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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the written description is in contradiction to the numbering of elements of in Fig. 3. The instant application describes the bent structure in the following manner: “The bent structure 12 includes a first bent portion 121 close to the first end cover 2, a second bent portion 122 close to the second end cover 3, and a third bent portion 123 connecting the first bent portion 121 and the second bent portion 122,” see [0035]. This indicates the numbering in Fig. 3 the second bent portion 122 and third bent portion 123 needs to be swapped to be consistent with the description in the specification. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-20220271344-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches:
A cylindrical battery (cylindrical battery 1, see [0198]),
comprising a housing (a housing 20, see [0198]),
a first end cover (outer surface 20a, see Fig. 6 and [0216]),
a second end cover (cap 30, see [0198] and Fig. 6),
a battery cell (the electrode assembly 10, see [0198] and Fig. 6),
and a pole post (core C and terminal 50, see Fig 6 and [0198]),
wherein the battery cell is accommodated in the housing (“the housing 20 accommodates the electrode assembly 10,” see [0216] and Fig. 6),
and the first end cover and the second end cover seal at ends of the housing, respectively (see annotated Fig. 6 below and cap 30),
wherein the pole post is connected to the battery cell and drills through the first end cover (the terminal 50 is electrically connected to the current collector 40 of the electrode assembly 10, see [0238]. The cell terminal 50 is shown to traverse the indicated second end cover in Fig. 6),
the pole post is cylindrical (the terminal 50 is shown to the cylindrical, see Figs. 5-6),
Choi does not necessarily teach:
a diameter of the pole post is Φ1, and a diameter of the first end cover is Φ2, wherein Φ1/Φ2≤ 34%,
However, Choi teaches balancing the considerations of having a sufficient area of the outer surface 20a of the housing 20 that will be used as an electrode terminal having the opposite polarity to the terminal 50 while also having a sufficiently large enough diameter for the electrical connection portion 52a to allow for welding, see [0272]. This disclosure teaches that the ratio of the terminal 50 diameter and outer surface 20a diameter is a result effective variable that controls having sufficient terminal sizes for both electrode pluralities and having a diameter suitable for welding.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the ratio of the terminal 50 diameter and outer surface 20a diameter to balance the considerations of having sufficient terminal sizes for both electrode pluralities and having a diameter suitable for welding.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “a diameter of the pole post is Φ1, and a diameter of the first end cover is Φ2, wherein Φ1/Φ2≤ 34%,” without undue experimentation.
Choi does not necessarily teach:
and Φ1 ≥ 12 mm.
However, Choi teaches the electrical connection portion 52a (a portion of the terminal 50) corresponds to a weldable region has a diameter of between approximately 3 mm to 14 mm which overlaps the claimed range, see [0223].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the diameter of the terminal because Choi teaches this is a suitable diameter.
Regarding Claim 8, Choi does not necessarily teach:
wherein a thickness of the first end cover is σ1, and a thickness of the housing is σ2, wherein 0.3 mm ≤ σ2 ≤ 0.5 mm,
However, Choi teaches the housing 20 has a thickness between about 0.3 mm to 0.8 mm which encompasses the claimed range, see [0224].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the thickness of the housing because Choi teaches this is a suitable thickness.
Choi does not necessarily teach:
and 0.7 mm ≤ σ1 ≤ 1.2 mm.
However, Choi teaches the thickness of the closed portion 20a (i.e. first end cover) is 0.4 mm to 1.2 mm which encompasses the claimed range, see [0223].
Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05, I). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the overlapping portion of the thickness of the closed portion because Choi teaches this is a suitable thickness.
Claim(s) 2-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-20220271344-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above in further view of Sumiyama et al. (US-20150024258-A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Choi teaches:
wherein the housing comprises a body portion and a bent structure (see the side of the housing 20 in Fig. 6 and beading portion 21 (i.e., bent structure) in Fig. 23),
wherein the bent structure is bent from an outer periphery of the body portion towards inside of the body portion (the beading portion 21 in Fig. 23 is shown to be bent from an outer periphery of the body portion towards inside of the body portion, see also [0218]),
and the bent structure comprises a first bent portion close to the first end cover (upper beading portion 21a is shown to be close the indicated first end cover in annotated Fig. 6 above, see Fig. 23 and [0218]),
a second bent portion close to the second end cover (lower beading portion 21b is shown in Fig. 23 to be close to the cap 30, see also [0218]),
and a third bent portion connecting the first bent portion and the second bent portion (the innermost portion 21c is shown in Fig. 23 to connect the lower and upper beading portions 21a, 21b, see also [0218]),
wherein the first bent portion abuts against an end of the battery cell (the upper beading portion 21a presses the lower part of the electrode assembly 10 to fix the electrode assembly 10, see [0219]),
and a maximum width of the bent structure along a length direction of the housing is D, wherein 0.2 mm≤ D ≤ 0.5 mm.
To solve the same problem of designing a cylindrical secondary battery (see [0009]), Sumiyama teaches groove portion 4 has two opening edges 4a, two sides 4b, and a bottom 4c, as illustrated in FIG. 1B, see also [0063]. Sumiyama further teaches “the minimum value of the spacing (spacing L1) either between the two opening edges 4a or between the two sides 4b, or both, is within 0.2 mm,” which overlaps the claimed range and this spacing allows for and increase in the effective volume of the battery case, see [0063].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the a minimum spacing between the upper and lower beading portion to 21a, 21b of Choi to be 0.2 mm as taught by Sumiyama to increase in the effective volume of the battery case.
Regarding Claim 3, Choi teaches:
wherein the first bent portion and the second bent portion define an opening facing outside of the body portion (Fig. 23 shows the lower and upper beading portions 21a, 21b defines an opening facing outside of the body portion, see also Fig. 6 above),
Choi does not teach:
a width of the opening along the length direction of the housing is L, wherein 0.3 mm ≤ L ≤ 0.8 mm.
To solve the same problem of designing a cylindrical secondary battery (see [0009]), Sumiyama teaches groove portion 4 has two opening edges 4a, two sides 4b, and a bottom 4c, as illustrated in FIG. 1B, see also [0063]. Sumiyama further teaches “the minimum value of the spacing (spacing L1) either between the two opening edges 4a or between the two sides 4b, or both, is within 0.2 mm,” and this spacing allows for and increase in the effective volume of the battery case, see [0063].
Absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have the a minimum spacing between the opening of upper and lower beading portion to 21a, 21b of Choi to be 0.2 mm as taught by Sumiyama to increase in the effective volume of the battery case.
Regarding Claim 4, Choi does not explicitly teach:
wherein a distance between an outer end face of the first end cover and an outer end face of the second end cover is H1, a distance between the outer end face of the first end cover and a top portion defined by the first bent portion and the body portion is H2, and H2/H1 ≥ 95%.
However, Fig. 6 and 23 show the beading portion 21 is disposed close to the end in which the cap 30 resides. Choi teaches the cap 30 (i.e. first end cover) is supported by the lower surface of the beading portion 21 and the crimping portion 22 of the housing 20 fixes the cap 30 by the crimping portion 22, see [0226], Fig. 6, and Fig. 23. Choi further teaches the sealing gasket G1 is interposed between the cap 30 and the crimping portion 22 of the housing 20 to ensure sealability of the housing 20, see [0226]. This disclosure teaches that positioning of the beading portion 21 along a length direction on the cylindrical battery 1 is a result effective variable that controls having the beading portion 21 capable of supporting the cap 30 and a crimping portion 22 sealed by a gasket G1 to ensure sealability of the cap 30 to the housing 20.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the placement of the beading portion 21 to balance the considerations of having the beading portion 21 close enough to support that cap and sufficient remainder of the length of the cylindrical battery to enable sealing the cap to the housing.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein a distance between an outer end face of the first end cover and an outer end face of the second end cover is H1, a distance between the outer end face of the first end cover and a top portion defined by the first bent portion and the body portion is H2, and H2/H1 ≥ 95%,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 5, Choi teaches:
wherein the bent structure is inclined from a side close to the second end cover to a side close to the first end cover (the upper beading portion 21a is inclined upward, see [0219] and Fig. 23).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi teaches:
wherein the battery cell and the second end cover are spaced from each other (see Fig. 6),
Choi does not explicitly teach:
a distance between the outer end face of the second end cover and a top portion defined by the first bent portion and the body portion is H3, and 2.5 mm ≤ H3 ≤ 3.5 mm.
However, Fig. 6 and 23 show the beading portion 21 is disposed close to the end in which the cap 30 resides. Choi teaches the cap 30 (i.e. first end cover) is supported by the lower surface of the beading portion 21 and the crimping portion 22 of the housing 20 fixes the cap 30 by the crimping portion 22, see [0226], Fig. 6, and Fig. 23. Choi further teaches the sealing gasket G1 is interposed between the cap 30 and the crimping portion 22 of the housing 20 to ensure sealability of the housing 20, see [0226]. This disclosure teaches the distance between the outer end face of the cap 30 and upper beading portion 21a is a result effective variable that controls having the beading portion 21 capable of supporting the cap 30 and a crimping portion 22 sealed by a gasket G1 to ensure sealability of the cap 30 to the housing 20.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the distance between the outer end face of the cap 30 and upper beading portion 21a to balance the considerations of having the beading portion 21 close enough to support the cap and a sufficient remainder of the length of the cylindrical battery to enable sealing the cap to the housing.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “a distance between the outer end face of the second end cover and a top portion defined by the first bent portion and the body portion is H3, and 2.5 mm ≤ H3 ≤ 3.5 mm,” without undue experimentation.
Regarding Claim 7, Choi teaches:
wherein the housing further comprises a folded edge bent from an end of the body portion towards inside of the body portion, and the second end cover is sandwiched between the folded edge and the bent structure (“The crimping portion 22 is extended and bent to surround the outer circumferential surface of the cap 30,” see [0220] and Fig. 23).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US-20220271344-A1) as applied to Claim 1 above in further view of Kwon et al. (US-20140227573-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi does not teach:
wherein a chamfer with an arc is defined between an outer end face of the first end cover and an outer wall of the first end cover, a radius of the outer end face of the first end cover is a, and a radius of the outer wall of the first end cover is b, wherein, 1 mm ≤ a ≤ 1.7 mm, and 0.4a ≤ b ≤ 0.55a; and/or a filleted corner with a radius R is defined between an inner end face of the first end cover and an inner wall of the first end cover, wherein 0.5 mm ≤ R ≤ 1.2 mm.
To solve the same problem of designing a secondary battery (see [0017]), Kwon teaches designing a secondary battery with a curved arc shaped that is provided to efficiently use the in the inner space of the electronic device in which the battery is mounted, see [0017]. Kwon further teaches the invention allows for a compact structure based on various designs while maintaining a more stable and increased electrical capacity, see [0036]. This disclosure teaches that optimizing the considerations of providing a battery with a curved arc shape to match the electronic device in which the battery is mounted and maintaining more stable and increased electrical capacity is a result effective variable.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the curvature between the outer surface 20a and side of housing 20 of Choi to balance the considerations of conform to the intended device structure and maintaining more stable and increased electrical capacity as taught by Kwon.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein a chamfer with an arc is defined between an outer end face of the first end cover and an outer wall of the first end cover, a radius of the outer end face of the first end cover is a, and a radius of the outer wall of the first end cover is b, wherein, 1 mm ≤ a ≤ 1.7 mm, and 0.4a ≤ b ≤ 0.55a; and/or a filleted corner with a radius R is defined between an inner end face of the first end cover and an inner wall of the first end cover, wherein 0.5 mm ≤ R ≤ 1.2 mm,” without undue experimentation.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Inoue et al. (JP-2004228035-A): Inoue teaches a cylindrical battery with length and diameter specifications, see Fig. 1a-c and Fig. 2a-c.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kayla E Clary whose telephone number is (571)272-2854. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 (PT).
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684. 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.E.C./
Kayla E. ClaryExaminer, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights