rejection of claim 13 is incorporated, modified Goda each of the side surface forms an angle with the bottom surface (Kato, annotated fig.3 above), and the angle is equal to or more than 135 degrees. (This angle d needs to be adjusted to an appropriate value depending on the size and shape of the outer can 1 [Kato, 0031]) Therefore angle of inclination would be a manufacturing design choice based on tooling and application considerations such as size and shape of the outer can, as such the 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).
As to claim 16, rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Goda discloses the recess further has an inner bottom surface (Kato (20), [0032] annotated fig. 3 below) connected to the upper step and the lower step (annotated fig. 3), the inner bottom surface has:
an upper side connected to the upper step (annotated fig. 3) and having both ends located away from each other in the second direction (the second direction being the width direction as exemplified in paragraph [0050] of the instant specification, Kato fig. 2). With respect to the limitation “the upper side having an arc shape convex upward along the upper step when viewed in the first direction.” The shape of the recess would be a matter of tooling for particular applications and battery sizes, and the 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). ;
a lower side (Kato (20)) connected to the lower step (Kato fig. 3) and having both ends located away from each other in the second direction (fig. 2), the both ends of the upper side being located away from the both ends of the lower side (annotated fig. 3), With respect to the limitation “the lower side having an arc shape convex downward along the lower step when viewed in the first direction.” The shape of the recess would be a matter of tooling for particular applications and battery sizes, and the 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). ;
a first vertical side (upper step) extending from one of the both ends of the upper side to one of the both ends of the lower side; and a second vertical side (lower step) extending from another of the both ends of the upper side to another of the both ends of the lower side ( An angle of D of 930 degrees as shown in fig. 3 below for the upper step and lower step, would provide a perpendicular side as exemplified in paragraph [0047] of the instant specification or vertical side as claimed).
PNG
media_image2.png
295
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Kato, annotated fig. 3 as viewed from the centerline AA’ of fig. 2 or first direction)
As to claim 17, rejection of claim 16 is incorporated, modified Goda discloses the upper step and the lower step of the recess constitute inner side surfaces connected to the inner bottom surface, and each of the inner side surfaces forms an angle with the bottom surface, and the angle is equal to or more than 90 degrees (Kato, Annotated fig. 3 above [0020]).
Regarding claim 18, rejection of claim 17 is incorporated, modified Goda each of the side surface forms an angle with the bottom surface (Kato, annotated fig.3 above), and the angle is equal to or more than 135 degrees. (This angle d needs to be adjusted to an appropriate value depending on the size and shape of the outer can 1 [Kato, 0031]) Therefore angle of inclination would be a manufacturing design choice based on tooling and application considerations such as size and shape of the outer can, as such the 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).
Regarding claim 19, when viewed from the first direction, the groove further comprises a second shape with four sides connecting with each other, and the second shape is surrounded by the first shape. It has been held the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Goda discloses when viewed from the first direction (depth), the first shape consists of the four sides. (Kato fig. 3 as exemplified by element (30J) of applicant fig. 3)
As to claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Goda discloses the thin part is formed below the sealing plate and above electrode assembly. (With respect to the position of the explosion-proof valve 18, it is experimentally found that it is preferable to process the explosion-proof valve 18 in a region where the distance from the opening 19 of the outer can 1 (L in FIG. 1) is from 1 mm to 10 mm. confirmed. This position corresponds to a position in the vicinity of the upper end of the electrode body 3 when compared with the electrode body 3 in which the sealed battery is incorporated. Therefore, it is a position where all the gas in each part in the battery can flow. Therefore, it is suitable for fulfilling the explosion-proof function. [Kato, 0038])
Claim(s) 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe et al. (JP2016152203A), in view Goda et al. (US20030077505A1), and in further view of Hirakawa et al.(US2009/007794A1).
As to claim 7, Abe discloses a power storage module (battery pack 1 [0017]) comprising a plurality of power storage devices (battery (100)) arranged along the first direction [Abstract], Abe does not explicitly teach each of the plurality of power storage devices being the power storage device according to claim 1, however in the same field of endeavor Goda discloses a power storage device (battery-[abstract] ) comprising: an electrode assembly (13-electrode group [0028])
an exterior can (1-battery case) accommodating the electrode assembly (13) and an electrolyte solution [0028] therein,
the exterior can including a side wall portion having a tubular shape and an opening (opening 14) provided at least at one end of the side wall portion (Figure 1 – depicts the sidewall as a prismatic can thus forming a tubular shape with an opening at the top);
and
a sealing plate (17) closing the opening of the exterior can (figure 3),
wherein a peripheral edge of the sealing plate is joined to the opening at a joint ([0028] discloses the battery case is sealed with the sealing plate by laser welding thus is joined), and
the side wall portion includes a pair of side walls facing each other in a first direction (figure 1 the pair of side walls include the cutting groove 10 the thickness of the battery is the first direction) , each of the pair of side walls including a thin part (10-cutting groove [0027], as shown in figure 1) extending in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (the width of the battery is the second direction).
Goda discloses an electrode group but does not explicitly teach an electrode assembly including a positive-electrode plate, a negative-electrode plate, and a separator such that the positive-electrode plate and a negative-electrode plate are stacked with a separator interposed between the positive-electrode plate and the negative-electrode plate. In the same field of endeavor Hirakawa discloses a battery and further teaches an electrode group is comprised of a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate are spirally wound with a separator interposed therebetween [Abstract] and the present invention relates to a method for producing a rectangular flat secondary battery with excellent stability in battery properties and high capacity.[0001]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modified Goda with the electrode group of Hirakawa to improve the battery stability and capacity.
Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the battery of Goda in Abe’s module because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.)
Abe discloses a holding member (spacer 200) provided between adjacent power storage devices out of the plurality of power storage devices (spacer 200 [0017]).
As to claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Abe discloses the holding member holds (spacer 200) at least a vicinity of the joint in a third direction perpendicular to the sealing plate. See figure 1
PNG
media_image5.png
859
1003
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Abe, figure 1)
As to claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Abe discloses comprising a buffer (expansion regulating portion 230 ) disposed between the power storage device and the holding member (spacer 200), wherein the buffer holds a center portion of the exterior can along a third direction perpendicular to the sealing plate (The spacer 200 has an abutting portion 210… The expansion regulating portion 230 is a rectangular flat portion provided on the inner side of the rectangular frame shaped abutting portion 210. [0025], see figure 1 above),
and is made of a material softer than the holding member. (The spacer 200 is made of, for example, an electrically insulating material such as engineering plastic [0021], and as shown in figure 2, expansion regulating portion 230 restricts expansion [0060] and deforming, while spacer (200) does not deform would require the material of expansion regulating portion 230 (buffer) to be softer than the spacer (200) or holding member.
PNG
media_image6.png
564
483
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Abe, figure 2)
As to claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated, Abe discloses the holding member includes a lower-end holding part holding a lower end portion of the power storage device and an upper-end holding part holding an upper end portion of the power storage device, and the buffer is disposed between the lower-end holding part and the upper-end holding part viewed from the third direction. See figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image7.png
855
1096
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Abe figure 1)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-8, filed 02/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kato et al.(JP2001266804A).
Applicant argues, page 9, the shape of the recess is a purposeful design to address non-uniform deformation of the exterior can during expansion of the power storage device, citing paragraph [0037] of the instant specification. The instant specification provides no evidence of criticality with regard to the shape of the recess, and the office notes, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). MPEP 2145
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 EST.
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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights