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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 7, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushihara (US PGPub 2018/0205044 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2006-0118719 A, see also the previously provided English translation).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Urushihara discloses in Figs. 1-4 a cylindrical battery (1), comprising a case (2, 20), a pole (30, 40) and an insulation sealing member (50), wherein the case (2, 20) is a cylindrical groove structure ([0025]-[0026], wherein the case 2, 20 is cylindrical structure and comprises grooves and therefore is a cylindrical groove structure),
the pole (30, 40) is riveted to the case (2, 20), and the insulation sealing member (50) is arranged between the pole (30, 40) and the case (2, 20) ([0025]-[0026], wherein the pole 30, 40 is fastened to the case 2, 20 to make it incapable of movement and therefore is riveted),
the insulation sealing member (50) comprises an upper insulation sealing member (50a) and a lower insulation sealing member (50b), the upper insulation sealing member (50a) is arranged outside the case (2, 20) and is in an engaged connection with the case (2, 20), and the lower insulation sealing member (50b) is arranged inside the case (2, 20) ([0026]); and
the upper insulation sealing member (50a) is provided with an annular protrusion block (58a), the annular protrusion block (58a) fits against an outer sidewall of a portion (32), passing through the case (2, 20) of the pole (30, 40), and the outer sidewall of the portion (32), passing through the case (2, 20), of the pole (30, 40) presses the annular protrusion block (58a) towards an inner sidewall of a portion, being passed through by the pole (30, 40), of the case (2, 20) (Fig. 2, [0026], [0034], [0036]-[0037]).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “to increase friction and prevent rotation” is intended use and therefore is not given patentable weight aside from the structure required to perform such function.
Thus, because Urushihara discloses wherein the upper insulation sealing member (50a) is provided with an annular protrusion block (58a), the annular protrusion block (58a) fits against an outer sidewall of a portion (32), passing through the case (2, 20) of the pole (30, 40), and the outer sidewall of the portion (32), passing through the case (2, 20), of the pole (30, 40) presses the annular protrusion block (58a) towards an inner sidewall of a portion, being passed through by the pole (30, 40), of the case (2, 20) (Fig. 2, [0026], [0034], [0036]-[0037]), such reads on the limitation “to increase friction and prevent rotation”, as evidenced by P7, L12-26 of the instant specification.
Urushihara further discloses wherein the pole (30, 40) is an integrated structure in which three cylinders (31, 32, 40) are coaxially superimposed, the three cylinders are respectively, from top to bottom, a first cylinder (31), a second cylinder (32) and a third cylinder (40), the third cylinder (40) has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of the first cylinder (31) and larger than a diameter of the second cylinder (32), the third cylinder (40) is arranged inside the case (2, 20), the first cylinder (31) is arranged outside the case (2, 20), and the second cylinder (32) sequentially passes through the upper insulation sealing member (50a), the case (2, 20), and the lower insulation member (50b) (Figs. 2 and 4, [0026]).
Specifically, Urushihara discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-4 wherein the pole (30, 40) is a negative pole and wherein the case (2, 20) doubles as a positive pole ([0025]) and therefore Urushihara does not disclose wherein the pole is a positive pole.
Though, Urushihara discloses wherein the exemplary embodiment is not limited to such and further discloses wherein a case may double as a positive pole or a negative pole ([0003], [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the pole to be a positive pole and to form the case to double as a negative pole, as disclosed by Urushihara, as the exemplary embodiment is not particularly limited and such is a known configuration and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the cylindrical battery desired by Urushihara.
Modified Urushihara further discloses wherein the case (2, 20) is provided with a second placing groove (23), a groove bottom face of the second placing groove (23) is provided with a protrusion block (25a), the protrusion block (25a) is arranged circumferentially around the second cylinder (32), and an outer sidewall (e.g. see a side wall of the annular protrusion block 58a) of the upper insulation sealing member (50b) is in contact with an inner sidewall (e.g. see a sidewall of the protrusion block 25a) of the second placing groove (23) (Figs. 2, 4 and [0034], [0036]).
Specifically, modified Urushihara discloses a desire to improve sealability of the cylindrical battery ([0011]).
However, modified Urushihara does not disclose wherein the protrusion block is provided with an engaging groove; an end face, facing the case, of the upper insulation sealing member is provided with a positioning groove fitted with and connected to the protrusion block, a groove bottom face of the positioning groove is provided with an engaging block fitted with and engaged with the engaging groove.
Kim teaches in Figs. 1 and 5b a cylindrical battery comprising a case (70) with an engaging groove (71) and a member (60) provided with a positioning groove (62) fitted with and engaged with the engaging groove (71), a groove bottom face of the positioning groove (62) is provided with an engaging block fitted with and engaged with the engaging groove (71) in order to seal the cylindrical battery more reliably (P9, L7-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the protrusion block of modified Urushihara with an engaging groove and to provide the end face, facing the case, of the upper insulation member of modified Urushihara with a positioning groove fitted with and connected to the protrusion block, such that a groove bottom face of the positioning groove is provided with an engaging block fitted with and engaged with the engaging groove, as taught by Kim, in order to seal the cylindrical battery of modified Urushihara more reliably, as desired by modified Urushihara.
In light of the above, modified Urushihara discloses wherein the engaged connection comprises an engaging groove (71 of Kim) arranged circumferentially around the second cylinder (32 of Urushihara) and an engaging block (Figs. 1-4 of Urushihara and Figs. 1, 5b, P9, L7-19 of Kim).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “and the engaging groove restricts the engaging block from rotating circumferentially about the second cylinder” is intended use and therefore is not given patentable weight aside from the structure required to perform such function.
Thus, because modified Urushihara discloses wherein the engaging groove (71 of Kim) is fitted with and connected to the engaging block (Figs. 1, 5b, P9, L7-19 of Kim), the engaged connection of modified Urushihara reads on the limitation “and the engaging groove restricts the engaging block from rotating circumferentially about the second cylinder”, as evidenced by P6, L15-17 of the instant specification.
Modified Urushihara further discloses wherein the cylindrical battery further comprises a jellyroll (3, 4, 5 of Urushihara) and a positive current collecting plate (8 of Urushihara); wherein the jellyroll (3, 4, 5 of Urushihara) and the positive current collecting plate (8 of Urushihara) are arranged inside the case (2, 20 of Urushihara), and a potion (40 of Urushihara), located inside the case (2, 20 of Urushihara), of the positive pole (30, 40 of Urushihara) is connected to a positive electrode terminal (3 of Urushihara) of the jellyroll (3, 4, 5 of Urushihara) through the positive current collecting plate (8 of Urushihara) (Fig. 1, [0025] of Urushihara, wherein the pole 30, 40 was rendered obvious above as being a positive pole and consequently the current collecting plate 8 is connected to the positive electrode terminal of the jellyroll 3, 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein, in a case where the upper insulation sealing member (50a of Urushihara) is provided with the annular protrusion block (58a of Urushihara), the annular protrusion block (58a of Urushihara) comprises a first annular protrusion block (58a of Urushihara), an end face, opposite from an end face facing the case (2, 20 of Urushihara), of the upper insulation sealing member (50a of Urushihara) is provided with an opening of a first through hole (51a of Urushihara), and an edge of the opening of the first through hole (51a of Urushihara) is provided with the first annular protrusion block (58a of Urushihara) (Figs. 2 and 4, [0026], [0034] of Urushihara).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an end face (55a of Urushihara), facing the first cylinder (31 of Urushihara), of the upper insulation sealing member (50a of Urushihara) is provided with a first placing groove (60 of Urushihara), an outer sidewall (37 of Urushihara) of the first cylinder (31 of Urushihara) is in contact with an inner sidewall of the first placing groove (60 of Urushihara), and an end face (38 of Urushihara), in contact with a groove bottom face of the first placing groove (60 of Urushihara), of the first cylinder (30 of Urushihara) is provided with an annular anti-slip convex block (36 of Urushihara) (Figs. 4-5 and [0027]-[0028], [0031] of Urushihara).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an end face (52b of Urushihara), facing the first cylinder (31 of Urushihara), of the lower insulation sealing member (50b of Urushihara) is provided with an annular groove (58b of Urushihara), the second placing groove (23 of Urushihara) forms an annular protrusion protruding towards the inside of the case (2, 20 of Urushihara), and the annular protrusion is fitted with and connected to the annular groove (58b of Urushihara) (Figs. 2, 4 and [0034] of Urushihara).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the case (2, 20 of Urushihara) is electrically connected to the negative current collecting plate (7 of Urushihara) (Fig. 1 and [0025] of Urushihara, wherein the case 2, 20 was rendered obvious above as doubling as the negative pole).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the case (2, 20 of Urushihara) is provided with a second through hole (21 of Urushihara), and the second cylinder (32 of Urushihara) passes through the first through hole (51a of Urushihara), the second through hole (21 of Urushihara), and the third through hole (51b of Urushihara) sequentially, and a central axis (100 of Urushihara) of the positive pole (30, 40 of Urushihara), a central axis (100 of Urushihara) of the first through hole (51a of Urushihara), a central axis (100 of Urushihara) of the second through hole (21 of Urushihara) and a central axis of the third through hole (51b of Urushihara) all coincide (Figs. 2 and 4, [0026] of Urushihara).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein the upper insulation sealing member (50a of Urushihara) and the lower insulation sealing member (50b of Urushihara) are made of insulation material having elasticity ([0026] of Urushihara, wherein the insulation material is a synthetic resin such as polypropylene or polyphenylene sulfide which necessarily and inherently have an elasticity).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushihara (US PGPub 2018/0205044 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2006-0118719 A, see also the previously provided English translation), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeong et al. (KR 2016-0091616 A, see also the previously provided English translation).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses wherein an end face (55b of Urushihara), facing the positive current collecting plate (8 of Urushihara), of the lower insulation sealing member (50b of Urushihara) is provided with a third placing groove (e.g. see groove formed by sidewall portions 54 of Urushihara), the third cylinder (40 of Urushihara) is placed in the third placing groove and is in contact with a groove bottom face of the third placing groove (Figs. 2 and 4-5 of Urushihara).
Specifically, modified Urushihara discloses wherein the positive pole (30, 40 of Urushihara) is connected to a positive electrode terminal (3 of Urushihara) of the jellyroll (3, 4, 5 of Urushihara) through the positive current collecting plate (8 of Urushihara) (Fig. 1, [0025] of Urushihara, wherein the pole 30, 40 was rendered obvious above as being a positive pole and consequently the current collecting plate 8 is connected to the positive electrode terminal of the jellyroll 3, 4, 5).
However, modified Urushihara does not disclose wherein a maximum width of the positive current collecting plate is larger than a width of the third placing groove and smaller than a width of the lower insulation sealing member, and the positive current collecting plate is in contact with the lower insulation sealing member.
Jeong teaches in Figs. 5-6 a battery (100) comprising a case (104, 106), a pole (11, 10), an insulation sealing member (22, 24) comprising an upper insulation sealing member (24) and a lower insulation sealing member (22), and a current collecting plate (12) ([0070], [0083]).
Specifically, Jeong teaches wherein the pole (11, 10) is connected to an electrode terminal of a jellyroll (102) through the current collecting plate (12) ([0015], [0085]).
Jeong further teaches in Figs. 5-6 wherein an end face, facing the current collecting plate (12), of the lower insulation sealing member (22) is provided with a placing groove, wherein a third cylinder (10) of the pole (11, 10) is placed in the placing groove and is in contact with a groove bottom face of the third placing groove, a maximum width of the current collecting plate (12) is larger than a width of the third placing groove and smaller than a width of the lower insulation sealing member (22), and the current collecting plate (12) is in contact with the lower insulation sealing member (24) ([0070], [0083], [0085], see also annotated Fig. 6 provided below as an example).
PNG
media_image1.png
899
984
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the positive current collecting plate of modified Urushihara such that a maximum width of the positive current collecting plate is larger than a width of the third placing groove of modified Urushihara and smaller than a width of the lower insulation sealing member of modified Urushihara, wherein the positive current collecting plate is in contact with the lower insulation sealing member, as taught by Jeong, as such is a known configuration in the art, wherein the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully connect the positive pole of modified Urushihara to the positive electrode terminal of the jellyroll of modified Urushihara through the positive current collecting plate, as desired by modified Urushihara.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushihara (US PGPub 2018/0205044 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2006-0118719 A, see also the previously provided English translation), as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Jo et al. (US PGPub 2024/0136650 A1, which has a foreign priority date of February 19, 2021).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses a negative current collecting plate (7 of Urushihara) and a negative cap, and the negative cap is connected to a negative electrode terminal (4 of Urushihara) of the jellyroll (3, 4, 5 of Urushihara) through the negative current collecting plate (7 of Urushihara) ([0026] of Urushihara, wherein was case 2, 20 was rendered obvious above to double as the negative pole such that a negative cap of the case 2, 20 is electrically connected to a negative electrode terminal 4 of the jellyroll 3, 4, 5 through the negative current collecting plate 7).
Specifically, modified Urushihara discloses wherein the cylindrical battery comprises the positive pole (30, 40 of Urushihara) and the negative cap on opposite sides of the cylindrical battery (see annotated Fig. 1 of Urushihara provided below).
PNG
media_image2.png
791
928
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, modified Urushihara does not disclose wherein a groove opening of the case is connected to the negative cap in a sealed manner.
Jo teaches in Figs. 1-3A a cylindrical battery (1) comprising a jellyroll (10), a current collecting plate (L), and a cap (30); wherein a groove opening of a case (20) is connected to the cap (30) in a sealed manner, and the cap (30) is connected to an electrode terminal (11) of the jellyroll (10) through the current collecting plate (L) ([0072]-[0073], [0085], [0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a groove opening in the case of modified Urushihara, such that the groove opening is connected to the negative cap of modified Urushihara in a sealed manner and the negative cap is connected to the negative electrode terminal of the jellyroll of modified Urushihara through the negative current collecting plate of modified Urushihara, as taught by Jo, as such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a cylindrical battery having the positive pole of modified Urushihara and the negative cap on opposite sides of the cylindrical battery, as desired by modified Urushihara.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushihara (US PGPub 2018/0205044 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2006-0118719 A, see also the previously provided English translation), as applied to Claim 2 above, and further in view of Choi et al. (US PGPub 2023/0411805 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses a negative current collecting plate (7 of Urushihara) and a negative cap ([0026] of Urushihara, wherein was case 2, 20 was rendered obvious above to double as the negative pole).
Specifically, modified Urushihara discloses wherein the cylindrical battery comprises the positive pole (30, 40 of Urushihara) and the negative cap on opposite sides of the cylindrical battery (see annotated Fig. 1 of Urushihara provided above).
However, modified Urushihara does not disclose wherein a groove opening of the case is connected to the negative cap in a sealed manner, the negative cap is not connected to the negative current collecting plate, an insulation layer is arranged between the negative cap and the case, and the case is connected to a negative electrode terminal of the jellyroll through the negative current collecting plate.
Choi teaches in Fig. 7 and 23 a cylindrical battery (70) comprising a jellyroll (71), a current collecting plate (78), and a cap (74a); wherein a groove opening of a case (51) is connected to the cap (74a) in a sealed manner, the cap (74a) is not connected to the current collecting plate (78), an insulation layer (74b) is arranged between the cap (74a) and the case (51), and the case (51) is connected to an electrode terminal (72) of the jellyroll (71) through the current collecting plate (78) ([0186], [0188], [0194]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cylindrical battery of modified Urushihara to comprise a groove opening in the case of modified Urushihara, wherein the groove opening is connected to the negative cap of modified Urushihara in a sealed manner, the negative cap is not connected to the negative current collecting plate of modified Urushihara, an insulation layer is arranged between the negative cap and the case, and the case is connected to a negative electrode terminal of the jellyroll of modified Urushihara through the negative current collecting plate, as taught by Choi, as such is a known configuration in the art and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form a cylindrical battery having the positive pole of modified Urushihara and the negative cap on opposite sides of the cylindrical battery, as desired by modified Urushihara.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urushihara (US PGPub 2018/0205044 A1) in view of Kim et al. (KR 2006-0118719 A, see also the previously provided English translation), as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Deng et al. (US PGPub 2024/0222807 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Urushihara discloses all of the limitations as set forth above and further discloses a negative tab (8 of Urushihara) and a positive tab (7 of Urushihara) (Fig. 1, [0025] of Urushihara).
However, modified Urushihara does not disclose wherein the cylindrical battery is a cylindrical full-tab battery.
Deng teaches wherein cylindrical batteries are traditionally cylindrical single-tab or multi-tab cylindrical batteries ([0002]).
However, Deng teaches wherein a cylindrical battery may be formed as a full-tab cylindrical battery in order to achieve low internal resistance and high energy density ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the cylindrical battery of modified Urushihara to be a cylindrical full-tab battery, as taught by Deng, in order to achieve low internal resistance and high energy density.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended Claim 1, the Applicant argues that Urushihara fails to disclose that the upper insulation sealing member (50a) is in an engaged connection with the case for the following reasons: the sealing plate (20) is not the case or part of the case; the upper gasket (50a) and the lower gasket (50b) are disposed inside of the case, sandwiching the sealing plate (20), and do not contact the case at all. Therefore, it is impossible for the upper gasket (50a) to be engaged with the case.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the case of Urushihara was interpreted to comprise the cylindrically-shaped battery can (2) and the sealing plate (20) that seals the opening of the cylindrically-shaped battery can (2) ([0025]-[0026]).
Specifically, the Examiner notes that neither the claim nor the instant specification specially define “a case” and therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation has been relied on. Because the cylindrically-shaped battery can (2) and the sealing plate (20) in combination form a receptacle for holding a jellyroll (Fig. 1, [0025]-[0026]), such reads on “a case” in light of Merriam-Webster (definition of “case”, see NPL provided with this Office Action).
Therefore Urushihara discloses wherein the upper insulation sealing member (50a) is in an engaged connection with the case (Figs. 1-4, [0026]).
The Examiner further notes that Urushihara was not relied on to disclose the limitations directed the engaging groove and the engaging block and therefore the arguments directed to such are moot.
Specifically, Urushihara modified by the teachings of Kim has been relied on to disclose wherein the engaged connection comprises an engaging groove (71 of Kim) arranged circumferentially about the second cylinder (32 of Urushihara) and an engaging block (Figs. 1-4 of Urushihara, Figs. 1, 5b and L7-19 of Kim).
The Examiner notes that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant argues that Kim fails to disclose the structure that the upper insulation sealing member is arranged outside the case and is in an engaged connection with the case, nor does Kim disclose that the engaged connection structure comprises the engaging groove arranged circumferentially about the second cylinder and the engaging block for the following reasons: Kim merely discloses a configuration in which a cap-up 70 has at least one protrusion 71 on the lower surface, and the at least one protrusion 71 and a groove 62 on an upper surface of a current controller 60 are interlocked with each other to seal the battery more reliably. However, Kim does not disclose, and has no design intent for, any circumferential restriction between an engaging groove and an engaging block about the second cylinder of the positive pole.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Kim was not relied on to disclose the limitations directed the upper insulation sealing member and therefore the arguments directed to such are moot.
Furthermore, Kim was not relied on to disclose circumferential restriction between an engaging block about the second cylinder of the positive pole.
As stated above, Urushihara modified by the teachings of Kim has been relied on to disclose wherein the engaged connection comprises an engaging groove (71 of Kim) arranged circumferentially about the second cylinder (32 of Urushihara) and an engaging block (Figs. 1-4 of Urushihara, Figs. 1, 5b and L7-19 of Kim).
The Examiner notes that the limitation “and the engaging groove restricts the engaging block from rotating circumferentially about the second cylinder” is intended use and therefore is not given patentable weight aside from the structure required to perform such function.
Thus, because modified Urushihara discloses wherein the engaging groove (71 of Kim) is fitted with and connected to the engaging block (Figs. 1, 5b, P9, L7-19 of Kim), the engaged connection of modified Urushihara reads on the limitation “and the engaging groove restricts the engaging block from rotating circumferentially about the second cylinder”, as evidenced by P6, L15-17 of the instant specification.
As stated above, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant further argues that in Kim, the protrusion 71 and the groove 62 between the stacked members of the cap assembly are only used to enhance the fitting tightness, reduce contact resistance, and improve sealing performance. In the amended claimed invention, the engaging groove restricts the engaging block from rotating circumferentially about the second cylinder. Thus, the functions of the protrusion 71 and the groove 62 in Kim are essentially different from the functions of the engaging groove and the engaging block in the present invention.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the prior art does not need to recognize the same technical effect or solve the same problem as that of the claimed invention. So long as the structure of the cylindrical battery is the same as that of the claimed invention, the prior art will read on the claimed invention no matter the motivation for arriving at said structure or the recognized technical effects of said structure.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why the engaging groove (71 of Kim) arranged circumferentially around the second cylinder (32 of Urushihara) and an engaging block (Figs. 1-4 of Urushihara and Figs. 1, 5b, P9, L7-19 of Kim) would not necessarily and inherently restrict the engaging block from rotating circumferentially about the second cylinder.
The Applicant argues that the protrusion 71 and groove 62 in Kim act on the conductive stacked members of the battery top assembly and therefore are used for the engagement between metallic conductive stacked members (metal-to-metal), whereas the engaged connection in the present application is used for the engagement between the insulation sealing member and the battery case (insulator-to-case). Thus, the material of the component and the engagement requirement in Kim are essentially different from the material of the component and engagement requirement in the present application. Furthermore, Kim focuses on conductive efficiency and sealing performance, without any design intent for anti-rotation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the Applicant has not provided any reason or evidence that the difference in materials would make the modification inoperable.
Furthermore, as stated above, the prior art does not need to recognize the same technical effect or solve the same problem as that of the claimed invention (e.g. anti-rotation). So long as the structure of the cylindrical battery is the same as that of the claimed invention, the prior art will read on the claimed invention no matter the motivation for arriving at said structure or the recognized technical effects of said structure.
The Applicant argues that it is unreasonable for the Office Action to equate “the upper protruding portion 58a fits against an outer sidewall of the inserting portion 32 of the electrode terminal 30” in Urushihara with “the annular protrusion block fits against an outer sidewall of a portion of the position pole” because the inserting portion 32 of the electrode terminal 30 is circular while the upper protruding portion 58a is hexagonal ([0030]). As will be recognized by a person skilled in the art, a circular structure cannot closely fit against and press a hexagonal structure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the upper protruding portion (58a) clearly fits against an outer sidewall of the inserting portion (32) of the electrode terminal (30) as shown in Figs. 4-5 of Urushihara. For example, the outer circumference of the upper protruding portion (58a) has a hexagonal shape corresponding to a lower recessed portion (58b) of the sealing plate (20) (Fig. 4). However, the inner circumference of the upper protruding portion (58a) is circular so that it fits against an outer sidewall of the inserting portion (32) of the electrode terminal (30) (e.g. see circular hole 51a).
This is further emphasized by Urushihara’ s explicit desire to provide an insulation sealing member (sealing body) in which leakage due is prevented and sealability is further improved ([0009], [0011]). If the upper protruding portion (58a) of the upper insulation sealing member (50a) is not fit against (e.g. contact) an outer sidewall of the inserting portion (32) of the electrode terminal (30), there would clearly be leakage.
The Applicant argues that Urushihara does not disclose that the outer sidewall of the portion, passing through the case, of the positive pole presses the annular protrusion block towards an inner sidewall of a portion, being passed through by the positive pole, of the case. Urushihara only realizes single shape-limited anti-rotation through contour interference between the hexagonal special-shaped protrusions and the circular electrode terminal. Urushihara fails to disclose the circumferentially arranged engaging grooves and engaging blocks, the engaged connection of the upper insulation sealing member outside the case, and the multi-dimensional anti-rotation structure in which the positive electrode presses the annular protrusion blocks to assist anti-rotation by friction. The anti-rotation principles and component matching manners of the two are completely different.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as set forth in the rejection of record, Urushihara discloses wherein the outer sidewall of the portion (32), passing through the case (2, 20), of the pole (30, 40) presses the annular protrusion block (58a) towards an inner sidewall of a portion, being passed through by the pole (30, 40), of the case (2, 20) (Fig. 2, [0026], [0034], [0036]-[0037]).
Furthermore, as previously stated, Urushihara alone was not relied on to disclose the limitations directed to the engaging connection comprising an engaging groove and an engaging block and therefore the arguments directed to such are moot.
The Examiner reiterates that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant argues that the anti-rotation design of the present application does not rely solely on the engaged connection, but adopts multi-dimensional anti-rotation. Urushihara does not disclose the multi-dimensional anti-rotation structure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, because modified Urushihara discloses the claimed invention, modified Urushihara necessarily discloses the argued multi-dimensional anti-rotation structure.
The Examiner emphasizes that the Applicant has not pointed out any differences between the physical structure of modified Urushihara and the claimed invention.
The Applicant argues that the technical problem solved by Urushihara is liquid leakage caused by rotation of the electrode terminal in the top seal of a cylindrical battery ([0011]). The technical problem solved by Kim is high contact resistance and insufficient sealing performance of inner stacked members in a cap assembly (P4). Neither address the technical problem of rotation of the positive pole of a cylindrical battery about its axis. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have motivation to forcible combine the two unrelated references to solve a problem that is not mentioned or recognized in the art.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by the Applicant, Urushihara is directed to suppressing liquid leakage caused by rotation of the electrode terminal in the top seal of a cylindrical battery ([0011]) and therefore Urushihara addresses the technical problem of rotation of the positive pole of a cylindrical battery about its axis.
Furthermore, Urushihara discloses a desire to improve sealability of the cylindrical battery ([0011]) and Kim teaches a configuration that achieves a more reliable seal in a cylindrical battery (P9, L7-19) and therefore both are analogous.
Nonetheless, as stated above, the prior art does not need to recognize the same technical effect or solve the same problem as that of the claimed invention (e.g. anti-rotation). So long as the structure of the cylindrical battery is the same as that of the claimed invention, the prior art will read on the claimed invention no matter the motivation for arriving at said structure or the recognized technical effects of said structure.
The Applicant argues that the claimed multi-dimensional anti-rotation structure requires three cooperative layers: An engaged connection between the upper insulation sealing member (outside the case) and the case, including an engaging groove and engaging block arranged circumferentially about the second cylinder of the positive pole; An annular protrusion block provided on the upper or lower insulation sealing member, fitted against the outer sidewall of the second cylinder; The outer sidewall of the second cylinder pressing the annular protrusion block toward the inner sidewall of the case to increase friction and prevent rotation. Neither Urushihara nor Kim discloses this three-layer, cooperative anti-rotation structure.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that modified Urushihara discloses the claimed structure, as set forth in the rejection above. TheApplicant has not pointed out any differences between the physical structure of modified Urushihara and the claimed invention and therefore the argued technical feature is not distinct from the cited prior art.
The Applicant argues that according to the basic principle of battery conduction, the electrode terminal 30 is the negative conductive terminal. In contrast, the positive pole of the present application is positively charged and therefore is essentially different from the electrode terminal 30 of Urushihara (see [0025], [0003], [0046] and Figs. 1-4 of Urushihara).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as set forth in the rejection of record, Urushihara discloses in the exemplary embodiment of Figs. 1-4 wherein the pole (30, 40) is a negative pole and wherein the case (2, 20) doubles as a positive pole ([0025]) and therefore Urushihara does not disclose wherein the pole is a positive pole.
Though, Urushihara discloses wherein the exemplary embodiment is not limited to such and further discloses wherein a case may double as a positive pole or a negative pole ([0003], [0046]). Therefore, the pole (30) of Urushihara was rendered obvious to be a positive pole with a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner further notes that such a modification would necessarily and inherently form the positive electrode and positive electrode tab to be electrically connected to the positive pole (30) and the negative electrode and negative electrode tab to be electrically connected to the case in order to successfully achieve a functioning battery.
The Applicant argues that even though [0003] of Urushihara records the description “a closed bottom which doubles as a positive or negative current collector”, the polarity of the battery case and the polarity of the negative case are independent concepts and therefore it cannot be inferred that the electrode terminal 30 of Urushihara is a positive electrode based on this.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Urushihara discloses wherein a cylindrical battery comprises a positive terminal and a negative terminal, and wherein the case doubles as the positive terminal or the negative terminal ([0003], [0025], [0046]) and therefore the electrode terminal (30) necessarily and inherently is the oppositely charged positive terminal or negative terminal in order to successfully form a functioning battery.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the pole of Urushihara to be a positive pole and to form the case of Urushihara to double as a negative pole, as disclosed by Urushihara, as the exemplary embodiment is not particularly limited and such is a known configuration and therefore the skilled artisan would have reasonable expectation that such would successfully form the cylindrical battery desired by Urushihara.
The Examiner notes that the two concepts are not independent, but are in fact dependent of each other in order to successfully form a functioning cylindrical battery.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the Applicant has not provided any evidence or reasoning why this modification cannot be made with a reasonable expectation of success.
Thus, the arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY WYLUDA whose telephone number is (571)272-4381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 AM - 3 PM EST.
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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/KIMBERLY WYLUDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights