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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/22/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura, et. al. (US2023057980A1), in view of Katsumoto, et. al. (US2022384919A1), Onodera, et. al. (US2006040177A1), and Seong, et. al. (WO2018048112A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitamura teaches a rechargeable battery (“secondary battery”) comprising: an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 10’) including a first electrode (positive electrode 1), a second electrode (negative electrode 2), and a separator (separator 3) between the first electrode and the second electrode; a case (exterior body 50) connected to the first electrode to house the electrode assembly, and including an opening to expose the electrode assembly (see Fig. 3., wherein the opening is the space covered by the cap plate [exterior member 52] as described later) ; a cap plate (exterior member 52) coupled with the case to cover an outer region of the opening and including a through-hole (hole in exterior member 52, as shown in Fig. 3). Kitamura at [0010-15], Fig. 1-3. Kitamura teaches the cap plate comprises a flange portion part having a protruded part in a center region of the opening. Id. at Fig. 3, wherein the protruding part is the element extending beneath the numeral 60, and the flange part is the lengthwise portion of the “T” shaped formed by the flange and protruding parts). Kitamura teaches a terminal plate (Fig. 3, external connection terminal 60, which is provided on the lid-shaped exterior member 52 side) to be insulated from and bonded to the cap plate (“[0089] an external connection terminal 60 . . . is electrically separated from the exterior member 52 by an insulating member 70”). Id. at [0089].
Kitamura teaches an insulating member 70 which “electrically separate[s]” the lid-shaped exterior member 52, wherein the material of the insulating member 70 is “an insulating bonding material,” which may contain “a thermoplastic resin.” Kitamura at [0089-90]. A thermoplastic resin reads upon a “thermal fusion layer,” because a thermoplastic resin is any resin which becomes moldable at an elevated temperature and solidifies upon cooling, and the thermoplastic resin is taught to have “bondability,” indicating it is used to fuse together two components. Id. Thus, Kitamura teaches a thermal fusion layer insulatedly bonding the cap plate and the flange part. However, Kitamura does not teach a flange part.
While Kitamura does not teach the through-hole exposes a center region of the opening, and flange part covering this through-hole, or the specific diameters of the flange or protruded part, “wherein a ratio of a diameter of the protruded part to a diameter of the flange part is 2/25 to 3/5 [0.08 to 0.6],” is relevant to Fig. 3 of Kitamura. First, “a diameter” reads upon diameter measured in the x or y direction. Fig. 3 shows the diameter of the flange part is greater than that of the protruded part, and while not specified as to scale, a 97 pixel to 15 pixel ratio (~0.15). This provides at least a suggestion that the ratio of the flange to the protruding part would fall within the claimed range.
Kitamura teaches the flange part (external connection terminal 60) is provided on the lid exterior member 52 side, reading upon, “flange part is arranged on the cap plate,” but is silent as to the protruded part being connected to the second electrode. Kitamura at [0087].
PNG
media_image1.png
563
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Kitamura.
Katsumoto teaches a battery 10 having a container part 11, which has an opening 11 K covered by a cover part 12, wherein cover part 12 comprises a recessed part 12 P, containing a through hole 12 K, such that the ratio of the inner diameter 12 ID of the recessed part 12P to the outer diameter 12 of OD of the cover part 12 is 66.7%. Katsumoto at [0036, 186-87]. Katsumoto teaches “[f]or example, in order to suppress a rise in contact resistance between a current collector and a terminal while suppressing a decrease in internal space efficiency of a battery, the terminal is provided to penetrate a cover part of a battery case and to extend through an insertion hole provided in the current collector, with a packing interposed at a portion of a joint part between the current collector and the terminal,” and that the invention of Katsumoto improves energy density and manufacturing stability. Id. at [0004, 6]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; because one of skill would have expected a ratio of 0.6 to be the same as 0.667, the ratio of Katsumoto reads upon, “a flange part covering [a] through- hole and a protruded part penetrating the through-hole from the flange part, wherein a ratio of a diameter of the protruded part to a diameter of the flange part is 2/25 to 3/5.” MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Katsumoto teaches a first electrode tab extending from the first electrode and welded to the case (see the bottom electrode tab 252; while this is described as “coupled” to the cover part 212, the cover part 212 is assembled and connected to the container 11 via welding, creating a logical inference that this coupling of the tab to the container would be performed identically); and a second electrode tab extending from the second electrode (top electrode tab 251). Katsumoto at Fig. 13. Katsumoto teaches a positive electrode lead 251 is coupled to the electrode 230 via through hole 212 K provided in cover part 212. Katsumoto at [0165], Fig. 13. This through-hole in the modification of Kitamura is located within the protruded part.
PNG
media_image2.png
433
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Katsumoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would find it obvious to modify the battery of Kitamura, such that within the cap plate 52 and the external connection terminal 60 of Kitamura includes the through hole 12 K of Katsumoto, disposed within (instead of the recessed portion) the protruding part (60) of Kitamura, having the ratio of a diameter of the protruded part to a diameter of the flange part of 0.667 as taught by Katsumoto, such that a thermal fusion layer between the cap plate (as in Kitamura) and the flange part (of Katsumoto) and insulatedly bonding the cap plate and the flange part (i.e. like the insulating member 70 of Katsumoto), and such that the electrode assembly includes a first electrode tab extending from the first electrode and welded to the case (see the bottom electrode tab 252; while this is described as “coupled” to the cover part 212, the cover part 212 is assembled and connected to the container 11 via welding), and a second electrode tab extending from the second electrode and welded to the protruded part of the terminal plate (top electrode tab 251). This would be obvious because Katsumoto teaches a balance between contact resistance and space efficiency, and a benefit to energy density and manufacturing stability.
Further, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) specifies that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Because the configuration of Kitamura within its figures apparently falls within the claimed range (even if the figures are not to scale), and primarily lacks a recitation of the relative dimensions (here, the diameter of the protruding portion), one of skill in the art would not expect the flange of Kitamura to perform differently and thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from modified Kitamura.
Regarding the amended terms, modified Kitamura is silent as to “wherein the thermal fusion layer is entirely arranged between an outer periphery of the through-hole in the cap plate and an outer periphery of the flange part of the terminal plate, wherein the thermal fusion layer is non-overlapping with the through-hole in the cap plate.”
Onodera teaches a coin or button type cell (Fig. 1) wherein a cap 6 is placed above a through-hole formed by the anode terminal 7 and container 1, and is secured using the bonding material 5. Onodera at [0022 – 24, 33], Fig. 1. The portion of the cap 6 which extends beyond the through-hole and covers a portion of the container reads upon a “flange,” as an extending portion, and the bonding layer 5 is “weld[ed]” between cap 6 and container 1. Id. at Fig. 1, [0028]. This indicates Onodera teaches “wherein the thermal fusion layer (bonding material 5) is entirely arranged between an outer periphery of the through-hole (the opening formed by anode terminal 7 and container 1) in the cap plate (see Fig. 1, wherein the bonding portion is not in the through-hole) and an outer periphery of the flange part of the terminal plate (see Fig. 1, where the bonding material 5 does not extend beyond the flange), wherein the thermal fusion layer is non-overlapping with the through-hole in the cap plate (see above).” Id. Onodera teaches this structure has the benefit of reducing fluid leakage [0031 – 32], wherein “[0010] The invention intends to provide an electrochemical cell in which the inspection for the liquid leakage can be easily performed.” Id. at [0010, 31-32], Fig. 1. Onodera teaches that during the leak tests in which the cells may leak electrolyte, visual inspection is performed for white supporting salt and a gel component, allowing the identification of even small holes. Id. at [0032]. In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP 2144.01. Here, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would expect it to be easier to identify a gel or white residue, without the material of a bonding material 5 used for welding (e.g. a metallic solder) in the location being examined for leakage, because in some cases this dried gel or excess material would be visually similar to bonding material 5. For this reason, Onodera at least suggests a benefit to the thermal fusion layer being entirely arranged between an outer periphery of the through hole in the cap plate and an outer periphery of the flange part of the terminal plate. See id.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the rechargeable battery of modified Kitamura with the thermal fusion layer (bonding material 5) configuration of Onodera, because Onodera at least suggests a benefit to easier identification of leaks when using this configuration.
Regarding the amended terms, modified Kitamura teaches “the electrode assembly further includes a first tab extending from the first electrode at a lower end of the electrode assembly and welded to the case, and a second electrode tab extending from the second electrode at an upper end of the electrode assembly and welded to the protruded part of the terminal plate,” because Katsumoto teaches negative electrode lead 252 extending to the bottom portion of the battery can, and 251 extending to the top portion of the battery can at Fig. 13 of Katsumoto.
PNG
media_image3.png
524
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Katsumoto.
Regarding the “a flange part covering the through hole and a protruded part penetrating the through hole from the flange part and extending under the cap plate into the case,” the Office notes that “extending under the cap plate into the case” is slightly broader in scope from “extending under the cap plate into an interior space of the case which houses the electrode assembly” or the like. “Into the case,” includes, for example, compartments or pockets within the interior space of the case, but separated from the main housing section containing the electrodes. The previously applied bottom end 30T of Katsumoto protrudes downwards, but further consideration suggests that this fills a “non-device space 20S,” presenting an ambiguity as to whether this non-device space 20S is “into the case.” Without conceding as to whether this is within the case, the newly applied reference Seong addresses the term “a flange part covering the through hole and a protruded part penetrating the through hole from the flange part and extending under the cap plate into the case.”
Seong teaches a secondary battery, having a cap plate 110, upper flange portion 150, first uneven surface S1 on the upper side of the cap plate, and a terminal hole 110’. Seong at Fig. 1, [p.3-5]. Further, the gasket 151 surrounds the outer circumference of the terminal hole 110, while the electrode terminal 150 is inserted into the hole, wherein “[p.3] For example, the electrode terminal 150 may be assembled so as to pass through the cap plate 110, the insulating plate 120, and the terminal plate 130 sequentially from the top to the bottom of the cap plate 110 . . . the electrode terminal 150 is assembled to penetrate the cap plate 110, the insulating plate 120, and the terminal plate 130, and the upper portion of the cap plate 110 And a lower flange portion 150b that is pressed onto the lower surface of the terminal plate 130. At this time, the cap plate 110, the insulating plate 120, and the terminal plate 130 can be pressed against each other between the upper flange portion 150a and the lower flange portion 150b of the electrode terminal 150 have. That is, the cap plate 110, the insulating plate 120, and the terminal plate 130 are in close contact with each other between the upper flange portion 150a and the lower flange portion 150b of the electrode terminal 150, And can be integrated while forming a contact surface with each other.” Seong at [p.3], Fig. 1-4. Seong teaches that its structure allows “[p.1.] the fastening force of the electrode terminal is strengthened, and the electric resistance of the electrode terminal is kept low when the charging and discharging current flows, and the output characteristic can be kept constant,” specifically thanks to the shape of the electrode terminal, the uneven surface, and the gasket.
PNG
media_image4.png
685
592
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Seong.
PNG
media_image5.png
828
676
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Seong.
PNG
media_image6.png
685
593
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3-4 of Seong.
This indicates Seong teaches “a flange part [terminal 150] covering the through hole [upper flange part 150a] and a protruded part [lower flange portion 150b] penetrating the through hole from the flange part and extending under the cap plate into the case [“the electrode terminal 150 is assembled to penetrate the cap plate 110, the insulating plate 120, and the terminal plate 130, and the upper portion of the cap plate 110”].” Seong at p.3-5, Fig. 1-4.
Oner of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the battery of modified Kitamura, such that it comprises “a flange part (electrode terminal 150) covering [i.e., upper flange part 150a] the through hole [terminal hole 110’] and a protruded part [lower flange portion 150b] penetrating the through hole from the flange part and extending under the cap plate into the case [“the electrode terminal 150 is assembled to penetrate the cap plate 110, the insulating plate 120, and the terminal plate 130, and the upper portion of the cap plate 110”],” because Seong teaches a benefit to secure fastening while preventing an increase in internal resistance or loss of output.
As such, Claim 1 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches an insulating member 70 which “electrically separate[s]” the lid-shaped exterior member 52, wherein the material of the insulating member 70 is “an insulating bonding material,” which may contain “a thermoplastic resin.” Kitamura at [0089-90]. A thermoplastic resin reads upon a “thermal fusion layer,” because a thermoplastic resin is any resin which becomes moldable at an elevated temperature and solidifies upon cooling, and the thermoplastic resin is taught to have “bondability,” indicating it is used to fuse together two components. Id. Thus, Kitamura teaches a thermal fusion layer between the cap plate and the flange part and insulatedly bonding the cap plate and the flange part. Further, because the predetermined temperature is not defined within the claim, the “elevated temperature” above reads upon a pre-determined temperature. Further, because the moldable and “bondability” qualities are primarily relevant to the molding of the insulating layer and subsequent cooling to form a separating layer, the process of melting is at least suggested by this feature.
While this is arguably already contained within the prior modification, to the extent that a heat fusion layer composed of a thermoplastic resin does not directly disclose melting, it would be obvious to further modify Kitamura such that the heat fusion layer is specifically melted at a predetermined temperature.
As such, Claim 3 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches the flange part (external connection terminal 60) is provided on the lid exterior member 52 side, reading upon, “flange part is arranged on the cap plate,” but is silent as to the protruded part being connected to the second electrode. Kitamura at [0087].
Katsumoto teaches a positive electrode lead 251 is coupled to the electrode 230 via through hole 212 K provided in cover part 212. Katsumoto at [0165], Fig. 13. This through-hole in the modification of Kitamura is located within the protruded part. Therefore, modified Katsumoto teaches the protruded part is connected to the second electrode through the through-hole from the flange part.
PNG
media_image3.png
524
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 13 of Katsumoto.
As such, Claim 4 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches the flange part (the horizontally extending component of external connection terminal 60) has a wider area than the protruded part (the vertical protruding component of external connection terminal 60). Kitamura at Fig. 3.
As such, Claim 6 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches the flange part has a thinner thickness than the protruded part., because “thickness,” reads upon a greater extension in the y direction, and the “protrusion” in this direction is more than the relatively thinner flange. Kitamura at Fig. 3.
As such, Claim 7 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 7 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches the flange part and the protruded part are integrally formed (both being a part of the external connection terminal 60). Kitamura at Fig. 3.
As such, Claim 8 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches an external connection terminal 60, which is separate from the exterior lid member 52. Kitamura at Fig. 3, [0089].
Katsumoto teaches the negative electrode lead 252 is connected to container 11, and that the positive electrode lead 251 is connected to the cover part 212 via the through-hole 212K. Katsumoto at Fig. 13. This indicates the container 11 would have the polarity of the negative electrode, and the through-hole 212 and cover part 212 would have the polarity of the positive electrode. Id.
As modified, the external connection terminal 60 comprises the through hole 212K. Because the external connection terminal 60 is separate from the remainder of the exterior lid member 52, the exterior lid member 52 logically would have the polarity of the container, namely that of the negative electrode as modified. Similarly, because the through-hole is modified to be comprised within the external connection terminal, it would have the polarity of the positive electrode. As previously stated, the first electrode of Kitamura is the positive electrode, and the second electrode is the negative electrode; however, because Fig. 13 of Katsumoto discloses the required arrangement, it would be obvious to instead select the configuration of Katsumoto such that the case and the cap plate have a same polarity as the first electrode, and the terminal plate has a same polarity as the second electrode.
As such, Claim 9 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 10, Claim 10 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches the diameter of the flange part is smaller than a diameter of the case (see Fig 3, external connection terminal 60). Kitamura at Fig. 3.
As such, Claim 10 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 11, Claim 11 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Katsumoto teaches a battery 10 having a container part 11, which has an opening 11 K covered by a cover part 12, wherein cover part 12 comprises a recessed part 12 P, containing a through hole 12 K, such that the ratio of the inner diameter 12 ID of the recessed part 12P to the outer diameter 12 of OD of the cover part 12 is 66.7%. Kitamura at [0036, 186-87]. Katsumoto teaches “[f]or example, in order to suppress a rise in contact resistance between a current collector and a terminal while suppressing a decrease in internal space efficiency of a battery, the terminal is provided to penetrate a cover part of a battery case and to extend through an insertion hole provided in the current collector, with a packing interposed at a portion of a joint part between the current collector and the terminal,” and that the invention of Katsumoto improves energy density and manufacturing stability. Id. at [0004, 6]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; because one of skill would have expected a ratio of 0.6 to be the same as 0.667, the ratio of Katsumoto reads upon, “the ratio of the diameter of the protruded part to the diameter of the flange part is 1/10 to 3/5.” MPEP 2144.05(I).
As such, Claim 11 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 12, Claim 12 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
While Kitamura does not teach the ratio of the diameter of the protruded part to the diameter of the flange part is 1/10 to 1/2, Fig. 3 shows the diameter of the flange part is greater than that of the protruded part, and while not specified as to scale, a 97 pixel to 15 pixel ratio (~0.15). This provides at least a suggestion that the ratio of the flange to the protruding part would fall within the claimed range.
MPEP 2144.04 (IV) specifies that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Because the configuration of Kitamura within its figures apparently falls within the claimed range (even if the figures are not to scale), and primarily lacks a recitation of the relative dimensions (here, the diameter of the protruding portion), one of skill in the art would not expect the flange of Kitamura to perform differently and thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from modified Kitamura.
As such, Claim 12 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
While Kitamura does not teach the ratio of the diameter of the protruded part to the diameter of the flange part is 1/10 to 1/3, Fig. 3 shows the diameter of the flange part is greater than that of the protruded part, and while not specified as to scale, a 97 pixel to 15 pixel ratio (~0.15). This provides at least a suggestion that the ratio of the flange to the protruding part would fall within the claimed range.
MPEP 2144.04 (IV) specifies that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Because the configuration of Kitamura within its figures apparently falls within the claimed range (even if the figures are not to scale), and primarily lacks a recitation of the relative dimensions (here, the diameter of the protruding portion), one of skill in the art would not expect the flange of Kitamura to perform differently and thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from modified Kitamura.
As such, Claim 13 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 relies upon Claim 1. Claim 1 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches the rechargeable battery includes a coin-type cell. Kitamura at [0012].
As such, Claim 14 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 relies upon Claim 14. Claim 14 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura teaches a ratio of a height to a diameter of the coin-type cell (height/diameter) is 1 or less (Fig. 1A-3 show a height of the cell is less than the length or diameter, diameter being shown in Fig. 2). Kitamura at Fig. 1A- 3.
PNG
media_image7.png
390
452
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Kitamura.
As such, Claim 15 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 16, Regarding Claim 1, Kitamura teaches a rechargeable battery (“secondary battery”) comprising: an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 10’) including a first electrode (positive electrode 1), a second electrode (negative electrode 2), and a separator (separator 3) between the first electrode and the second electrode; a case (exterior body 50) connected to the first electrode to house the electrode assembly, and including an opening to expose the electrode assembly (see Fig. 3., wherein the opening is the space covered by the cap plate [exterior member 52] as described later) ; a cap plate (exterior member 52) coupled with the case to cover an outer region of the opening and including a through-hole (hole in exterior member 52, as shown in Fig. 3). Kitamura at [0010-15], Fig. 1-3. Kitamura teaches the cap plate comprises a flange portion part having a protruded part in a center region of the opening. Id. at Fig. 3, wherein the protruding part is the element extending beneath the numeral 60, and the flange part is the lengthwise portion of the “T” shaped formed by the flange and protruding parts). Kitamura teaches a terminal plate (Fig. 3, external connection terminal 60, which is provided on the lid-shaped exterior member 52 side) to be insulated from and bonded to the cap plate (“[0089] an external connection terminal 60 . . . is electrically separated from the exterior member 52 by an insulating member 70”). Id. at [0089].
Kitamura teaches an insulating member 70 which “electrically separate[s]” the lid-shaped exterior member 52, wherein the material of the insulating member 70 is “an insulating bonding material,” which may contain “a thermoplastic resin.” Kitamura at [0089-90]. A thermoplastic resin reads upon a “thermal fusion layer,” because a thermoplastic resin is any resin which becomes moldable at an elevated temperature and solidifies upon cooling, and the thermoplastic resin is taught to have “bondability,” indicating it is used to fuse together two components. Id. Thus, Kitamura teaches a thermal fusion layer insulatedly bonding the cap plate and the flange part. However, Kitamura does not teach a flange part.
While Kitamura does not teach the through-hole exposes a center region of the opening, and flange part covering this through-hole, or the specific diameters of the flange or protruded part, “wherein a ratio of a diameter of the protruded part to a diameter of the flange part is 2/25 or more [0.08 or more],” is relevant to Fig. 3 of Kitamura. First, “a diameter” reads upon diameter measured in the x or y direction. Fig. 3 shows the diameter of the flange part is greater than that of the protruded part, and while not specified as to scale, a 97 pixel to 15 pixel ratio (~0.15). This provides at least a suggestion that the ratio of the flange to the protruding part would fall within the claimed range.
Kitamura teaches the flange part (external connection terminal 60) is provided on the lid exterior member 52 side, reading upon, “flange part is arranged on the cap plate,” but is silent as to the protruded part being connected to the second electrode. Kitamura at [0087].
PNG
media_image1.png
563
471
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Kitamura.
Katsumoto teaches a battery 10 having a container part 11, which has an opening 11 K covered by a cover part 12, wherein cover part 12 comprises a recessed part 12 P, containing a through hole 12 K, such that the ratio of the inner diameter 12 ID of the recessed part 12P to the outer diameter 12 of OD of the cover part 12 is 66.7%. Katsumoto at [0036, 186-87]. Katsumoto teaches “[f]or example, in order to suppress a rise in contact resistance between a current collector and a terminal while suppressing a decrease in internal space efficiency of a battery, the terminal is provided to penetrate a cover part of a battery case and to extend through an insertion hole provided in the current collector, with a packing interposed at a portion of a joint part between the current collector and the terminal,” and that the invention of Katsumoto improves energy density and manufacturing stability. Id. at [0004, 6]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; because one of skill would have expected a ratio of 0.6 to be the same as 0.667, the ratio of Katsumoto reads upon, “a flange part covering [a] through- hole and a protruded part penetrating the through-hole from the flange part, wherein a ratio of a diameter of the protruded part to a diameter of the flange part is 2/25 or more.” MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Katsumoto teaches a first electrode tab extending from the first electrode and welded to the case (see the bottom electrode tab 252; while this is described as “coupled” to the cover part 212, the cover part 212 is assembled and connected to the container 11 via welding, creating a logical inference that this coupling of the tab to the container would be performed identically); and a second electrode tab extending from the second electrode (top electrode tab 251). Katsumoto at Fig. 13. Katsumoto teaches a positive electrode lead 251 is coupled to the electrode 230 via through hole 212 K provided in cover part 212. Katsumoto at [0165], Fig. 13. This through-hole in the modification of Kitamura is located within the protruded part.
PNG
media_image2.png
433
554
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Katsumoto.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the battery of Kitamura, such that within the cap plate 52 and the external connection terminal 60 of Kitamura includes the through hole 12 K of Katsumoto, disposed within (instead of the recessed portion) the protruding part (60) of Kitamura, having the ratio of a diameter of the protruded part to a diameter of the flange part of 0.667 as taught by Katsumoto, such that a thermal fusion layer between the cap plate (as in Kitamura) and the flange part (of Katsumoto) and insulatedly bonding the cap plate and the flange part (i.e. like the insulating member 70 of Katsumoto), and such that the electrode assembly includes a first electrode tab extending from the first electrode and welded to the case (see the bottom electrode tab 252; while this is described as “coupled” to the cover part 212, the cover part 212 is assembled and connected to the container 11 via welding), and a second electrode tab extending from the second electrode and welded to the protruded part of the terminal plate (top electrode tab 251). This would be obvious because Katsumoto teaches a balance between contact resistance and space efficiency, and a benefit to energy density and manufacturing stability.
Further, MPEP 2144.04 (IV) specifies that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Because the configuration of Kitamura within its figures apparently falls within the claimed range (even if the figures are not to scale), and primarily lacks a recitation of the relative dimensions (here, the diameter of the protruding portion), one of skill in the art would not expect the flange of Kitamura to perform differently and thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from modified Kitamura.
Regarding the amended terms, modified Kitamura is silent as to “wherein the thermal fusion layer is entirely arranged between an outer periphery of the through-hole in the cap plate and an outer periphery of the flange part of the terminal plate, wherein the thermal fusion layer is non-overlapping with the through-hole in the cap plate.”
Onodera teaches a coin or button type cell (Fig. 1) wherein a cap 6 is placed above a through-hole formed by the anode terminal 7 and container 1, and is secured using the bonding material 5. Onodera at [0022 – 24, 33], Fig. 1. The portion of the cap 6 which extends beyond the through-hole and covers a portion of the container reads upon a “flange,” as an extending portion, and the bonding layer 5 is “weld[ed]” between cap 6 and container 1. Id. at Fig. 1, [0028]. This indicates Onodera teaches “wherein the thermal fusion layer (bonding material 5) is entirely arranged between an outer periphery of the through-hole (the opening formed by anode terminal 7 and container 1) in the cap plate (see Fig. 1, wherein the bonding portion is not in the through-hole) and an outer periphery of the flange part of the terminal plate (see Fig. 1, where the bonding material 5 does not extend beyond the flange), wherein the thermal fusion layer is non-overlapping with the through-hole in the cap plate (see above).” Id. Onodera teaches this structure has the benefit of reducing fluid leakage [0031 – 32], wherein “[0010] The invention intends to provide an electrochemical cell in which the inspection for the liquid leakage can be easily performed.” Id. at [0010, 31-32], Fig. 1. Onodera teaches that during the leak tests in which the cells may leak electrolyte, visual inspection is performed for white supporting salt and a gel component, allowing the identification of even small holes. Id. at [0032]. In considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. MPEP 2144.01. Here, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would expect it to be easier to identify a gel or white residue, without the material of a bonding material 5 used for welding (e.g. a metallic solder) in the location being examined for leakage, because in some cases this dried gel or excess material would be visually similar to bonding material 5. For this reason, Onodera at least suggests a benefit to the thermal fusion layer being entirely arranged between an outer periphery of the through hole in the cap plate and an outer periphery of the flange part of the terminal plate. See id.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to further modify the rechargeable battery of modified Kitamura with the thermal fusion layer (bonding material 5) configuration of Onodera, because Onodera at least suggests a benefit to easier identification of leaks when using this configuration.
As such, Claim 16 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 relies upon Claim 16. Claim 16 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Katsumoto teaches a battery 10 having a container part 11, which has an opening 11 K covered by a cover part 12, wherein cover part 12 comprises a recessed part 12 P, containing a through hole 12 K, such that the ratio of the inner diameter 12 ID of the recessed part 12P to the outer diameter 12 of OD of the cover part 12 is 66.7%. Kitamura at [0036, 186-87]. Katsumoto teaches “[f]or example, in order to suppress a rise in contact resistance between a current collector and a terminal while suppressing a decrease in internal space efficiency of a battery, the terminal is provided to penetrate a cover part of a battery case and to extend through an insertion hole provided in the current collector, with a packing interposed at a portion of a joint part between the current collector and the terminal,” and that the invention of Katsumoto improves energy density and manufacturing stability. Id. at [0004, 6]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close; because one of skill would have expected a ratio of 0.6 to be the same as 0.667, the ratio of Katsumoto reads upon, “the ratio of the diameter of the protruded part to the diameter of the flange part is 3/5 or less.” MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, Kitamura Fig. 3 shows the diameter of the flange part is greater than that of the protruded part, and while not specified as to scale, a 97 pixel to 15 pixel ratio (~0.15). This provides at least a suggestion that the ratio of the flange to the protruding part would fall within the claimed range.
MPEP 2144.04 (IV) specifies that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Because the configuration of Kitamura within its figures apparently falls within the claimed range (even if the figures are not to scale), and primarily lacks a recitation of the relative dimensions (here, the diameter of the protruding portion), one of skill in the art would not expect the flange of Kitamura to perform differently and thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from modified Kitamura.
As such, Claim 17 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 relies upon Claim 16. Claim 16 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura Fig. 3 shows the diameter of the flange part is greater than that of the protruded part, and while not specified as to scale, a 97 pixel to 15 pixel ratio (~0.15). This provides at least a suggestion that the ratio of the flange to the protruding part would fall within the claimed range (less than 1/2).
MPEP 2144.04 (IV) specifies that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Because the configuration of Kitamura within its figures apparently falls within the claimed range (even if the figures are not to scale), and primarily lacks a recitation of the relative dimensions (here, the diameter of the protruding portion), one of skill in the art would not expect the flange of Kitamura to perform differently and thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from modified Kitamura.
As such, Claim 18 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 relies upon Claim 16. Claim 19 is obvious over modified Kitamura.
Kitamura Fig. 3 shows the diameter of the flange part is greater than that of the protruded part, and while not specified as to scale, a 97 pixel to 15 pixel ratio (~0.15). This provides at least a suggestion that the ratio of the flange to the protruding part would fall within the claimed range (less than 1/3).
MPEP 2144.04 (IV) specifies that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Because the configuration of Kitamura within its figures apparently falls within the claimed range (even if the figures are not to scale), and primarily lacks a recitation of the relative dimensions (here, the diameter of the protruding portion), one of skill in the art would not expect the flange of Kitamura to perform differently and thus the claimed device is not patentably distinct from modified Kitamura.
As such, Claim 19 is obvious over Kitamura, in view of Katsumoto, Onodera, and Seong.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the “a flange part covering the through hole and a protruded part penetrating the through hole from the flange part and extending under the cap plate into the case,” the Office notes that “extending under the cap plate into the case” is slightly broader in scope from “extending under the cap plate into an interior space of the case which houses the electrode assembly” or the like. “Into the case,” includes, for example, compartments or pockets within the interior space of the case, but separated from the main housing section containing the electrodes. The previously applied bottom end 30T of Katsumoto protrudes downwards, but further consideration suggests that this fills a “non-device space 20S,” presenting an ambiguity as to whether this non-device space 20S is “into the case.” Without conceding as to whether this is within the case, the newly applied reference Seong addresses the term “a flange part covering the through hole and a protruded part penetrating the through hole from the flange part and extending under the cap plate into the case.” This indicates that Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISHNA RAJAN HAMMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-9997. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:30 PM M-F.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.R.H./Examiner , Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
