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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 09/30/2022. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 14-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/0028416 to Daub et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0188100 to Isozaki et al.
With respect to claim 1, Daub et al. teach an electrochemical cell for an electrochemical system, comprising: an electrochemical element for receiving, storing and/or providing electrical energy; a housing 3 for receiving the electrochemical element, the housing 3 surrounding an interior space 6 of the electrochemical cell 3 and comprising a cover element 7; a first cell terminal 8 and a second cell terminal 9 for connecting the electrochemical cell 1 to a cell contacting system; a first contact element 12 that connects the first cell terminal 8 to a first connection conductor (not shown); and a second contact element 12 that connects the second cell terminal 9 to a second connection conductor (not shown), the first contact element 12 being fixed to the cover element 7 in a first connection region 15 by means of a first potting element 16, the first potting element 16 being formed from a first polymer material 16 that comprises a first resin material or is formed therefrom and/or the second contact element 12 being fixed to the cover element 7 in a second connection region 15 by means of a second potting element 16, the second potting element 16 being formed from a second polymer material that comprises a second resin material or is formed therefrom (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
Daub et al. do not specifically teach the first potting element 16 being formed from a first polymer material 16 that comprises a first resin material or is formed therefrom and/or the second contact element 12 being fixed to the cover element 7 in a second connection region 15 by means of a second potting element 16, the second potting element 16 being formed from a second polymer material that comprises a second resin material or is formed therefrom.
However, Isozaki et al. teach a battery comprising a resin sealant is made of an inorganic filler-containing epoxy resin composition, wherein the resin sealant could be carrying out by press molding (Isozaki et al.: Sections [0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Daub et al. with the teaching above from Isozaki et al. with the motivation of having a means such it improves the strength of the sealing part of the resin sealant 9 and to obtain the moisture penetration-preventing effect.
With respect to claim 2, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein: the first resin material and/or the second resin material comprises or is formed from one or more of the following materials: epoxy resin material, phenolic resin material, aminoplast material, polyurethane material, silicone material, polyester resin material, ABS resin material.
However, Isozaki et al. teach a battery comprising a resin sealant is made of an inorganic filler-containing epoxy resin composition, wherein the resin sealant could be carrying out by press molding (Isozaki et al.: Sections [0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Daub et al. with the teaching above from Isozaki et al. with the motivation of having a means such it improves the strength of the sealing part of the resin sealant 9 and to obtain the moisture penetration-preventing effect.
Isozaki et al. teach the same polymer material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed polymer material and those disclosed by Isozaki et al., it would have expected for the polymer material of Isozaki et al. to have a hardness in a range of approx. 40 Shore D to approx. 100 Shore D; and/or the first polymer material and/or the second polymer material has a glass transition temperature of approx. 90° C. or more as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 3, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the first resin material and/or the second resin material comprises inorganic fillers.
However, Isozaki et al. teach a battery comprising a resin sealant is made of an inorganic filler-containing epoxy resin composition, wherein the resin sealant could be carrying out by press molding (Isozaki et al.: Sections [0064]-[0066]).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Daub et al. with the teaching above from Isozaki et al. with the motivation of having a means such it improves the strength of the sealing part of the resin sealant 9 and to obtain the moisture penetration-preventing effect.
Isozaki et al. teach the same polymer material, therefor, lacking of any clear distinction between the claimed polymer material and those disclosed by Isozaki et al., it would have expected for the polymer material of Isozaki et al. to have a hardness in a range of approx. 40 Shore D to approx. 100 Shore D; and/or the first polymer material and/or the second polymer material has a glass transition temperature of approx. 90° C. or more as claimed lacking unexpected result showing otherwise.
With respect to claim 4, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the cover element 7 is connected to an insulating element 21, which is in particular plate-shaped, on an inner side facing the interior space 6, the insulating element 21 in particular comprising one or more positioning projections 17 on a side facing the cover element 7, which positioning projections 17 engage in one or more complementary positioning projections 22 of the cover element 7 (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 5, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the insulating element 21 has a plurality of passage openings, in particular arranged regularly, the passage openings preferably being at least approximately oval or at least approximately rectangular (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 6, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the cover element 7 has a first recessed region 15 for receiving the first potting element 16 on a side facing away from the interior space 6 and/or wherein the cover element 7 has a second recessed region 15 for receiving the second potting element 16 on a side facing away from the interior space 6 (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 7, the limitation, “the first recessed region and the second recessed region are formed by means of embossing,” is a product by process limitation, it would have the same functionality or purpose as the claimed limitation. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113.
With respect to claim 14, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the first contact element 12 has a first resin material filling opening 15 for filling the first resin material 16 into the first connection region and/or wherein the second contact element 12 has a second resin material filling opening 15 for filling the second resin material 16 into the second connection region (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 15, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the first connection conductor (not shown) has an average thickness that is approx. 1/10 or less of an average width of the first connection conductor taken perpendicular to the thickness, the average thickness preferably being approx. 0.8 mm or less, for example approx. 0.7 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the first connection conductor has an average thickness that is approx. 1/10 or less of an average width of the first connection conductor taken perpendicular to the thickness, the average thickness preferably being approx. 0.8 mm or less, for example approx. 0.7 mm or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 16, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the first contact element 12 has an average thickness in a first joint region with the first cell terminal 13, which thickness is approx. 2/10 or less of an average width of the first contact element taken perpendicular to the thickness, the average thickness preferably being approx. 0.8 mm or less, for example approx. 0.7 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the first contact element 12 has an average thickness in a first joint region with the first cell terminal 13, which thickness is approx. 2/10 or less of an average width of the first contact element taken perpendicular to the thickness, the average thickness preferably being approx. 0.8 mm or less, for example approx. 0.7 mm or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 17, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein an average width of the first contact element in a first joint region with the first cell terminal is approx. ½ or less, in particular ⅖ or less, of an average width of the first cell terminal in a direction taken parallel to the width of the first contact member, the average width preferably being approx. 10.0 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have an average width of the first contact element in a first joint region with the first cell terminal is approx. ½ or less, in particular ⅖ or less, of an average width of the first cell terminal in a direction taken parallel to the width of the first contact member, the average width preferably being approx. 10.0 mm or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 18, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the first connection conductor (not shown) and the first contact element 12 are formed in one piece.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the firs connection conductor integrate with the first contact element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of engineering design choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
With respect to claim 19, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein an average thickness of the cover element in a cross section taken perpendicular to its main extension plane is approx. 1/10 or less, for example approx. 1/20 or less, of an average width of the cover element perpendicular to its thickness and/or in that the average thickness of the cover element is approx. 1.9 mm or less, for example approx. 1.8 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have an average thickness of the cover element in a cross section taken perpendicular to its main extension plane is approx. 1/10 or less, for example approx. 1/20 or less, of an average width of the cover element perpendicular to its thickness and/or in that the average thickness of the cover element is approx. 1.9 mm or less, for example approx. 1.8 mm or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 20, Daub et al. do not specifically teach the electrochemical cell, wherein an average thickness of an insulating element of the electrochemical cell is approx. 1/10 or less, for example approx. 1/15 or less, of an average width of the insulating member taken perpendicular to the thickness, the average thickness of the insulating member preferably being approx. 1.7 mm or less.
However, it would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have an average thickness of an insulating element of the electrochemical cell is approx. 1/10 or less, for example approx. 1/15 or less, of an average width of the insulating member taken perpendicular to the thickness, the average thickness of the insulating member preferably being approx. 1.7 mm or less, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 21, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein an insulating element of the electrochemical cell has 2 holes (depressions) for receiving the first potting element 16, one or more flow guide elements 26 for distributing the first resin material during the production of the electrochemical cell in particular being arranged in the depressions (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 22, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises at least one snap-over element 10 that, when a critical pressure and/or a critical temperature is exceeded in the interior space 6 of the electrochemical cell, can be deflected outwards from a rest state into a working state, thus establishing electrical contact between the cover element and the first cell terminal (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 23, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the first contact element 12 is connected integrally to an insulating element 21 of the electrochemical cell (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 24, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises an insulating element 21 that, on an inner side of the cover element 7 facing the interior space 6, is connected to the cover element 7, the insulating element 21 having at least one filling opening 15 adjacent to the first connection region for filling the first resin material 16 into the first connection region (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 25, Daub et al. teach an electrochemical system comprising one or more electrochemical cells (Daub et al.: Sections [0028]-[0032]; Figs. 1-3).
With respect to claim 26, Daub et al. teach the limitation, “a method for producing an electrochemical cell, in particular an electrochemical cell, the method comprising the following: providing a cover element that comprises a first opening and/or a second opening; positioning a first contact element, which is or can be connected in particular to a first cell terminal, in the first opening and/or positioning a second contact element, which is or can be connected in particular to a second cell terminal, in the second opening; filling a first resin material into a first connection region surrounded by the cover element, the first contact element and in particular the first cell terminal in a casting process and/or filling a second resin material into a second connection region surrounded by the cover element, the second contact element and in particular the second cell terminal in a casting process; drying and/or curing the first resin material to form a first potting element and/or drying and/or curing the second resin material to form a second potting element,” is a product by process limitation, it would have the same functionality or purpose as the claimed limitation. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113.
With respect to claim 27, Daub et al. teach the limitation, “the method, wherein on the outside of a main body of the cover element facing away from an interior space of the electrochemical cell at least one first sealing element is applied to the cover element and/or introduced into the cover element, which first sealing element radially surrounds the first connection region, and/or in that on the outside of the main body of the cover element facing away from the interior space of the electrochemical cell at least one second sealing element is applied to the cover element and/or introduced into the cover element, which second sealing element radially surrounds the second connecting region,” is a product by process limitation, it would have the same functionality or purpose as the claimed limitation. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113.
Claims 8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2021/0028416 to Daub et al. in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0188100 to Isozaki et al. in further view of US Patent Application Publication 2019/0280257 to Chen et al.
With respect to claim 8, Daub et al. do not specifically teach, but Chen et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the electrochemical cell comprises a first sealing element 24, which is in particular closed in a ring shape or has at least one interruption, which sealing element radially surrounds a lower insulation component 40 (the first potting element) on an outer side of the cover element 20 facing away from the interior space of the electrochemical cell with respect to a central axis of the first contact element (not shown) (Chen et al.: Section [0077]; Fig. 8 and 9).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Daub et al. with the teaching above from Chen et al. with the motivation of having a means such indirectly to enhance the sealing of the electrode extraction hole 11.
With respect to claim 10, Daub et al. in view of Isozaki et al. and Chen et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein a first sealing element 24 of the electrochemical cell comprises or is formed from a third polymer material (Chen et al.: Section [0077]; Fig. 8 and 9).
the limitation, “the first sealing element and/or the second sealing element being applied to a main body of the cover element, in particular in the form of a sealing bead, in particular in a printing process,” is a product by process limitation, it would have the same functionality or purpose as the claimed limitation. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113.
With respect to claim 11, Daub et al. in view of Isozaki et al. and Chen et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the third polymer material comprise inorganic fillers (Isozaki et al.: Sections [0064]-[0066]).
With respect to claim 12, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein a first sealing element 24 of the electrochemical cell is part of the cover element 20 and is formed in particular by an elevation of the cover element 20, which is in particular closed in a ring shape, which elevation extends from a main body of the cover element 20 in a direction pointing away from the interior space of the electrochemical cell (Chen et al.: Section [0077]; Fig. 8 and 9).
With respect to claim 13, Daub et al. teach the electrochemical cell, wherein the first contact element 31 comprises at least two contact element components 311 and 312 that in particular comprise or are formed from aluminum and copper (different metallic materials) (Chen et al.: Section [0088]; Fig. 10 and 11).
the limitation, “in particular in the first connection region and/or in the second connection region, are integrally connected to one another, in particular by means of laser welding and/or roll cladding,” is a product by process limitation, it would have the same functionality or purpose as the claimed limitation. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on ( (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 2/3/2026