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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10, 12, 15-22 are currently pending.
Claims 1-9, 12, 16, 19, and 20 have been previously withdrawn.
Claim 10 has been amended.
Claims 21 and 22 have been newly added.
Claims 11, 13, and 14 have been canceled.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/16/2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This Action has been made final.
Status of Rejections Pending since the Office Action of 15 May 2025
All the 103 rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment. However, new ground(s) rejection has been set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 10 as amended recites the limitation “an inertial mass entirely movably disposed within the second portion”. This limitation is interpreted such that “entirely” is understood to refer to the location of the inertial mass rather than to the movability of the inertial mass. Thus, this limitation claim 10 is interpreted to mean that the inertial mass is entirely within the second portion.
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(s) 10-11, 14-15, 17-18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (US 2010/0021806 A1, cited with the action of 01/29/2024) in view of Carl et al. (DE 10313006 A1, see machine translation provided with the action of 01/29/2024), DeGruson et al. (US 2014/0023904 A1) and further in view of Merrill et al., PI0511913 (For citations, please refer to the attached English Translation).
Regarding claim 10, Simon teaches a reserve battery (Abstract), comprising:
a substrate (enclosure 20) having a plurality of openings defining a cavity and a reserve battery 23 provided in each of the plurality of openings ([0031], [0032], figs. 2a-2b);
each of the reserve batteries 23 comprising:
an anode and a cathode (electrodes 36a and 36b) disposed in a first portion (electrode chamber 35) of each of the plurality of openings ([0037], fig. 2a);
a separator 37 positioned between the anode and cathode (36a, 36b) disposed in each of the plurality of openings ([0039], fig. 2a);
an electrolyte 31 disposed in a second portion (reservoir 30) of each of the plurality of openings ([0035], fig. 2a),
the electrolyte 31 being for use with the anode and cathode to produce electrical power ([0038]),
the electrolyte 31 being sealed in the second portion (the upper portion of the chamber including reservoir 30) relative to the first portion (electrode chamber 35) at least by a membrane 40 separating the first and second portions (30, 35), ([0040] to [0042], fig. 2a);
electrodes (terminals 38) connected to the anode and cathode (electrodes 36a, 36b), each having a portion on an outside of the substrate (enclosure 20), ([0038], fig. 4).
Simon teaches that the first portion (electrode chamber 35) includes a separator 37 which can receive the electrolyte 31 and shows unoccupied space in the first portion 35 ([0039], fig. 2a), but Simon does not teach a wick material contained in the first portion.
Carl teaches a reserve battery comprising a substrate 1 containing a reserve battery, the reserve battery comprising an anode 5, a cathode 3 and a space 4 for receiving an electrolyte ([0021], fig. 4). Specifically, Carl teaches that the space 4 is filled with a porous material which has a capillary effect ([0021], [0023], [0024]).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a wick material being configured to pull electrolyte via capillary action as taught by Carl to the space in the first portion (electrode chamber 35) of Simon. Such a person would have reasonably expected the wick material to pull electrolyte to the anode and cathode by way of capillary action, and would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure that the electrolyte is sucked into the electrode chamber ([0024] of Carl). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
Simon as modified by adding the wick material of Carl to the first portion (chamber 35 of Simon) would thus include a wick material configured to pull (suck) the electrolyte into the electrolyte into the first portion from the second portion by capillary action when the membrane changes from a sealed state in which the electrolyte is sealed within the second portion to an unsealed state in which the electrolyte can flow into the first portion.
Simon teaches that each reserve battery 23 further comprises an inertial mass 54 movably disposed in the second portion (the upper portion including reservoir 30), the inertial mass 54 having a projection (breaking element 50) configured to engage with and break the membrane 40 ([0041], [0047], figs. 8b and 8c). The inertial mass of Simon is configured to engage with and break the membrane in response to mechanical force, and Simon teaches that a variety of methods may be used to provide mechanical force including an actuator, an activation switch, or other devices ([0056]). Simon does not explicitly discuss configuring the inertial mass to break the membrane via the projections only above a predetermined acceleration. Further, Simon teaches that the inertial mass is only partially disposed in the second portion, with a portion protruding through the top of the housing 71 (figs. 8b and 8c), rather than entirely disposed in the second portion.
DeGruson teaches a reserve battery having a mechanism used to activate the battery when a certain acceleration (“external setback force”) is reached (Abstract, [0004]-[0005]). Specifically, DeGruson teaches a mechanical safety that comprises an inertial mass (“ram” 600) entirely and movably disposed in an upper portion (between first end cap 106 and second end cap 110), the inertial mass 600 being configured to move in a direction (downward with respect to fig. 2) opposing an acceleration direction (the upward direction with respect to fig. 4) upon the inertial mass 600 experiencing an acceleration above a predetermined threshold setback acceleration (“external setback force” F), the inertial mass 600 indirectly having a projection (“injector” 400) configured to engage with and break a membrane (“barrier” 136) only when the inertial mass 600 experiences the acceleration above the predetermined threshold setback acceleration ([0046] to [0055], figs. 2 and 20-21).
It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the mechanism of DeGruson, including an inertial mass, for the inertial mass of Simon in the upper portion of the reserve battery of Simon such that the safety mechanism of DeGruson provides a mechanical force to cause a projection to engage with and break the membrane of Simon only above the predetermined threshold setback acceleration. Such a person would have recognized that Simon allows for a variety of methods to deliver mechanical force ([0056] of Simon). Such a person would have further recognized that the mechanical safety of DeGruson is one such device that delivers mechanical force via the ram under specific acceleration conditions ([0055] of DeGruson) such that the mechanical safety of DeGruson can cause a projection to engage with and break the membrane only above the predetermined threshold setback acceleration. Such a person would have been motivated to use the mechanism of DeGruson in order to ensure that the reserve battery of Simon is activated only in above a predetermined threshold setback acceleration ([0055] of DeGruson). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved (see MPEP § 2143, B).
Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the inertial mass of Simon as modified by substituting the mechanism including the inertial mass of DeGruson entirely within the second portion. Such a person would have reasonably expected this configuration to be successful since DeGruson teaches that the inertial mass is entirely disposed within the second portion. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Simon teaches a flexible inner support 51 within the outer enclosure 20, which flexes and moves with the outer enclosure 20 towards the first portion (See Fig.5a), corresponding to the claimed “seal for sealing the inertial mass relative to the substrate and the first portion, and the seal being a top cover corresponding to the second portion”. Note that Simon teaches that the inner support 51 is flexible so is capable of being deformed when the membrane is in the unsealed state to reduce the volume in the second portion. Simon fails to teach that the flexible inner support 51 is made of an elastomer material.
However, Merrill teaches an alkaline cell containing a flat shell comprising a buffer layer 260 accommodated in the cavity, wherein the buffer 260 is preferably an elastomer made of rubber, which is sufficiently compressible and flexible (see page 30 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an elastomer made of Rubber for the inner flexible support 51 of Simon, because such material is known to be sufficiently compressible and flexible as taught by Merrill. Moreover, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07)
Regarding claim 15, modified Simon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Simon as modified to include the safety mechanism of DeGruson further teaches that each reserve battery further comprises an activation device (balls 808 together with spring 804) configured to move the inertial mass 600 to break the membrane (of Simon) only upon the inertial mass experiencing the acceleration greater than the predetermined threshold acceleration ([0044], [0055] and figs. 16 and 20 of DeGruson; [0053] and figs. 8b and 8c of Simon).
Regarding claim 17, modified Simon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Simon further teaches that the anode and cathode (36a, 36b) are spaced apart in a radial direction of the substrate 20 ([0039], fig. 2a; the axis of the substrate being vertical with respect to fig. 2a, the radial direction is the horizontal with respect to fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 18, modified Simon discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Simon further teaches that the membrane 40 takes on the unsealed state by being broken ([0041], fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 21, the limitation of “wherein the elastomer material is a deposited elastomer” is a product-by-process limitation. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon et al. (US 2010/0021806 A1, cited with the action of 01/29/2024) in view of Carl et al. (DE 10313006 A1, see machine translation provided with the action of 01/29/2024), DeGruson et al. (US 2014/0023904 A1) and Merrill et al., PI0511913 (For citations, please refer to the attached English Translation) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Zhang et al., WO 2021243505 (for citations refer to the attached English Translation).
Regarding claim 22, modified Simon teaches that the elastomer material is rubber, but does not specifically teach a silicone rubber.
However, Zhang teaches a battery assembly comprising a sealing material that could be made of silicone or rubber which are both known to be flexible and are taught to be art recognized equivalents to each other (see page 19 of English Translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select silicone as the elastomer material of modified Simon, because they are taught to be art recognized equivalents to each other (MPEP 2144.06).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 11/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under Simon in view of Carl and DeGruson have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Simon in view of Carl and DeGruson and further in view of Merrill as set forth above.
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 NIKI BAKHTIARI whose telephone number is (571)272-3433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6 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.
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.
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722