DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
PNG
media_image1.png
194
684
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found persuasive because the Examiner outlined additional reasons as to why there is a serious search and/or examination burden (see page 3, three indented sections). The restriction requirement also illustrates how the product and process are distinct, and that the product as claimed can be made by another materially and different process (i.e., finding the product does not necessarily mean the same method is utilized to achieve said product such that there is a search and examination burden to find both inventions having different features). The Examiner lists an example with respect to the different field of searches required for the different inventions (page 3), as well as distinctive classifications for each grouping (page 1) and that search for the specific coating technique to achieve the thermal barrier will differ vastly from the search to find a battery cell including the structural features recited. Accordingly, the Examiner did outline how there would be a serious burden on the Examiner if restriction is not required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
It is noted that withdrawn process claims will be reconsidered for rejoinder at the time of finding an allowable product claim if the process claims are amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims and to be commensurate in scope therewith (see page 4 of restriction requirement; MPEP 821.04). Failure to amend the claims during prosecution to be commensurate in scope with the product may result in no rejoinder.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “apparatus” as claimed (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) if it alleged to be distinguishable over “a device” (claim 9). Please see section 4 below as well with respect to this issue given the Examiner believes the issue is a different issue that can be clarified by claim amendments. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
4. Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The only difference between claim 1 and claim 9 is one recites, “An apparatus comprising: a battery cell…” and the other recites “A device comprising: a battery cell…” The claims are otherwise the same. The Examiner attempted to resolve this issue in the Restriction Requirement mailed 11/25/2025 noting that it appears the intent is to (maybe) have a subcombination-combination type of claim set (e.g., a battery cell is the subcombination, and a device comprising same is the combination).
The amendments provided on 1/29/2026 amend the claims to have claim 1 drawn to “An apparatus comprising: a battery cell…” and claim 9 to comprise “A device comprising: a battery cell…” An apparatus versus a device in the context of the claims and specification appears to amount to a slight difference in wording that would reasonably cover the same thing, namely, any object (e.g., cellular phone, camcorder, and other electronic devices) or entity (e.g., vehicle, back-up power system, etc.) that utilizes or incorporates a battery in some manner.
In the instance that Applicant can somehow demonstrate there is a difference in “an apparatus” and “a device” in the context of the disclosure, then the drawing objection should be addressed above and an appropriate explanation as to how the two terms are patentably distinguishable over one another is required, and to illustrate an apparatus in the drawings without adding new matter (i.e., on the basis of how the written description describes an apparatus that is somehow distinctive from a device).
Appropriate explanation and/or correction is required. The Examiner will permit a shift to claim another invention (MPEP 819) in terms of amending claims 1-8 to define in the preambles thereof a/the battery cell versus “an/the apparatus.” This will also assist Applicant in having process claims eligible for rejoinder at the time of the finding of an allowable product claim given the present method claim of “A method of assembling a battery cell…” does not presently match either of the product claim groupings drawn to an apparatus and a device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2021/085807) (machine translation provided). Claims 5 and 14 are further evidenced by the International Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) scheme H01M 50/00- H01M 50/112 (copy provided).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Lee teaches a battery cell (Figs. 1-2; entire disclosure relied upon), including:
an electrode stack (12, 14) including at least one pair of a second electrode 12 that is taught as being a negative electrode (page 4) (i.e. “an anode electrode”) and a first electrode 11 (“a cathode electrode”)1 (Figs. 1-2, 6; page 3);
a case 10 that may be made of stainless steel (“a can”) (page 4) including a wall encapsulating the electrode stack (12, 14) (see Figs. 1-2);
a positive battery terminal 50 (=5/7) connected to the electrode stack (12, 14) and projecting outside of the can 10 (Figs. 1-2; page 4);
a negative battery terminal (either lead 14 and/or case/can functioning collectively as the negative terminal) connected to the electrode stack (12, 14) (Figs. 1-2, 7-8; page 3, last paragraph), wherein the positive battery terminal 50 (=5/7) and the negative battery terminal 14 are configured for providing electrical energy (bridging paragraph between pages 3-4 and page 4); and
a sealing material 33 adjoining the can 10 and the positive battery terminal 50 (=5/7) and filling a gap between the cap plate 30 and the center pin 50/terminal 7 (page 5), wherein, “The sealing material 33 is an insulating material, and must be able to overcome thermal shock even at a high temperature of about 1000 °C, and must have crack resistance due to thermal shock and thermal expansion” (page 5). Accordingly, the sealing material 33 is considered “a thermal barrier” that meets the functional limitation of, “wherein the thermal barrier seals gases within the battery cell from exiting the battery cell between the can 10 and the positive battery terminal 50 (=5/7) at an ambient temperature of at least 600°C.”
Fig. 2 of Lee is reproduced below for convenience:
PNG
media_image2.png
315
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lee teaches rechargeable batteries are used in portable small electronic devices such as mobile phones, computers, etc. as well as power sources for diving motors such as hybrid vehicles (page 1), wherein this would also be immediately known to those having ordinary skill in the art. Lee does not explicitly teach an apparatus/device comprising the taught battery of the disclosure; however, given Lee teaches a secondary battery and that the general implementation of said batteries within mobile phones, computers, etc. as well as power sources for diving motors such as hybrid vehicles, it is considered an obvious expedient to incorporate the taught battery of Lee within said taught, known options that read on “an apparatus” or “a device” as claimed in order to provide the predictable result of providing a functional use for the taught battery, and a means by which the apparatuses/devices taught can be powered.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Lee teaches wherein the battery cell further includes a separator 13 made of an electrical insulating material (“an insulator”) (pages 3-4) disposed between the can 10 and the positive battery terminal 50 (=5/7) (Fig 2); and wherein the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) is disposed to cover an outside surface of the separator 13 (“insulator”) (see Fig. 2). It is noted that there is an alternative rejection applied below against these claims as a compact prosecution rejection.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Lee teaches wherein the electrode stack (12, 14) is a jellyroll electrode stack (page 1; page 4; see Figs. 1-2, 6); and wherein the can 10 is cylindrically shaped (page 3; page 4).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Lee teaches wherein the shape of the battery is not limited, wherein the can 10 may be polygonal in shape (page 3). Polygonal is a genus, whereas a rectangle is a species thereof, and also a known, standard configuration of batteries in the state of the prior art as would be immediately recognized and known to one having ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by the H01M classification scheme for batteries (H01M 50/00- H01M 50/112) in which the shape of batteries has the following classifications including prismatic or rectangular shaped batteries:
PNG
media_image3.png
54
1002
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
190
882
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been entirely obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select the known, standard configuration of a rectangularly-shaped can from the taught polygonal genus of Lee, Lee teaching the shape is not limited, and one of ordinary skill in the art being immediately apprised of the known, standard options for batteries as evidenced by the CPC scheme above.
It is further noted that the instant claim set claims both the can is cylindrically shaped (claims 4 and 13) and rectangularly-shaped (claims 5 and 14) which were not restricted from one another because these are immediately recognizable obvious variants one over another, wherein the shape of the battery is a design feature of the battery cell, wherein the court has held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lee teaches wherein the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) includes a first thermal barrier; and wherein the battery cell further includes an insulating tape 22 (“second thermal barrier”) (at least partially) surrounding the negative battery terminal 14 (page 4; see Figs. 2, 7, 8). It is noted that the second thermal barrier is not required to have the features of the “wherein” statement present in claims 1 and 9. It is noted that there is an alternative rejection applied below against these claims as a compact prosecution rejection.
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches wherein the device includes a vehicle (page 1).
7. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2021/085807) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Xue et al., “Thermal Stability, Mechanical Properties and Ceramization Mechanism of Epoxy Resin/Kaolin/Quartz Fiber Ceramifiable Composites,” Polymers, 2022, 14, 3372, https://doi.org//10.3390/polym14163372, published 18 Aug. 2022.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Lee teaches wherein, “The sealing material 33 is an insulating material, and must be able to overcome thermal shock even at a high temperature of about 1,000 °C, and must have crack resistance due to thermal shock and thermal expansion” (page 5).
Lee does not explicitly teach that the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) is constructed with an epoxy, a room-temperature vulcanizing silicone, or polyurethane as claimed.
Xue teaches epoxy resins and polymer materials are utilized in electrical and electronic materials, have excellent thermal and mechanical properties, wherein ceramifiable polymer composites are widely used in the field of thermal protection due to their excellent ablation resistance, low cost, ability to maintain their strength and morphology (Introduction). Xue teaches a ceramifiable epoxy resin matrix composite with good thermal stability and mechanical properties at 1,000 °C (abstract; last paragraph of Introduction) that are stable and retain bending strength at 1,000 °C given the ceramic phase generated inside the material fills voids created by the decomposition of the epoxy resin, binding the fiber bundles together (conclusions):
PNG
media_image5.png
104
545
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The composition is intrinsically an insulating material based on its composition of all known, insulating materials (e.g., epoxy resin, kaolin, glass powder, glass fiber powder, quartz fiber, etc. (sections 2.1-2.2) as would be immediately recognized by one having ordinary skill in the art.
MPEP § 2144.07 cites the following case law:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to look to known materials suitable for the intended use (i.e., an insulating material that can withstand temperatures up to about 1,000 °C), and to select the epoxy resin-based ceramifiable composite of Xue (i.e., “the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) is constructed with an epoxy”) that meets the requirements of Lee’s sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) given the court has held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); MPEP § 2144.07).
8. Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2021/085807) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Kim (US 2014/0045000).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Lee fails to disclose teaches wherein the battery cell further includes a vent configured for permitting the gases to escape from the battery cell through the vent.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches analogous art of a battery cell and that it is a known technique to include a safety vent 1110 configured for permitting the gases to escape from the battery cell through the vent when the internal pressure of can 110 abnormally increases, the vent 1110 rupturing and the internal gas of the can 100 is discharged to the outside (P39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery cell of Lee with the safety vent 1110 of Kim configured to permit the gases to escape from the battery cell through the vent when the internal pressure of can 110 abnormally increases (P39) in order to provide the predictable result of a safety means by which thermal runaway can be vented versus allowing the gases to build to a level the battery explodes and endangers the user.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Lee teaches wherein the battery cell includes a first end portion (i.e., generally where cap plate 30 is located to close the opening of can 10) and a second end portion (i.e., bottom of the can 10) distal from the first end portion (see Figs. 1-2), wherein the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) is disposed upon the first end portion.
Lee as modified by Kim teaches the safety vent (see rejection of claims 6 and 15), wherein Kim teaches an analogous construct including a cap assembly 140 closing the opening of the can 110 (i.e., “a first end portion”) (Figs. 1A-1C; P36-40) and a bottom portion of the can (i.e., “second end portion”), and Kim teaches the safety vent 1110 should be located at the bottom portion of the cell (“second end portion”) that is away from where the analogous cap assembly 140 closing the opening of the can 110 as this prevents the cylindrical can from being cracked due to an external shock applied during an assembling process of the cap assembly 140 and can while also allowing for control of a rupture pressure of can (P21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the safety vent 1110 of Kim to the battery cell of Lee such that it is disposed upon the second end portion (i.e., bottom of the can 10) given this is the taught location of the safety vent 1110 of Kim, Kim teaching that the specific location of being located at the bottom portion of the cell (“second end portion”) prevents the cylindrical can from being cracked due to an external shock applied during an assembling process of the cap assembly 140 and can while also allowing for control of a rupture pressure of can (P21).
9. Claims 3 and 12 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2021/085807) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0223984) (hereinafter “Lee2”) as a compact prosecution rejection.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, as detailed above, Lee teaches wherein the battery cell further includes a separator 13 made of an electrical insulating material (“an insulator”) (pages 3-4) disposed between the can 10 and the positive battery terminal 50 (=5/7) (Fig 2); and wherein the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) is disposed to cover an outside surface of the separator 13 (“insulator”) (see Fig. 2).
In an attempt to practice compact prosecution and apply prior art teaching the more specific insulator construct taught in the instant application drawings & specification (and not presently reflected in the claims):
Lee2 teaches analogous art of battery cell having a similar construct as Lee [compare Fig. 2 of Lee (reproduced above) to Fig. 2 of Lee2 (reproduced below)], wherein Lee2 teaches that there is a first gasket 61 (analogous to the “thermal barrier” of Lee that adjoins the can 20 of Lee2 and the positive battery terminal 40 (P48)), and a second gasket 62 (“a second insulator”) disposed between the can 20 and the positive battery terminal 40, wherein the first gasket 61 (analogous to Lee’s “thermal barrier”) is disposed to cover an outside surface of the second gasket 62 (“second insulator”) (i.e., first gasket 61 exists above and “covers” the horizontal outside surface thereof, or it is direct contact and covers the center, vertical outside surface, with horizontal and vertical being utilized in the context of Fig. 2 of Lee2 being rotated 90 degrees as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
430
565
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it is a known configuration to provide a second gasket 62 (“an insulator”) in the construct claimed and more clearly shown in the drawings that it utilized in conjunction with a first gasket 61 (analogous to Lee’s “thermal barrier”), the configuration allowing for an airtight structure to be achieved that allows the thickness portion in which the electrode terminal 40 is installed to be decreased such that the capacity of the battery may be increased (P63-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the battery cell of Lee that includes the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) that may take on the format of a gasket (page 5) to be provided with the configuration taught by Lee2 in which the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) takes on the shape/format of the first gasket 61, and the battery is further provided with the second gasket 62 (“an insulator”) in the construct shown in the instant application drawings/specification given Lee2 teaches such a configuration and that it provides the predictable, advantageous results of allowing the thickness portion in which the electrode terminal 40 is installed to be decreased such that the capacity of the battery may be increased (P63-66).
10. Claims 5, 8, 14 and 17 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (WO 2021/085807) (machine translation provided) as applied to at least claims 1 and 9, and further in view Kato et al. (US 2016/0233540) as a compact prosecution rejection.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Lee teaches wherein the shape of the battery is not limited, wherein the can 10 may be polygonal in shape (page 3). The full rejection set forth against claims 5 and 14 above is incorporated here and not repeated. For the avoidance of doubt, Kato is applied to teach that rectangular shaped batteries are a known battery shape (P38; Fig. 1), and would be immediately implementable as the taught polygon shaped battery of Lee.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Lee teaches wherein the sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) includes a first thermal barrier; and wherein the battery cell further includes an insulating tape 22 (“second thermal barrier”) (at least partially) surrounding the negative battery terminal 14 (page 4; see Figs. 2, 7, 8). It is noted that the second thermal barrier is not required to have the features of the “wherein” statement present in claims 1 and 9.
In an attempt to practice compact prosecution and apply prior art teaching the more specific construct taught in the instant application drawings & specification (and not presently reflected in the claims):
The instant application teaches multiple embodiments that are presently considered obvious variants over one another in the absence of Applicant arguing otherwise and/or the presentation of multiple independent claims that are mutually exclusive from one another that would present a search and examination burden, and specifically that of a cylindrical battery having the construct shown in Figs. 1-2 in which the metallic case may serve as the negative terminal battery terminal (P34, 44; Figs. 1 & 2), or an alternative embodiment in which a prismatic battery cell having a rectangularly-shaped can 120 is provided that includes a protruding negative battery terminal 150 and a protruding positive battery terminal 140, each surrounded by a respective thermal barrier 170, 172 (P49; Fig. 3).
The construct of Lee is to the that of a cylindrical battery having the construct shown in the instant application Figs. 1-2 in which the metallic case may serve as the negative terminal battery terminal (P34, 44; Figs. 1 & 2), and the projecting positive terminal 50 (=5/7) has
sealing material 33 (“thermal barrier”) that may be a gasket fitted into the terminal hole and must be an insulating material above to overcome thermal shock even at a high temperature of about 1,000 °C. Lee teaches that the shape of the battery is not limited (page 3) and the battery may be a polygonal shaped battery.
Accordingly, looking to known rectangular battery designs and corresponding arrangements, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art on the basis of design choice to adopt the configuration taught by Kato which is a known, standard rectangular battery configuration in which the battery is a rectangular battery having a positive terminal 6 and negative terminal 7 exposed through the top plate and configured for providing electrical energy (Figs. 1-4; entire disclosure relied upon). Kato teaches each terminal 6, 7 is exposed externally via a respective through-hole 91a, 91b in case cover 3, and each terminal 6, 7 is surrounded via a respective insulating gasket 93 (P38-39; Figs. 1, 3, 4).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the cylindrical battery construct of Lee such that it is polygonal as taught (page 3) on the basis of design choice, and to look to known battery designs and arrangements achieving said construct, and to provide each projecting terminal 6, 7 with a respective insulating gasket 93 as taught by Kato, and to provide each gasket with the features taught by Lee of being an insulating material able to overcome thermal shock even at a high temperature of about 1,000 °C in order to provide the predictable results of a sealing material/gasket 33 for each terminal that will not melt, crack, or thermally expand even at a high temperature of about 1,000 °C (i.e., what would be a temperature where the battery is undergoing thermal runaway, or alternatively the temperature the battery is operating under depending on the type of battery selected (e.g., molten sodium batteries operate at these temperatures)).
Examiner Comments & Recommendations
11. The German Patent Office on 10/2/2025 issued an Office Action (found via Global Dossier) citing the following documents as prior art relied upon to reject the claims (the references cited in the IDS filed 10/15/2025):
PNG
media_image7.png
126
233
media_image7.png
Greyscale
To this end, see also Perdu et al. (US 2017/0352935) found by the instant Examiner.
For compact prosecution purposes, the Examiner has applied prior art most similar to the drawings/specification; however, the claims broadly claim:
“a thermal barrier adjoining the can and the positive battery terminal, wherein the thermal barrier seals gases within the battery cell from exiting the battery cell between the can and the positive battery terminal at an ambient temperature of at least 600 °C.”
The “thermal barrier” as claimed could be a layer applied externally and/or internally to the casing/can (as is the case in the above cited documents); a cap plate; etc. It is highly recommended that the claims are amended to reflect the more specific construct shown/taught in the instant application for what the “thermal barrier” is/where it’s located that avoids these broader interpretations and prior art that reads on such constructs. Additional prior art in this regard is cited below that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hamamoto et al. (US 2022/0278398) teaches a battery cell with a terminal member that utilizes multiple sealing materials in multiple arrangements (see Figs. 2-7) that include the use of an engineered or super engineered plastic including epoxy resin (P8):
PNG
media_image8.png
294
406
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
523
631
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Dittel et al. (US 2016/0197317) teaches a terminal post 76 including a primary seal 92, secondary seal 82, and compressive seal 84, wherein the secondary seal 82 creates a redundancy if primary seal 92 or compressive seal 84, or both fail (P55). Dittel teaches the secondary seal 82 is made of electrically insulating material (P58), and resists egress of electrolyte out of the battery as well as blocking ingress of water into the battery (P55). Dittel teaches suitable materials for the secondary sealant 82 include epoxy resins (P61). The bottom/final configuration shown in Fig. 7 is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image10.png
366
335
media_image10.png
Greyscale
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA J BARROW whose telephone number is (571)270-7867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am - 6pm CST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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 J BARROW/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
1 It is noted that rechargeable batteries often term the electrodes as “first electrode” and “second electrode” versus “negative electrode” (=anode) or “positive electrode”) (=cathode) given during charge-discharge cycles, the potential at which these electrodes are at, or the designation of “negative” or “positive,” switches back and forth between positive and negative (relative to one another)
Prosecution Insights