DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 10/01/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended, Claim 14 has been newly added and 1-5,8 and 14 are pending. Claims for which no reason for rejection has been found: Claim 14
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because it depends from a currently rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckle et al. (US 20040197645 A1), hereinafter “Buckle” in view of Tuttle et al. (US 5725967 A), hereinafter “Tuttle”, Liang et al. (CN 211208486 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Liang” and Morita et al. (US 5576117 A), hereinafter “Morita”. Buckle, Tuttle, Liang and Morita et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely button type battery housings.
In regard to Claim 1, Buckle et al. discloses a button-type secondary battery comprising: an electrode assembly (Buckle, Abstract, Paragraph [0002,0037]), a lower can including an accommodation part having an a downward recess for accommodating the electrode assembly in the downward recess (Buckle, Figure 1 (260)), a connection part extending horizontally outward from an upper end of the accommodation part, (Buckle, Figure 1 (263d)), and a bent part extending downward from a front end of the connection part (Buckle, Figure 1 (263e)). Buckle et al. also discloses an upper can including a cover part disposed on a top surface of the accommodation part to cover the downward recess (Buckle, Figure 1 (240)), and a bonding part extending downward along an edge surface of the cover part and bonded to the bent part of the lower can (Buckle, Figure 1 (242)) and a gasket between the lower can and the upper can (Buckle, Figure 1 (270)).
While Buckle discloses the gasket in close contact with the upper can and lower can to create a tight seal (Buckle, Paragraph [0003]), it fails to explicitly disclose recessed grooves in the upper can or lower can in contact with the gasket. Tuttle et al. discloses a button type secondary battery with an upper and lower can and a gasket, wherein a recessed lower insertion groove and a recessed upper insertion groove are respectively disposed in the bent part of the lower can and the bonding part of the upper can wherein the recessed lower insertion groove and the recessed upper insertion groove being in close contact with the gasket (Tuttle, Abstract, Figure 1 (15, 25)). Tuttle teaches the benefit of this configuration in that the grooves prevent the gasket from flowing out of the crimped seam and help to maintain the crimp pressure throughout the lifetime of the battery (Tuttle, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide upper and lower insertion grooves as taught in Tuttle, in the battery can assembly disclosed in Buckle, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Tuttle, and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way.
While Tuttle discloses recessed grooves in the upper and lower cans it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the lower insertion groove and the upper insertion groove are disposed to be spaced apart from each other so as to be shifted in a vertical direction with respect to each other. Liang et al. discloses a button type secondary battery with an upper can and lower can that use recessed grooves and mating teeth that interact with the recessed grooves which are disposed to be spaced apart from each other so as to be shifted in a vertical direction with respect to each other and that in such a configuration, the gasket is restrained from being offset while ensuring the reliability of the coin cell battery (Liang, Figure 1 (101, 501, 602, 603Paragraphs [23-25]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide upper and lower insertion grooves in a staggered configuration as taught in Liang et al. in the battery can assembly disclosed in Buckle, as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Liang and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Further, while Tuttle discloses wherein the first surface of the accommodation part and the surface of the bent part face each other, and wherein the bent part and the bonding part are crimped by having the surface of the bent part and an outer surface of the bonding part directly pressed (Tuttle, Abstract, Fig 3), it is silent as to wherein the button-type secondary battery further comprises an insertion space between a first surface of the accommodation part and a surface of the bent part.
Morita et al. discloses a button-type secondary battery further comprising an insertion space between a first surface of the accommodation part and a surface of the bent part (See annotated Figure 8), wherein the configuration that provides an insertion space has the benefit of the gasket not being cut from the upper side when the negative electrode case is subjected to high pressure during crimping (Morita, col 4), wherein the first surface of the accommodation part and the surface of the bent part face each other, and wherein the bent part and the bonding part are crimped by having the surface of the bent part and an outer surface of the bonding part directly pressed using the insertion space (Morita, Col 2 and Col 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a configuration of button type secondary battery that further comprises an insertion space as taught in Morita as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Morita and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
352
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8
In regard to Claim 2, Buckle et al. in view of Tuttle, Liang and Morita et al. disclose the button-type secondary battery of claim 1. While buckle et al. discloses crimping the bent part of the lower can and the bonding part of the upper can (Buckle, Paragraph [0010]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein portions of the gasket are introduced into the lower insertion groove and the upper insertion groove by crimping. Tuttle et al. discloses wherein portions of the gasket are introduced into the lower insertion groove and the upper insertion groove by crimping the bent part of the lower can and the bonding part of the upper can to form a lower insertion protrusion and an upper insertion protrusion on a surface of the gasket (Tuttle, Figure 3, Page 1, Column 2, Lines 14-26), and wherein a contact area between the lower can and the gasket increases by the lower insertion protrusion, and wherein a contact area between the upper can and the gasket increases by the upper insertion protrusion (Tuttle, Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide insertion grooves as taught in Tuttle et al. to the battery housing taught in Buckle et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of the gasket and upper and lower cans having increased surface area after crimping as disclosed in Tuttle, and as doing so would amount to nothing more than combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 3, Buckle et al. in view of Tuttle, Liang and Morita et al. disclose the button-type secondary battery of claim 1. Liang et al. discloses upper and lower insertion grooves and teeth in the can and gasket, wherein the lower insertion groove or the upper insertion groove has a triangular shape that gradually decreases in width toward the bottom (Liang, Figure 3 (101, 501, 602, 603)). Liang teaches this shape has a benefit of locking the gasket in place which improves the reliability of the product (Liang, Paragraph (25)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to providing insertion grooves with a triangular shape as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Liang et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of the recess for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 4, Buckle et al. in view of Tuttle, Liang and Morita et al. disclose the button-type secondary battery of claim 1. Tuttle et al. discloses wherein the lower insertion groove or the upper insertion groove is provided in plurality (Tuttle, Figure 2 (15,25)), and wherein the plurality of lower insertion grooves or the plurality of upper insertion grooves are connected to each other in a direction in which the lower can and the upper can are crimped (Tuttle, Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a plurality of insertion grooves connected to each other as taught in Tuttle et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
In regard to Claim 8, Buckle et al. in view of Tuttle, Liang and Morita et al. disclose the button-type secondary battery of claim 1. Buckle et al. also discloses wherein front ends of the bent part and the bonding part, which are bonded to each other with the gasket therebetween, are swaged so that the bent part is in close contact with a surface of the accommodation part (Buckle, Figure 1 (242b), Paragraph [0042]). The skilled artisan would find it obvious to swage the bent part and accommodation part to lock the cans in place and form a tight seal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckle et al. (US 20040197645 A1), hereinafter “Buckle” in view of Tuttle et al. (US 5725967 A), hereinafter “Tuttle”, Liang et al. (CN 211208486 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter “Liang” and Morita et al. (US 5576117 A), hereinafter “Morita” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of White et al. (US 20070224500 A1), hereinafter “White”. Buckle, Tuttle, Liang, and White et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely button type battery housings.
In regard to Claim 5, Buckle et al. in view of Tuttle, Liang and Morita et al. disclose the button-type secondary battery of claim 4. While Tuttle teaches the grooves increase the surface area and contact between the gasket and top and bottom can (Tuttle, Abstract), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of lower insertion grooves or the plurality of upper insertion grooves increase in size in the direction in which the lower can and the upper can are crimped. White et al. discloses the insertion grooves can vary in size and depth in a range of 0.5 and 3 mil (White, Paragraph [0049]), of which is at the discretion of the skilled artisan. Further, there is no significance to the size of the insertion grooves disclosed in the original specification. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide insertion grooves that increase in size within the range taught in White et al. as doing so would increase the surface area as taught in Tuttle et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of the recess for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 17/782,565 (reference application) in view of Buckle et al. (US 20040197645 A1) and Morita et al. (US 5576117 A). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations from Claim 1 are disclosed in claim 1 of the reference application except for the bent part, connection the part and insertion space. Buckle et al. discloses a button type secondary battery comprising a connection part extending horizontally outward from an upper end of the accommodation part, (Buckle, Figure 1 (263d)), and a bent part extending downward from a front end of the connection part (Buckle, Figure 1 (263e)). Morita et al. discloses an insertion space as a beneficial variation in the design of the cell (See annotated Figure 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a bent part and connection part as taught in Buckle to the button type secondary battery of the reference application, which amount to nothing more than obvious variations of button type secondary batteries known to the skilled artisan. All of the limitations of Claim 2-5 are disclosed in claim 2-5 of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a new prior art reference to teach the limitation of an insertion space in amended claim 1. Claim 14 is indicated allowable but is objected to as it depends from rejected independent claim 1.
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 KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725