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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 10-11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al (PGPUB 2019/0252732).
Claim 1: Instant claim lays weight to a cap assembly that is configured to be hermetically sealed and a through-hole that is hermetically sealed by a sealing portion – this limitation is met by a feature of the bottom of the can having a through-hole and sealed by the upper sealing of the cylindrical battery OR by a plug. The instant claim does not positively recite a plug and the hermetically sealing features of the top whereby the can may only have one seal. Instant claim also includes scope where the bottom portion of the can includes multiple parts like insulating members or controller sealed areas that comprise through-holes as the claims are written as “comprising” and the instant claim is silent to positively recite the through-hole passes through the bottom of the can – recitation of “bottom portion” may include additional elements that are located at the bottom of the battery.
Park teaches an electrode assembly and secondary battery [Abstract]. The secondary battery (100) is cylindrical and comprises a can (110) having a circular bottom portion and a cylindrically shaped outer wall connected to an outer circumference of the bottom portion [Fig 1-3]. A jelly-roll type of electrode assembly (120) is received by the can wherein the positive and negative electrodes are wound with a separator therebetween [Fig 2, 3]. A cap assembly (130) is configured to hermetically seal (138, 133) the can [0039; Fig 1-2]. The bottom portion comprises a feature (128) having a through-hole (128b) which is located at a central portion of the bottom portion of the can and spaced apart from a region which comprises the negative electrode tab (124a, 124b) [Fig 2]. The negative electrode tab is welded to the bottom of the case located in the bottom portion of the cylindrical cell [0055; Fig 3]. The holes of the feature do not interfere with the welding of the negative electrode terminal and are spaced apart from the region of direct welding [Fig 3].
Claim 2: Park teaches a bottom portion of the can to have a concave portion formed [Fig 3].
PNG
media_image1.png
117
361
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Park teaches a center portion of the bottom portion to comprise a flat surface [Fig 3].
Claim 6: Park teaches the through-hole (128b) is circular [Fig 2].
Claim 10: Park teaches the sealing portion (138) comprises a radius of a central portion which is less than a radius of an outer periphery thereof, the sealing portion comprises additional features (133) which are included and act as a plug into the can of the assembly [Fig 2].
Claim 11: Park teaches the sealing portion (138, 133) to comprise a projection that has a stepwise decrease and gradual decrease portion [Fig 3].
Claim 16: Instant claim does not lay weight to the sealing portion being in direct contact with the negative electrode tab welded to the cylindrical can. Park teaches a sealing portion which covers the negative electrode tab that is welded to the cylindrical can when looking from a top-down view of the battery invention as the sealing portion comprises the features (133) to hermetically seal the assembly.
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (PGPUB 2019/0252732) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoon et al (KR2019-0033026).
Claim 2-4: Instant claim recites “is concave inwardly of the cylindrical battery.” Park teaches a concave inward portion as defined by the sidewalls and bottom portion making a “C” shape facing up into the batter from the bottom portion. An alternative interpretation of the instant claim is the concave portion protrudes into the battery with the “C” concave portion facing down and located on the bottom portion. Park does not teach a bottom of a battery cell to have this downward facing C shape formed on the bottom portion of the can.
Hoon teaches a cylindrical secondary battery comprising a jelly-roll electrode and a bottom surface having a curved shape such that it is concave inward as a whole [Abstract]. This concave portion is such that it has a center flat portion (103) and varying radius of curvature from the outer periphery to the center [Fig 2-4]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shape of the bottom portion of the can of Park to include the concavely pointing outward configuration [Fig 2] as taught by Hoon in order to reduce the risk of the can exploding [Background Art].
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (PGPUB 2019/0252732) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al (WO 2018/190530)
Claim 7-8: Park teaches a gasket (138) as part of the hermetically sealing feature of the battery, but is silent to teach the material thereof.
Jin teaches a secondary battery with improved sealing characteristics [Abstract]. The top cap assembly (20) that is hermetically sealed by a gasket (30) and hot melt polymer of thermoplastic resin material (40) [Best-Mode]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify sealing gasket material of Park to include a thermoplastic resin in order to improve the sealing characteristics and manufacturing capability of the battery assembly [Field of Technology].
Claim(s) 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (PGPUB 2019/0252732) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of So et al (CN 104952635).
Claim 7, 9: Park teaches a gasket (138) as part of the hermetically sealing feature of the battery, but is silent to teach the material thereof.
So teaches an electrochemical storage device [Abstract]. The sealing element (160) as a radial change portion, ledge (162, 164) and it taught to be made of non-conductive elastomer material [Fig 2; Preferred Embodiment description of Fig 2]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the gasket material of Park with the polymer elastomer material of So in order to provide increase the flexibility and compressibility of sealing elements.
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 STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights