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 Amendment
In response to the amendments received 06/18/2025:
Claims 1, and 3-12 are pending in the current application. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claim 1 has been amended to include claim 2 and further, a recitation that “…the first mating surface is recessed toward the battery cover” in light of Fig. 2-3. Claim 11 has been amended to be independent.
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claim 11 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Group I, drawn to claims 1, 3-9, 12 and Group II, drawn to claim 11, lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a pre-assembly unit comprising: a housing provided with an accommodating cavity, wherein the housing comprises an annular receiving body and a limiting body protruding from the receiving body, the receiving body is sleeved on an outer side of the accommodating cavity and is provided at an opening of the accommodating cavity, the limiting body is in a ring shape and is disposed on the outer side the accommodating cavity; a sealing ring comprising a first annular body disposed above the receiving body; and a battery cover disposed above the first annular body; wherein the limiting body is provided with a bendable portion disposed above the battery cover, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Xiaodan et al. (CN 205645912 U). Xiadon teaches the above limitation, as shown in the rejection of claim 1, below.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiaodan et al. (CN 205645912 U).
Regarding claim 1, Xiaodan teaches a pre-assembly unit comprising:
a housing provided with an accommodating cavity, wherein the housing comprises an
annular receiving body 8 and a limiting body 80 protruding from the receiving body, the receiving body is sleeved on an outer side of the accommodating cavity, comprising cell 9, and is provided at an opening of the accommodating cavity, the limiting body is in a ring shape and is disposed on the outer side the accommodating cavity;
a sealing ring 1 comprising a first annular body disposed above the receiving body; and a battery cover 2/3 disposed above the first annular body; wherein the limiting body is provided with a bendable portion disposed above the battery cover (P24-27.32; Fig. 1) and shown in examiner annotated Fig. 1 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
358
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Xiaodan teaches a first arc-shaped transiting portion provided between the receiving body and the opening of the accommodating cavity, the first annular body is provided with a first mating surface matching with the first arc-shaped transiting portion (P23.26-28; Fig. 1-2), noted by the first mating surface of annotated Fig. 1, above, wherein the first mating surface is compressed with a recession toward the battery cover, as shown in annotated Fig. 1, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
202
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Xiaodan teaches the first annular body is provided with a first compensating protrusion 5, and the first compensating protrusion 5 is disposed toward the battery cover 2/3 and adjacent to the limiting body (P23.26-28; Fig. 1-2), and shown in annotated Fig. 1, above.
Regarding claim 4, Xiaodan teaches the sealing ring further comprises a second annular body matched with the limiting body, the second annular body is fixedly connected to the first annular body to form an “L” shape, and the second annular body is partially extended above the battery cover 2/3 (P8-10.23-27; Fig. 1-2), and shown in annotated Fig. 1, above.
Regarding claim 5, Xiaodan teaches the battery cover 2/3 abuts against the second annular body (P8-10.23-27; Fig. 1-2), as shown in annotated Fig. 1, above.
Regarding claim 6, Xiaodan teaches a second arc-shaped transiting portion is provided between the receiving body and the limiting body, a second mating surface matched with the second arc-shaped transiting portion is provided between the first annular body and the second annular body, and the second annular body is fitted with the limiting body (P8-10.23-27; Fig. 1-2), as shown in annotated portion of Fig. 1 below.
PNG
media_image3.png
395
755
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Xiaodan teaches the second annular body is provided with a second compensating protrusion, and the second compensating protrusion is disposed above the battery cover and adjacent to the battery cover, as shown in annotated portion of Fig. 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Xiaodan teaches the bendable portion is bent to form an abutting portion configured to press the battery cover, as shown in annotated portion of Fig. 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Xiaodan teaches the sealing ring further comprises a second annular body matched with the limiting body, the second annular body is fixedly connected to the first annular body to form an “L” shape, and the second annular body is partially extended above the battery cover; the abutting portion abuts against the second annular body (P8-10.23-27; Fig. 1-2), shown in Fig. 2 and in annotated portion of Fig. 1 above, with backwards “L” shape.
Regarding claim 11, Xiaodan teaches the battery cover is provided with a first protrusion disposed toward the first annular body and adjacent to the limiting body, as shown in annotated Fig. 1, below (wherein disposed towards specifies neither distance nor number of intervening components).
PNG
media_image4.png
170
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Xiaodan teaches a second protrusion is provided on an outer side of the battery cover, and the second protrusion is disposed indirectly adjacent to the second annular body, as shown in annotated Fig. 1, below (wherein adjacent specifies neither distance nor number of intervening components).
PNG
media_image5.png
213
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiadon as applied to at least claim 8 above, and further in view of Langkau (US 3891462A).
Regarding claim 10, Xiadon teaches the battery sealing structure of claim 8, as applied above, can be used to improve sealing properties, performance, and safety, while also having a structure that is simple for manufacture (P4-6).
Xiadon is silent in teaching the sealing structure can be used in a button battery; however, Langkau teaches a button battery comprising a battery sealing structure with a sealing ring 6 similar to that of Xiadon, where the button cell is tightly encased and the cell may be in a housing such as a cylinder or any other shape (Col. 2 [32-68]; Col. 3 [56-61]; Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select the known battery sealing structure of Xiadon based on its suitability for its intended use in the button battery of Langkau given the court has held the selection of a known material and/or entity based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination and to improve safety and sealing.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art MPEP 2143 C. Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. MPEP 2143 C
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image6.png
112
649
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, amendments to independent claim 1 do not include claim 11. While claim 11 has been amended to be independent, Examiner notes that where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. If applicants argument is that the special technical feature is “…the battery cover is provided with a first protrusion disposed toward the first annular body and adjacent to the limiting body”, this feature is not shared with independent claim 1, and thus there is a lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature. If applicant argues the special technical feature is the shared recitation of originally filed independent claim 1, there is lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature, the technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art and is rejected in its entirety in the previous office action.
Based on previously filed claim 11, (dependent on independent claim 1), examiner notes the interpretation of a first protrusion (or second protrusion), wherein the outside (outer sides) of the battery cover protrude towards the annular body and adjacent to the limiting body and/or first/second annular body, as shown below in annotated Fig. 1 of Xiaodan. “Disposed adjacent” is broad and may have intervening elements (i.e., P31 of instant disclosure).
PNG
media_image7.png
315
469
media_image7.png
Greyscale
All changes to the rejection of independent claim 1 are necessitated by applicant’s amendment of the claims, incorporating additional teachings in the disclosure. Above set forth modified grounds of rejection establish prima facie obviousness of the amended claims.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image8.png
550
946
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant relies on Fig. 2.3.6 (Fig. 3 and 6 shown below) to show the additional limitation of “the first mating surface 212 is recessed toward the battery cover 300”. The relied on portion appears to be sector shaped.
PNG
media_image9.png
456
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
366
383
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Xiadon shows the same sector shaped mating surface, that is matched with the arc transiting portion and compressed towards the cover, as shown below in annotated Fig. 1.
PNG
media_image2.png
202
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Mere lawyer's arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. The rejected claims have not been drawn in a manner as to clearly distinguish appellant's invention from other inventions or as to avoid a rejection on the art of record.
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 Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights