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
Claims 1, 16 and 19 are amended.
Claims 17-18 are cancelled.
Claims 1-16 and 19 have been considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application differs from the cited references as follows:
Applicant argues that the instant invention has is directed to a cylindrical battery where each of the electrode assemblies 220, 230 have a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab extending therefrom while Bailey teaches two electrode assemblies connected in series.
Applicant argues that because the electrode assemblies of Baily are connected in series, each only requires 1 electrode lead.
Regarding arguments a and b, it is acknowledged that the electrode assemblies of Bailey are connected in series with the connection extending in the predominantly radial direction with respect to the length of the electrode and elements 86 and 56 extending predominantly in an axial direction of the length of the electrode. However, on further consideration, Bailey teaches elements 93, 63 (uncoated foils) connected via element 47, which extends from each electrode (Figs. 3-4; Column 4 lines 28-56; column 5 lines 18-35). While elements 93, 63, and 47 extend predominantly in the radial direction relative to the length of the electrode, they also extend to at least some degree in the axial dimension as well, as they are three dimensional objects. Examiner notes that the claim does not define the axial direction nor does the claim require the tabs to extend in an axial direction without simultaneously expanding in the radially direction. It is noted that the claim does not require connection between tabs and a top cap assembly. Including a further limitation defining the tab connection to the cap appears to overcome the rejection presented.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US6287719B1) in view of Jung (KR100516108B1), cited on the IDS filed on 3/29/22. Reference is made to previously provided translations.
Regarding claim 1, Bailey teaches cylindrical battery comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies (column 3 lines 34-39; column 4 lines 1-6) where the electrode assemblies are connected in series and a positive electrode is coupled to a positive external contact terminal via a tab and the cover assembly while a negative electrode is coupled to a negative contact terminal through a tab and the housing (column 4 lines 28-56) and wherein each of the plurality of electrode assemblies includes a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab extending therefrom in an axial direction of the cylindrical battery (Elements 86, 56, 93, 63, and 47 in Figs. 3-4 reproduced below; Column 4 lines 28-56; column 5 lines 18-35). Elements 86 and 56 extend predominantly in an axial direction of the length of the electrode (Fig. 6 annotated below). Elements 93, 63 are connected via element 47, which extends from each. While elements 93, 63 extend predominantly in the radial direction relative to the length of the electrode, they also extend to at least some degree in the axial dimension as well, as they are three dimensional objects. Examiner notes that the claim does not require the tabs to extend in an axially direction without simultaneously expanding in the radially direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
590
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
372
689
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
594
675
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Bailey does not teach a plurality of top cap assemblies located on an upper part of the plurality of electrode assemblies, wherein the plurality of top cap assemblies are electrically separated from each other by an insulator.
However, Jung teaches a cylindrical battery ([0024]), and a plurality of top cap assemblies located on an upper part of the electrode assembly ([0026], [0036] “negative lead connecting plate”, “positive lead connecting plate”), wherein the plurality of top cap assemblies are electrically separated from each other by an insulator ([0036] “the positive lead connecting plate 320 and the negative lead connecting plate 350 are integrated by an insulating coupling means 370”, Fig. 5a and 5c annotated below). Jung teaches that when one terminal is connected to a metal case and the other terminal is connected to a lid made of metal there is a possibility of short circuit occurring between the case and the lid, restricting the installation of an electric energy storage device such as this ([0012]). Jung teaches that having the terminal of the electrical energy storage device drawn out in one direction make a series or parallel connection easier and can reduce volume increases due to connection mechanisms ([0017]; [0025]). Jung teaches that cap structure including a lead connecting plate, and a terminal plate having an integral coupling means for coupling the positive lead connecting plate and the negative lead connecting plate in an insulated manner allows for both the positive and negative terminal to be located on the same end of the battery ([0015]; [0026]-[0027]; [0036]).
PNG
media_image4.png
202
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
311
509
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jung teaches benefits of having the terminal of an electrical energy storage device drawn out in one direction, including making a series or parallel connection easier and reducing volume increases due to connection mechanisms ([0017]; [0025]), conversely, having one terminal connected to a metal case and the other terminal connected to a lid made of metal increases the possibility of short circuit which limits the applications that an electrical energy storage device can be used in ([0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the cylindrical battery taught by Bailey by utilizing the cap assembly taught by Jung and connecting both the positive and negative electrode tabs to said cover assembly.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the cylindrical battery taught by Bailey by utilizing the cap assembly taught by Jung and connecting both the positive and negative electrode tabs to said cover assembly in order reduce the chance of short circuit, and allow for easier series or parallel connection and a reduction in volume increases due to connection mechanisms ([0017]; [0025]; [0012]).
Claim(s) 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bailey (US6287719B1) in view of Jung (KR100516108B1), as applied above, in further view of Hirose et. al. (JP2017084742A) hereinafter Hirose, cited on the IDS filed 3/29/22. Reference is made to previously provided machine translations.
Regarding claim 2, modified Bailey teaches the cylindrical battery according to claim 1. Jung further teaches wherein the plurality of top cap assemblies comprises: a first top cap assembly having a first upper end cap and a second top cap assembly having a second upper end cap ([0026]; [0036] “negative lead connecting plate”, “positive lead connecting plate”; the positive and negative lead connecting plates are the first and second upper end caps).
Modified Bailey does not teach a first current interruptive device, and a first gas storage space; and a second current interruptive device, and a second gas storage space.
However, Hirose teaches an energy storage device with a case, an electrode assembly housed in the case, an electrode terminal ([0006]), a current interruption device ([0012] “current interruption device 10”) and a gas storage ([0030] “the first inspection gas G1 is stored in the internal space 12”). Hirose teaches that the current interruption device is used in case of increased pressure buildup from overcharging ([0028])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the cylindrical battery taught by modified Bailey by including a current interruption device and a gas storage space in the top cap assembly as taught by Hirose.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modify the cylindrical battery taught by modified Bailey by including a current interruption device and a gas storage space in the top cap assembly as taught by Hirose to allow for pressure release and interruption of current in the case of overcharging ([0028]).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a current interruption device and gas storage as taught by Hirose for each respective top cap assembly taught by modified Bailey. Duplication of parts is within the ambit of one or ordinary skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 3, modified Bailey teaches wherein the insulator comprises an upper insulator and a lower insulator (Jung [0059]; Fig. 5c annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
202
642
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Baily does not teach wherein the upper insulator has a "Π"-shaped cross-sectional shape.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the shape of the upper insulator taught by modified Bailey. Modifications of shape are within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, modified Bailey does not teach wherein the upper insulator receives an intermediate part of the lower insulator.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the upper and lower insulators taught by modified Bailey separate, thereby having the upper insulator receive an intermediate part of the lower insulator (Jung Fig. 5c annotated above). In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 6, modified Bailey in view of Hirose teaches the cylindrical battery according to claim 3. Jung teaches wherein the insulator comprises an upper insulator and a lower insulator ([0059]; Fig. 5c annotated above). Hirose teaches a current interruption device ([0012] “current interruption device 10”) and a gas storage space ([0030] “the first inspection gas G1 is stored in the internal space 12”).
Modified Bailey in view of Hirose does not explicitly teach wherein the lower insulator is located between the first current interruptive device and the second current interruptive device, and electrically insulates the first current interruptive device and the second current interruptive device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have maintained insulation between the first and second cap assemblies taught by modified Bailey and the respective current interruption devices taught by Hirose.
Regarding claim 7, modified Bailey does not teach wherein the upper insulator is attached to the first current interruptive device and the second current interruptive device.
However, Hirose teaches wherein the upper insulator ([0020] “insulating sealing plug”; fig. 7 annotated below) is attached to the first current interruptive device and the second current interruptive device ([0042] “the current interruption device may further include a second deformable plate 40”; Fig. 7 annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
700
765
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by modified Bailey by using a first and second current interruption device as taught by Hirose.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the battery taught by modified Bailey by including a first and second current interruption devices as taught by Hirose to allow for pressure release and interruption of current in the case of overcharging ([0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Hirose further teaches wherein if any one of the first current interruptive device or the second current interruptive device ([0042] “the current interruption device may further include a second deformable plate 40”; Fig. 7 annotated above) is operated, the upper insulator ([0020] “insulating sealing plug”; Fig. 7 annotated above) moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies ([0044]; [0030]; when the current interruption device is triggered the gas will cause pressure buildup that will raise the sealing plug).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the battery taught by modified Bailey such that if any one of the first current interruptive device or the second current interruptive device is operated, the upper insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies as taught by Hirose.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modified the battery taught by modified Bailey so that if any one of the first current interruptive device or the second current interruptive device is operated, the upper insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies as taught by Hirose to release pressure generated during an overcurrent state ([0044]).
Regarding claim 9, Hirose further teaches wherein, when the first current interruptive device or the second current interruptive device is operated, gas generated in the electrode assembly is collected in the first gas storage space and the second gas storage space ([0044]; Fig. 7 annotated above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the battery taught by modified Bailey such that when a first current interruptive device or the second current interruptive device is operated, gas generated in the electrode assembly is collected in the first gas storage space and the second gas storage space taught by Hirose.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modified the battery taught by modified Bailey such that when a first current interruptive device or the second current interruptive device is operated, gas generated in the electrode assembly is collected in the first gas storage and the second gas storage taught by Hirose to release pressure generated during an overcurrent state ([0044]).
Regarding claim 10, Hirose further teaches wherein, when the upper insulator moves upward a predetermined height or higher due to the pressure of the gas collected in the first gas storage and the second gas storage unit, the gas collected in the first gas storage space (Fig. 7 annotated above, element 18) and the second gas storage space (Fig. 7 annotated above, element 19) is discharged outside the plurality of top cap assemblies (par. [0044]; [0020] “the internal space 12 of the current interruption device 10 is sealed from the external space 16 of the case 1 by the sealing plug 90”; [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the battery taught by modified Bailey such that the gas collected in the first gas storage space and the second gas storage space is discharged outside the plurality of top cap assemblies as taught by Hirose.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modify the battery taught by modified Bailey such that the gas collected in the first gas storage and the second gas storage unit is discharged outside the plurality of top cap assemblies as taught by Hirose to release pressure generated due to overcharging (par. [0028]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Bailey in view of Hirose teaches the cylindrical battery according to claim 2.
Jung further teaches wherein the insulator comprises a first insulator (Fig. 5c annotated below, element 370; [0036]) a second insulator (Fig. 8 annotated below), and a lower insulator (Fig. 5c annotated below).
PNG
media_image8.png
202
642
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
234
348
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to further modify the battery taught modified Bailey to include the first insulator, the second insulator, and the lower insulator taught by Jung.
Regarding claim 12, Jung further teaches wherein the first insulator and the second insulator are independent of each other (Jung Fig. 5c annotated above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the battery taught by Bailey by using the cap structure taught by Jung including where the first insulator and the second insulator are independent of each other.
Regarding claim 13, modified Bailey teaches a first insulator (Jung Fig. 5c annotated above).
Modified Bailey does not teach wherein the first insulator is attached to the first current interruptive device, and when the first current interruptive device is operated, the first insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies.
However, Hirose teaches first insulator (par. [0020] “insulating sealing plug”) is attached to the first current interruptive device (see Fig. 7 annotated above, element 90 is connected to the current interruption device 10 by virtue of being connected via element 7), and when the first current interruptive device is operated, the first insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies (par. [0044]; par. [0030]; when the current interruption device is triggered the gas will cause pressure buildup that will raise the sealing plug).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by modified Bailey such that when the first current interruptive device is operated, the first insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies as taught by Hirose.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further modified the battery taught by modified Bailey such that when the first current interruptive device is operated, the first insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies as taught by Hirose to release pressure generated during an overcurrent state (par. [0044]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bailey teaches a plurality of electrical storage devices (Bailey column 3 lines 34-39; column 4 lines 1-6). Modified Bailey does not explicitly teach where the second insulator is attached to the second current interruptive device, and when the second current interruptive device is operated, the second insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies.
However, Hirose teaches where an insulator ([0020] “insulating sealing plug”) is attached to the first current interruptive device (see Fig. 7 annotated above, element 90 is connected to the current interruption device 10 by virtue of being connected via element 7), and when a current interruptive device is operated, the insulator moves upward and protrudes beyond the plurality of top cap assemblies ([0044]; [0030]; when the current interruption device is triggered the gas will cause pressure buildup that will raise the sealing plug).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used a current interruption device and associated insulator element as taught by Hirose for each connected electrical storage device taught by modified Bailey. Duplication of parts is within the ambit of one or ordinary skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 15, modified Bailey in view of Hirose teaches the cylindrical battery according to claim 2.
Bailey further teaches wherein the plurality of electrode assemblies comprises a first electrode assembly and a second electrode assembly, and the first electrode assembly is located in a central part of the second electrode assembly (column 3 lines 33-39; column 4 lines 1-6; Fig.3).
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (US 7462418 B2) in view of Kubota et al. (US 20140127541 A1) hereinafter “Kubota”.
Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches a cylindrical battery comprising a plurality of electrode assemblies, and wherein each of the plurality of electrode assemblies includes a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab extending therefrom in an axial direction of the cylindrical battery (Fig. 1 elements 46 and 58; Column 6 lines 4-29 “extended current collector foil”).
PNG
media_image10.png
658
714
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Matsumoto does not teach plurality of top cap assemblies located on an upper part of the plurality of electrode assemblies, wherein the plurality of top cap assemblies are electrically separated from each other by an insulator.
However, Kubota teaches a cylindrical battery (abstract; [0017]) with a can lid comprising plurality of top cap assemblies located on an upper part of the electrode assembly, wherein the plurality of top cap assemblies are electrically separated from each other by an insulator (Fig. 1 annotated below; [0035]-[0037] polypropylene is considered an insulator). Kubota teaches that the cylindrical battery can lid structure allows for a battery system which can constantly monitor the battery state even after actuation of a current cutoff mechanism ([0043]).
PNG
media_image11.png
338
551
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the cap taught by Matsumoto with the cap structure taught by Kubota.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute the cap taught by Matsumoto with the cap structure taught by Kubota to improve safety and allow for a battery system which can constantly monitor the battery state even after actuation of a current cutoff mechanism ([0043]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 19 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claims 16 and 19 have been amended to be in independent form. As such, they are allowable for the reasons stated in the Office Action dated 7/23/2025.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Masahiko (JPH10208768A) teaches a plurality of electrode assemblies wherein each of the plurality of electrode assemblies includes a positive electrode tab and a negative electrode tab extending therefrom in an axial direction of the cylindrical battery (Fig. 1, 4, 6).
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728