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Claim 6 has been amended and claims 1-19 are currently pending, however claims 15-19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
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), Kim et al. (U.S. 20190207265, presented in IDS submitted 04/14/2022), and Cheng (U.S. 20200220240).
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.
Finally, Nakamori does not disclose the hollow formed in the case is empty in a vacuum state.
Cheng discloses a hollow formed between an outer case (201 – sealing layer) and an inner case (20 – enclosure) (Fig. 1b) and teaches the hollow can be emptied to a vacuum state ([0082]). Cheng further teaches that the vacuum state achieve a high thermal insulation ([0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time that the application was effectively filed to apply a vacuum state as taught by Cheng to the hollow formed in the case disclosed by Nakamori in order to achieve high thermal insulation.
It is noted that the case in Cheng is a module case housing several batteries therein, instead of a primary casing of a single battery. However, this difference does not change the validity of the teaching of a vacuum state achieving high thermal insulation. Applicant is reminded that an example of rationale that may support a conclusion of obviousness includes the se of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (MPEP [2143.I.C.]). In this instance, applying the known technique of apply a vacuum state in a hollow module case to increase thermal insulation to the similar battery case supports the conclusion of obviousness.
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).
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
388
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, see pages 6-8 of response, filed 06/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 103 using Nakamori in view of Nakanishi and Kim 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 35 U.S.C. 103 using Nakamori in view of Nakanishi, Kim, and Cheng. Cheng has been used to read on the vacuum state of the hollow portion of the battery case.
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
Prosecution Insights