DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1/29/2026 for US Patent Application No. 18/026432 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. rejections of claims 5-9, 15, 17, 18 and 20 as being anticipated by Harris, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 10 and 11 as being unpatentable over Harris, and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-4 and 19 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Liu have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the aforementioned rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Haug (US Patent 9,882,187 B2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 20 have been amended to include the limitation “wherein the top surface and the side surface are contiguous, and the bottom surface is not contiguous with the side surface”. The limitation is considered to be indefinite because claims 1, 5 and 20 specify the bottom surface being mechanically connected to the side surface, which appears to be in contrast with the recitation of “the bottom surface is not contiguous with the side surface”. Examiner respectfully argues that it is unclear how the bottom surface can be mechanically connected to the side surface of the energy cell while also being not contiguous.
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.
Claims 5-11, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2017/0001584 A1), herein referred to as Harris, in view of Haug (US Patent 9,882,187 B2).
With respect to amended claim 5, Harris teaches an energy cell (Figure 7) comprising a top surface having a center terminal (Figure 7, feature 780) and an outer terminal (Figure 7, feature 770) wherein the center terminal and the outer terminal are configured as substantially planar electrical contacts. Harris further teaches the energy cell includes a side surface (Figure 7, feature 720) which is mechanically connected to the top surface, a bottom surface (Figure 7, feature 740) which is mechanically connected to the side surface and the energy cell contains an energy storage material (lithium-ion battery, [0043]). Additionally, Harris teaches the energy cell has a top surface and side surface that are contiguous (Figure 7).
With respect to amended claim 20, Harris teaches a battery system comprising a plurality of battery cells (Figure 5, plurality of cells 450) wherein each of the cells comprise a top surface having a center terminal (Figure 7, feature 780) and an outer terminal (Figure 7, feature 770) wherein the center terminal and the outer terminal are configured as substantially planar electrical contacts. Harris further teaches the cells include a side surface (Figure 7, feature 720) which is mechanically connected to the top surface, a bottom surface (Figure 7, feature 740) which is mechanically connected to the side surface and the energy cell contains an energy storage material (lithium-ion battery, [0043]). Harris also teaches the cells are interconnected by laser welds and aligned in a substantially planar configuration (Harris [0038], positive portion can be laser welded to cathode terminal of battery cell and negative portion can be laser welding to anode terminal of battery cell). Additionally, Harris teaches the energy cell has a top surface and side surface that are contiguous (Figure 7)
Harris does not appear to explicitly teach the amended limitations of claims 5 and 20 that include the bottom surface being not contiguous with the side surface of the energy cell. However, from the same field of technology, Haug discloses the formation of a battery cell for motor vehicle applications.
In view of amended claims 5 and 20, Haug teaches (Claim 1) forming a battery cell that includes a first housing element and a second housing element that are respectively configured as half-shells that possess open sides that are aligned with each other. As half-shells, the first and second housing elements taught by Haug would read on the amended limitations because the first housing element would have a top surface and side surface being contiguous and the second housing element would have a bottom surface that is not contiguous with the side surface of the first housing element.
The half-shells taught by Haug are considered to be a known configuration used in battery manufacturing that provider improved battery design benefits. Haug suggests (Column 4, Lines 38-63) a great number of possible connecting techniques is “possible with a high degree of flexibility, since half-shell-shaped housing elements can be connected to one another on five bounding faces and/or can be cooled there. This allows almost any desired two-dimensional or three-dimensional arrangements. As a result, adaptation to extremely varied installation spaces in vehicles is easily possible. In spite of the reduction in the number of individual components of a battery cell, and accordingly a module, at the same time the flexibility thereof for the construction of battery modules or batteries is significantly increased. This results in price advantages in terms of the structural design, material consumption, assembly and maintenance or recycling. This applies both when there is a series connection and when there is a parallel connection of cells.”
Therefore, at the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell taught by Harris to include the teachings of Haug directed to manufacturing a battery housing with half-shell designs in order to improve battery module assembling processes and to provide improved flexibility in battery installation.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy cell of claim 5, wherein the top surface is substantially circular (Figure 7).
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy cell of claim 5, wherein the center terminal and the outer terminal substantially cover the top surface (Figure 7).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy cell of claim 5, wherein the center terminal and outer terminal are separated by a terminal insulator gasket, wherein the terminal insulator gasket is an electrical insulator (Harris [0043], the anode terminal 770 and cathode terminal 780 can be electrically isolated from each other by an insulator or dielectric).
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy cell of claim 5, wherein the central terminal is a cathode terminal (Harris [0043], feature 780) and the outer terminal is an anode terminal (Harris [0043], feature 770).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy cell of claim 5. Although Harris does not explicitly recite the limitation of wherein an area of the center terminal and an area of outer terminal are configured to be dependent, it would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could be utilized in order to achieve the claimed configuration of the areas of the central and outer terminals. At the time of filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the area of the central terminal and the area of the outer terminal to be dependent for the benefit of balancing the surface area for both terminals on the top surface of the energy cell, therefore allowing for more precise manufacturing of the energy cell.
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy of claim 5. Although Harris does not explicitly recite the limitation of wherein an area of the center terminal and an area of the outer terminal are determined based on a threshold of statistical likelihood that a cell-array level interconnect welding or other assembly process will be successful, it would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could be utilized in order to achieve the claimed configuration of the areas of the central and outer terminals. At the time of filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the area of the central terminal and the area of the outer terminal to be based on a threshold of statistical likelihood that a cell-array level interconnect welding or other assembly process will be successful for the benefit of allowing for more precise manufacturing of the energy cell.
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy cell of claim 5, wherein the bottom surface is substantially circular (Figure 7, feature 740).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Harris and Haug (Harris) teaches the energy cell of claim 5, wherein the bottom surface has an annular interface configured to form a base for the cell (Harris [0043], the cell body is cylindrical and therefore would have top and bottom surfaces that have an annular shape).
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2017/0001584 A1), herein referred to as Harris, in view of Liu et al. (US 2019/0296297 A1), herein referred to as Liu, and Haug (US Patent 9,882,187 B2).
With respect to amended claim 1, Harris teaches an energy cell (Figure 7) comprising a top surface having a center terminal (Figure 7, feature 780) and an outer terminal (Figure 7, feature 770) wherein the center terminal and the outer terminal are configured as substantially planar electrical contacts. Harris teaches the energy cell includes a side surface (Figure 7, feature 720) which is mechanically connected to the top surface, a circular bottom surface (Figure 7, feature 740) which is mechanically connected to the side surface and the energy cell contains an energy storage material (lithium-ion battery, [0043]) that has an annular interface. Harris further teaches the center terminal and outer terminal are separated by a terminal insulator gasket, wherein the terminal insulator gasket is an electrical insulator (Harris [0043], the anode terminal 770 and cathode terminal 780 can be electrically isolated from each other by an insulator or dielectric). Additionally, Harris teaches the energy cell has a top surface and side surface that are contiguous (Figure 7).
Harris does not appear to explicitly recite a pressure venting feature being formed in the circular bottom surface thereof. However, Liu teaches [0022-0026] a battery cell of a battery pack wherein the battery cell is configured to include a vent plate (pressure venting feature) coupled with the housing of the battery cell.
In view of amended claim 1, Liu teaches the vent plate can include a scoring pattern which cause the vent plate to rupture when the internal pressure of the battery cell is above a certain pressure threshold. Although Liu doesn’t explicitly state the vent plate is positioned at the bottom of the battery cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery cell with a pressure venting feature formed on the bottom of a battery cell in order to safely discharge gases from the battery cell without interfering with the terminals of the battery cell. By forming the pressure venting feature on an opposite surface from the surface with the battery terminals, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve improved ventilation of the battery cell and reduce the probability of thermal runaway from occurring.
The combination of Harris and Liu does not appear to explicitly teach the amended limitations of claim 1 that includes the bottom surface being not contiguous with the side surface of the energy cell. However, from the same field of technology, Haug discloses the formation of a battery cell for motor vehicle applications.
In view of amended claims 5 and 20, Haug teaches (Claim 1) forming a battery cell that includes a first housing element and a second housing element that are respectively configured as half-shells that possess open sides that are aligned with each other. As half-shells, the first and second housing elements taught by Haug would read on the amended limitations because the first housing element would have a top surface and side surface being contiguous and the second housing element would have a bottom surface that is not contiguous with the side surface of the first housing element.
The half-shells taught by Haug are considered to be a known configuration used in battery manufacturing that provider improved battery design benefits. Haug suggests (Column 4, Lines 38-63) a great number of possible connecting techniques is “possible with a high degree of flexibility, since half-shell-shaped housing elements can be connected to one another on five bounding faces and/or can be cooled there. This allows almost any desired two-dimensional or three-dimensional arrangements. As a result, adaptation to extremely varied installation spaces in vehicles is easily possible. In spite of the reduction in the number of individual components of a battery cell, and accordingly a module, at the same time the flexibility thereof for the construction of battery modules or batteries is significantly increased. This results in price advantages in terms of the structural design, material consumption, assembly and maintenance or recycling. This applies both when there is a series connection and when there is a parallel connection of cells.”
Therefore, at the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell taught by Harris and Liu to include the teachings of Haug directed to manufacturing a battery housing with half-shell designs in order to improve battery module assembling processes and to provide improved flexibility in battery installation.
In view of claim 3, Harris in view of Liu and Haug teaches the energy cell of amended claim 1. Although Harris in view of Liu and Haug does not explicitly recite the limitation of wherein an area of the center terminal and an area of outer terminal are configured to be dependent, it would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could be utilized in order to achieve the claimed configuration of the areas of the central and outer terminals. At the time of filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the area of the central terminal and the area of the outer terminal to be dependent for the benefit of balancing the surface area for both terminals on the top surface of the energy cell, therefore allowing for more precise manufacturing of the energy cell.
In view of claim 4, Harris in view of Liu teaches the energy cell of amended claim 1. Although Harris in view of Liu and Haug does not explicitly recite the limitation of wherein an area of the center terminal and an area of the outer terminal are determined based on a threshold of statistical likelihood that a cell-array level interconnect welding or other assembly process will be successful, it would be well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that routine experimentation and various experimental design choices could be utilized in order to achieve the claimed configuration of the areas of the central and outer terminals. At the time of filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the area of the central terminal and the area of the outer terminal to be based on a threshold of statistical likelihood that a cell-array level interconnect welding or other assembly process will be successful for the benefit of allowing for more precise manufacturing of the energy cell.
In view of claim 19, Harris in view of Liu and Haug (Harris) teaches an energy cell (Figure 7) comprising a top surface having a center terminal (Figure 7, feature 780) and an outer terminal (Figure 7, feature 770) wherein the center terminal and the outer terminal are configured as substantially planar electrical contacts. Harris teaches the energy cell includes a side surface (Figure 7, feature 720) which is mechanically connected to the top surface, a circular bottom surface (Figure 7, feature 740) which is mechanically connected to the side surface and the energy cell contains an energy storage material (lithium-ion battery, [0043]) that has an annular interface.
Harris does not appear to explicitly recite a pressure venting feature being formed in the circular bottom surface thereof. However, Harris in view of Liu and Haug (Liu teaches [0022-0026]) a battery cell of a battery pack wherein the battery cell is configured to include a vent plate (pressure venting feature) coupled with the housing of the battery cell. In view of claim 19, Harris in view of Liu and Haug teaches the vent plate can include a scoring pattern which cause the vent plate to rupture when the internal pressure of the battery cell is above a certain pressure threshold. Although Liu doesn’t explicitly state the vent plate is positioned at the bottom of the battery cell, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design a battery cell with a pressure venting feature formed on the bottom of a battery cell in order to safely discharge gases from the battery cell without interfering with the terminals of the battery cell. By forming the pressure venting feature on an opposite surface from the surface with the battery terminals, one of ordinary skill in the art would achieve improved ventilation of the battery cell and reduce the probability of thermal runaway from occurring.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2017/0001584 A1), herein referred to as Harris, in view of Haug (US Patent 9,882,187 B2), as applied to amended claim 5 above, and further in view of Anthony et al. (US Patent 2,802,042), herein referred to as Anthony.
In view of claim 12, the combination of Harris and Haug teaches the energy cell of amended claim 5, but does not appear to explicitly recite an energy cell comprising a sleeve wherein the sleeve encompasses at least part of the side surface.
However, in view of claim 12, Anthony teaches a sleeve (Anthony Figures 1, 2 and Column 3, Lines 30-34) wherein an insulating sleeve is formed over a side surface of a battery cell to provide an electrolyte-impervious barrier. At the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a sleeve to encompass at least part of the side surface of an energy cell in order to provide improved insulation to the energy cell.
In view of claim 13, Anthony further teaches (Column 3, Lines 30-34) the insulating sleeve can be formed of polyethylene or a suitable plastic, which are examples of electrically insulating materials.
In view of claim 14, Anthony further teaches (Column 3, Lines 30-34) the insulating sleeve is comprised of two or more layers of one or more materials (Anthony teaches the sleeve is comprised of a 3-ply stock which is indicative of a three-layer configuration).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris et al. (US 2017/0001584 A1), herein referred to as Harris, in view of Haug (US Patent 9,882,187 B2), as applied to amended claim 5 above, and further in view of Marple (US 2013/0260201 A1).
In view of claim 16, the combination of Harris and Haug teaches the energy cell of amended claim 5, but does not explicitly recite the limitation wherein the top surface is sufficiently ferrous to allow movement via magnetic adhesion by manufacturing equipment.
However, in view of claim 16, Marple teaches [0040-0043] an energy cell (Figure 2 feature 10) comprising a top surface with a central terminal (Figure 2 feature 40) and further teaches the top surface is sufficiently ferrous to allow movement magnetic adhesion by manufacturing equipment (top surface formed of a stainless steel terminal cover, [0048-0049]). Therefore, at the time of the filing date of the instant application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the energy cell taught by Harris to include a top surface formed from stainless steel as taught by Marple in order to provide improved corrosion resistance to the energy cell while also enhancing the electrical conductivity of the top surface of the energy cell containing the terminals.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEWART A FRASER whose telephone number is (571)270-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7am-4pm, 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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.
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724