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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended and claims 1-19 are currently pending, however claims 15-19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation that “an electrolytic solution inside the battery case and contacting an inner surface of the battery case.” However, the only mention of electrolyte being injected into a battery case in the specification is firstly, in the description of Fig. 1, which is prior art, and secondly, that the terminal connection part (120) and the mounting space (121) may be coupled as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 in order to avoid electrolyte solution from leaking to the outside (pg. 7). It is never stated in the specification that electrolyte solution is contacting an inner surface of the battery case. Because neither Fig. 3 or 4 includes the manner in which the electrode assembly is mounted into the case, it cannot be inherently understood that the electrolyte solution must connect the inner case, as the electrolyte solution can be contained in the battery cell as shown in Fig. 1 of the prior art, i.e. in the center of the electrode assembly and therefore, not contacting the inner surface of the battery casing. Therefore, the limitation is considered new matter. For purpose of examination, prior art that discloses electrolyte solution disposed inside battery case will read on claim 1.
Claims 2-14 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamori et al. (JP 2013093151A, Espacenet translation provided for reference, referenced in IDS submitted 09/25/2024) in view of Nakanishi (U.S. 20120115068) and Kim et al. (U.S. 20190207265, presented in IDS submitted 04/14/2022).
With respect to claim 1, Nakamori discloses a cylindrical battery (20) (Fig. 2) comprising:
an electrode assembly (20) (Fig. 2); and
a battery case (1 – formed by outer wall 11 and inner wall 12) which houses the electrode assembly (20) therein and is formed of a resin (Fig. 2, [0020]),
wherein the battery case (1) includes an upper case (2 – upper case body), a lower case (1f – bottom wall), and a side case (3 – lower case body) extending between the upper case (2) and the lower case (1f) (Fig. 1), the side case (3) comprising of a resin ([0007]) and
wherein a hollow (13 – hollow layer) is formed in the side case (2) (Fig. 3).
Nakamori does not disclose there is an electrolyte solution present in the battery case (see above 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection regarding the interpretation and subsequent examination of this limitation).
Nakanishi discloses a battery case (160 – housing) (Fig. 3) and teaches the battery case includes electrolyte solution (50) disposed therein (Fig. 3). Nakanishi further teaches that this allows for cells (40) to use the electrolyte solution within the housing (60) during operation (Fig. 3; [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application had been effectively filed to include the electrolyte solution as taught by Nakanishi in the battery case disclosed by Nakamori to allow for the cells to use the electrolyte solution during operation.
Nakamori also does not disclose the side plate consists only of a resin, instead teaching the side case (3) is formed of inner and outer layers (11 and 12) which are formed of side walls (1a to 1f) ([0020]). Nakamori further discloses that walls 1a to 1f comprise resin layers with conductive material layers (15) sandwiched therebetween (Fig. 8). The purpose of these conductive material layers (15) is heat insulation and electromagnetic wave shielding ([0043]). Applicant is reminded that the omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired (MPEP 2144.04.II.A.). Therefore, if it is applicant’s desire is to not include further heat insulation outside of the void space between side walls of the battery casing or electromagnetic wave shielding, then omitting the conductive material layers (15) in order to omit these functions is an obvious design variation.
While Nakamori does not disclose that the case is cylindrical, Nakamori discloses that the shape of the battery case itself is not limited, and that it “can be appropriately changed according to the form of the battery accommodated,” ([0044]).
Kim discloses a battery casing (100) with a hollow (103 – buffer space) (Fig. 1) and teaches that the battery casing is cylindrical (Fig. 1). Kim further teaches that the cylindrical batteries have advantages of high capacity and excellent structural stability ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the battery casing disclosed by Nakamori could be used for a cylindrical battery as taught by Kim as cylindrical batteries have high capacity and excellent structural stability.
With respect to claim 2, Nakamori discloses that the side case (3) includes an inner case (11 – inner wall) and an outer case (12 – outer wall) (Fig. 2), the outer case (12) extending around the inner case (11) (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3, Nakamori discloses the hollow (13) is formed between the inner case (11) and the outer case (12) (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 9, Nakamori discloses the upper case (2) includes a first coupling part (18 – convex portion) that is coupled to the side case (3) (Fig. 3).
With respect to claim 10, Nakamori discloses the side case (3) includes a second coupling part (17 – concave portion) that is coupled to the first coupling part (18) (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 11, Nakamori discloses the first coupling part (18) is a latch (labeled) that is fastened to the side case (3) (Fig. 3 - below).
With respect to claim 12, Nakamori discloses the side case (3) includes a second coupling part (17) that is coupled to the first coupling part (18) (Fig. 3), and the second coupling part (17) includes a groove (labeled) to which the latch (labeled) is fastened (Fig. 3) - above.
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamori et al. in view of Nakanishi and Kim et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 20160079584, referenced in IDS submitted 02/15/2023).
With respect to claims 4-6, Nakamori discloses a lower case (1f) (Fig. 1), but does not disclose the lower case includes a terminal connection part.
Lee discloses a cylindrical battery case (30 – case) comprising a lower case (52 – gasket) and teaches the lower case (52) includes a mounting space therein and having a shape to conform to a terminal connection part (22 – terminal) that has a stepwise-type step (221 and 222 – plate portions) formed on a side surface thereof (Fig. 3). Lee further teaches that this terminal connection part (22) allows for the terminals to be easily coupled to the electrode tabs of the battery ([0059]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to include the termina connection part as taught by Lee in the battery case disclosed by Nakamori in order for the electrode tabs to be easily coupled to the terminal.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the primary art of Nakamori discloses that the particular shape of the case disclosed is not limited, and may be changed appropriately to accommodate differently shaped battery cells ([0044]). Therefore, changing the shape of the case of Nakamori to apply to the cylindrical battery of Lee would not render the case of Nakamori ineffective for its intended purpose.
With respect to claim 7, modified Nakamori discloses a lower case (52) with a terminal connection part (22) (see rejection of claims 4-6 above), but does not explicitly disclose that the terminal connection part is formed of a metal material.
However, Lee does disclose that the terminal connection part (22) is coupled to the electrode tab (62) of the electrode assembly (10) for charging and discharging (Fig. 3, [0042]). Therefore, it is inherent that the terminal connection part (22) of Lee would have to be constructed for a metal material in order for a conductive pathway to be formed for charging and discharging. Further, Lee teaches that the lower case (52) needs to be electrically insulating in order to insulate the terminal connecting part (22) from the case (30), thus adding further evidence to the inherency that the terminal connection part (22) is formed of a metal material.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed that the terminal connection part (22) of Lee would be constructed of a metal material in order to form a conductive pathway for charging and discharging the electrode assembly (10) inside the battery.
With respect to claim 8, modified Nakamori discloses a terminal connection part (22) at a bottom of a cylindrical battery case (30), but does not explicitly teach that the negative electrode tab is the tab that is connected to the terminal connection part (22), instead teaching a tab (62) is connected. However, Lee does disclose in the “Background” section that a negative electrode tab is known to be welded to a bottom of a case of a cylindrical type rechargeable battery ([0009]). Although this paragraph is in relation to the related art of the patent, applicant is reminded that patents are relevant as prior art for all that they contain. Further, "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). Therefore, as nowhere else in the prior art of Lee is it discussed that the negative electrode tab would no longer be at the bottom of the cylindrical battery case, it is appropriate to assume that the teaching of the location of the negative electrode at the bottom of a battery case is well known and does not render the battery case of Lee ineffective.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamori et al. in view of Nakanishi and Kim et al. as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20000042978, Espacenet translation provided for reference, referenced in IDS submitted 09/25/2024).
With respect to claims 13-14, Nakamori discloses a first coupling part of the upper case coupled to a second coupling part of the side case (see above rejection of claim 9), but does not disclose the first coupling part includes a first one of a screw thread or a screw valley or that the second coupling part includes a second one of a screw threat or a screw valley coupled to the first one of the screw thread or screw valley. Instead, Nakamori discloses the first and second coupling parts are coupled via the latch/groove configuration of claims 11-12.
However, applicant is reminded that a change in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)).
Kim discloses a cylindrical battery case (14a – upper can and 14b – lower can) including an upper case (14a) including a first coupling part (16a – male screw) and a side case (14b) including a second coupling part (16b – female screw) (Fig. 1) and teaches that the first coupling part (16a) includes a first screw thread and the second coupling part (16b) includes a screw threat valley (Fig. 1, [0026]). Kim further teaches that the screw thread and screw valley allows for easy case assembly using a screw connection method ([0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed that the coupling parts disclosed by Nakamori could be in the screw thread and valley configuration taught by Kim in order to assemble the case easily using a screw connection method.
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1, the primary art of Nakamori discloses that the particular shape of the case disclosed is not limited, and may be changed appropriately to accommodate differently shaped battery cells ([0044]), and the combination of Nakamori and Kim teaches that structure. Therefore, changing the shape of the case of Nakamori to apply to the cylindrical battery of Kim would not render the case of Nakamori ineffective for its intended purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments and subsequent amendments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) helped to clarify examiner’s understanding and interpretation of the purpose of the hollow space in the battery case, however the rejection is maintained, as the disclosure still lacks support for the claimed contact between the electrolyte solution and inner surface of the battery case. Further, applicant argues that the battery case “consisting of” resin overcomes the prior art of Nakamori. However, examiner argues that omitting the other component (conductive material layer) of the battery casing of Nakamori would be an obvious design variation. See the above rejection of claim 1 for further details.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the combination of Nakamori and Kim as it applies to the presence of an electrolyte solution 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 that argument. New prior art of record, Nakanishi, has been referenced to read on this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN E BERRESFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-0641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (572)272-1330. 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.
/J.E.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727