DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/006,394, filed 08/06/2020.
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 7 is amended to improve formality. Claims 1-11 are currently pending in this application.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Satoru (JP3594440B2, refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 1,
Mitsuzuka teaches a sealed battery (Fig. 1, 50; [0023]) comprising:
a battery case with a bottomed cylindrical shape (Fig. 1, 22; [0023]) including an opening (Fig. 1, opening at top of 22);
an electrode body housed in the battery case (Fig. 1, 30; [0023]);
an electrolyte solution ([0023, 0043], “electrolyte solution”);
and a sealing member that closes the opening of the battery case (Fig. 1, wherein the sealing member is a cap assembly, sealing the top of the battery case 22, wherein the cap assembly is not specifically mapped but includes all elements enclosed by gasket 43; [0023]),
wherein the sealing member includes: a terminal cap (Fig. 1, positive electrode terminal 21; [0023]),
a bottom plate (Fig. 1, sealing plate 40; [0024]) electrically connecting the terminal cap (Fig. 1, wherein 40 is contacting 21 and is thus electrically connected) and an electrode of one polarity of the electrode body (Fig. 1, wherein positive electrode tab 23 connects to 40; see also [0023] which describes electrode tab 23 is electrically connected to 21 such that the bottom plate 40 electrically connects the terminal cap and an positive electrode of the electrode body),
and a valve body (Fig. 1, 10; [0024]) interposed between the terminal cap and the bottom plate by stacking (Fig. 1, wherein valve body 10 is stacked between terminal cap 21 and bottom plate 40; [0024]) in a stacking direction (Fig. 1, vertical direction in which valve body 10 is stacked),
wherein the valve body includes a surface covered with a resin material (Fig. 4, wherein valve body 10 includes a metal surface 3 is covered with resin 1; [0012], [0032], “resin forming the base material layer 1”),
However, Mitsuzuka fails to teach that the first end surface that is an outer edge of the valve body is covered with the protective layer, as a portion of the outer edge of the first end surface cannot cover itself and the protective layer is not interposed between the valve body and the bottom plate in the stacking direction. Since Mitsuzuka teaches that the electrolyte penetration between layers 1 and 3 of the valve body is a concern, and that it is preferable to suppress this penetration ([0043]), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to further suppress this electrolyte penetration given that a suitable method of doing so is provided in the art.
Satoru, analogous in the art of sealed batteries (specifically cylindrical, organic-electrolyte batteries with corrosion resistant materials), teaches a protective layer containing a compound including corrosion resistance to the electrolyte solution (Satoru, Fig. 2, 16; [0020], “polypropylene”, wherein polypropylene is known to have good resistance to organic solvents) and the protective layer 16 is not interposed between a valve body 15 and the bottom plate 13 (see Fig. 2, wherein 16 is disposed along edge of bottom plate 13) in the stacking direction (vertical direction in which valve body 10 is stacked).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the protective layer of Satoru, which seals the inside edge of the bottom plate (see Satoru, Fig. 2, 13) to the inside edge of the bottom plate 40 of Mitsuzuka, in order to further prevent the leakage of electrolyte between the layers of the valve body 10 held within 40 and enhance the corrosion resistance to the electrolyte. Accordingly, Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru also teaches wherein the first end surface that is an outer edge of the valve body (10a within 40 of Mitsuzuka) is covered with the protective layer (like 16 from Satoru, when applied to Mitsuzuka) and the protective layer 16 is not interposed between the valve body 10 and the bottom plate 40 (see Fig. 1 of Mitsuzuka, wherein at least a portion of the protective layer along the inside edge of 40, the vertical portion along the inside edge of 40, is not interposed between 10 and 40 in the stacking/vertical direction, rather only between 10 and 40 in the horizontal direction).
Regarding claim 2,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein an outer peripheral edge portion of the bottom plate includes a folded portion bent in an inner peripheral direction (Fig. 1, 40 folded around 10a; [0026]) to sandwich the valve body between the folded portion and another portion of the bottom plate (Fig. 1, top portion of 40 above 10a; [0026]; Fig. 1 shows 10 vertically sandwiched by upper and lower portions of 40), an outer peripheral edge portion of the valve body is caulked by the folded portion (wherein to caulk is to form a waterproof seal, wherein [0026] describes sealing plate 40 seals the valve body and wherein [0071] describes how the valve body prevents entry of water), and the valve body is fixed to the bottom plate ([0026], “the valve body 10 may be heat-sealed to the sealing plate 40”).
Regarding claim 3,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), further comprising a spacer interposed between the valve body and the folded portion of the bottom plate (Fig. 1, pressing plate 42, [0024]; wherein 42 behaves as a spacer because it makes space between the valve body and the folded edge of 40), and the protective layer (see rejection of claim 1 above, wherein a protective layer like 16 of Satoru is included within Mitsuzuka) is also interposed in a space between a second end surface that is an outer edge of the spacer and the bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1 above, wherein the combination teaches protective layer of Satoru to cover the inside edge of the bottom plate 40 of Mitsuzuka, such that the protective layer is also interposed in a space between a second end surface that is an outer edge of the spacer and the bottom plate, since 42 and 10 are both held by the inside edge of 40 per Mitsuzuka Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the protective layer is attached to a surface of the spacer (see rejection of claim 3 above), the surface not facing the valve body (see rejection of claim 1 above, wherein the outer edge surface of the spacer 42 faces away from the valve body 10 in the vertical direction of Mitsuzuka Fig. 1), and contacts with the folded portion of the bottom plate (see rejection of claim 1 above, wherein combination results in the protective layer 16 of Satoru fitted into the upper folded corner of Mitsuzuka’s bottom plate 40, as suggested by Satoru), and closes a gap between the folded portion and the spacer (see rejection of claim 1 above, wherein inserting a protective layer 16 of Satoru requires that it close a gap so that 16 may fit within the folded portion of 40 of Mitsuzuka).
Regarding claim 11,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the compound A contains polypropylene (see rejection of claim 1 above, citation to Satoru [0020]), and wherein Mitsuzuka teaches polypropylene and polyethylene are interchangeable materials for the polyolefin in an organic electrolyte battery (Mitsuzuka, [0094]) such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the polypropylene compound A with polyethylene as they both perform the same function of improving the sealing of the organic-electrolyte battery as a protective polyolefins. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports an obviousness conclusion per MPEP 2143 I B, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use further supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Satoru (JP3594440B2), and further in view of Toshihiko (JP2018014160A), and Lee (KR20160108857A, refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 5,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein a distance L between the bottom plate and the electrode body is 2.3 mm or less.
Lee, analogous in the art of cylindrical batteries, teaches wherein the distance L between the bottom plate and the electrode body is 10% to 40% the diameter of the battery case [0026].
Toshihiko, analogous in the art of cylindrical, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches wherein a battery case main body has an outer diameter of 18.2 mm ([0047]) as an acceptable embodiment of a cylindrical, organic-electrolyte battery in the art.
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a distance L between the bottom plate and the electrode body to be 1.82 mm to 7.28 mm (calculated by multiplying the diameter taught toward by Toshihiko by the percentage range taught toward by Lee), which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of 2.3 mm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, changes in size/proportion are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art per MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Satoru (JP3594440B2), and further in view of Toshihiko (JP2018014160A, refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 6,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to specifically teach wherein d/D <=0.2 is satisfied, where d denotes an inner diameter of a hollow portion of the electrode body, and D denotes an inner diameter of the battery case.
Toshihiko, analogous in the art of cylindrical, nonaqueous-electrolyte batteries, teaches the opening area of the gas discharge port 21 is, for example, 15 mm^2 to 150 mm^2 (Toshihiko; [0033]), such that the diameters are thus 4.37 mm to 13.82 mm. While not necessarily to scale, the hollow portion of the electrode body appears to be half the diameter of 21, such that it appears that the hollow portion of the electrode body is ~2.19 to 6.9 mm. Accordingly, compared to an outer diameter of ~18 mm (per [0047]), that gives a ratio range 0.1217 to 0.38 of d/D(outer), which is very similar to ratio d/D, and accordingly at least a portion of the range the ratios 0.1217 to 0.38 must overlap with the claimed ratio of d/D wherein d/D <=0.2 is satisfied. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, changes in size/proportion are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art per MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 7,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the terminal cap includes a hole (valve hole 41, Mitsuzuka Fig. 1), but fails to specifically teach that a total area of the holes is 2 mm^2 or more.
Toshihiko, analogous in the art of cylindrical, nonaqueous-electrolyte batteries, teaches a terminal cap which includes a hole (Toshihiko, cap 27 having cap opening 27a; [0035] and Fig. 1) and teaches wherein 27a is “sufficiently larger than the area of through hole 23b” (and the area of the through hole 23b is, e.g., up to 15 mm^2) in order to discharge gas per [0035]. Therefore, since 23b is up to 15mm^2, the total area of the holes of 27a must lie within the claimed range of 2 mm^2 or more.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the Toshihiko such that the cap vent holes in Mitsuzuka had sufficiently large area to be able to discharge gas as taught toward by Toshihiko. The selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, changes in size/proportion are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art per MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Satoru (JP3594440B2, refer to enclosed translations for citations), and further in view of Nikolai (US20110143218).
Regarding claim 8,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a separator thickness of 0.02 mm or less.
Nikolai, analogous in the art of cylindrical, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches wherein a thickness of a separator constituting the electrode body is between e.g. between 10 μm and 20 μm (equivalent to 0.01 and 0.02 mm, wherein the thickness falls within the claimed range of 0.02 mm or less) as an acceptable embodiment of a separator exhibiting optimal for ion transport (Nikolai, [0039]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein a thickness of a separator constituting the electrode body is 0.02 mm or less, as suggested by Nikolai with the motivation of achieving desired ion transport.
Regarding claim 9,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a viscosity at 20°C of 0.0012 Pa s or less
Nikolai, analogous in the art of cylindrical, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches wherein the electrolyte solution includes a viscosity at 25°C of 0.0002 Pa s (0.2 centipoise, Lee* [0035]) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.0012 Pa s or less, wherein the lower range is an order of magnitude less than 0.0012 Pa such that the viscosity at 20°C would expectedly less than 0.0012 Pa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use further supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07, such that selecting the electrolyte solution of Lee* for use as the electrolyte solution within Mitsuzuka would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) and Satoru (JP3594440B2, refer to enclosed translations for citations), and further in view of Takahada (US2017047616A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Mitsuzuka in view of Satoru teaches the sealed battery according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein but fails to teach a weight of a positive electrode mixture per unit area is 0.14 g/cm^2 or more.
Takahada, analogous in the art of a nonaqueous, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches a weight of a positive electrode mixture per unit area of a positive electrode constituting the electrode body is 0.14 g/cm2 or more as an acceptable embodiment of an electrode density for a nonaqueous, organic electrolyte battery (Takahada, [0106], 2.8 g/cm3).
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a weight of a positive electrode mixture per unit area of a positive electrode constituting the electrode body is 0.14 g/cm2 or more, as suggested by Takahada as an acceptable embodiment of an electrode density for a nonaqueous, organic electrolyte battery ([0106], 2.8 g/cm3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 11/20/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the protective layer of Satoru would be interposed between the bottom plate and the valve body, which contradicts the newly amended limitation. However, this is not persuasive, as the resulting structure of the combination, which places the protective layer 16 of Satoru along the inside edge of 40, would at least have the vertical portion of that protective layer disposed along the inside edge not interposed between 10 and 40 in the stacking/vertical direction, rather the portion disposed along the vertical portion of 40 is only between 10 and 40 in the horizontal direction.
Applicant argues all other claims should be allowed based off an allowable claim 1. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejection of claim 1 has been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: JPH01151153A, relevant to the features of claim 1 such as another embodiment of a protective layer in contact with a side portion of the valve body (Fig. 2B, 3d on 4).
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 PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723