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 .
Claim Status
This office action is in response to the amendment filed 2/4/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11 have been amended; support for claim 1 is found in figure 1 and claims 2 and 4; claims 2, 4, 5 is supported by the original claims; claim 5 corrects the dependency; claim 6 is amended to correct lack of antecedent basis; support for claim 11 is found in original claim.
Claim 13 has been added; support is found in original claim 11.
Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nielsen (US 2014/0120412 A1).
As to claim 1, Nielsen discloses a button battery shell (11), comprising:
a positive electrode metal end cover (14 second housing portion) and a negative electrode metal end cover (12 first housing portion),
wherein the positive electrode metal end cover (14) comprises a first bottom cover (figure 1 and 2) and a first surrounding wall provided around one side of the first bottom cover (second rim 20), and
the negative electrode metal end cover (12) comprises a second bottom cover (figures 1 and 2) and a second surrounding wall (first rim 18)provided around one side of the second bottom cover (figures 1);
wherein the positive electrode metal end cover and the negative electrode metal end cover are arranged opposite to each other so that an end portion of the first surrounding wall and an end portion of the second surrounding wall are oppositely arranged at an interval (see figure 2, annotated below),
PNG
media_image1.png
439
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first insulating sleeve is arranged on the first surrounding wall (38 second grommet portion and 22),
a second insulating sleeve is arranged on the second surrounding wall (36 first grommet portion and 22),
the first insulating sleeve and the second insulating sleeve are connected at a connection surface to form an insulating shell having an integrated structure (62, [0056]), and
the insulating shell, the positive electrode metal end cover and the negative electrode metal end cover form an accommodating cavity for accommodating a battery cell (figures 2, 6),
wherein the first surrounding wall comprises a first annular wall and a second annular wall connected sequentially in a direction away from the first bottom cover (see figure below),
the first annular wall and the second annular wall are coaxial (see figure below); and
the second surrounding wall comprises a third annular wall and a fourth annular wall connected sequentially in a direction away from the second bottom cover (see figure below);
the third annular wall and the fourth annular wall are coaxial (see figure below);
wherein inner diameters of the first annular wall and the third annular wall are equal (see figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
442
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Nielsen discloses the diameter of the second annular wall is greater than a diameter of the first annular wall (see annotated figure above).
As to claim 3, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 2, wherein a connection surface of the first annular wall and the second annular wall is parallel to the first bottom cover (see figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
442
659
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 1, wherein a method of arranging the first insulating sleeve on the first surrounding wall comprises injection molding; a method of arranging the second insulating sleeve on the second surrounding wall comprises injection molding. The product-by-process limitations of claim 7 (injection molding) are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 7 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
As to claim 8, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 1, wherein a connection manner for connecting the first insulating sleeve and the second insulating sleeve comprises at least one of hot melting, ultrasonic melting, welding or bonding; the welding comprises at least one of laser welding, ultrasonic welding, induction welding or vibration welding; the bonding comprises bonding through glue.
The product-by-process limitations of claim 8 (connection manner) are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 8 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art. Nielsen discloses a sealer/ glue (62) can be used [0056], [0006] (laser welding)
As to claim 9, Nielsen disclose the button battery shell according to claim 1, wherein the connection surface of the first insulating sleeve and the second insulating sleeve is a mating inclined surface (the rounded edges of the battery would case an inclined surface as seen in figure 2).
As to claim 10, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 1, wherein a material of the positive electrode metal end cover and a material of the negative electrode metal end cover independently comprise stainless steel [0038];
the material of the positive electrode metal end cover and the material of the negative electrode metal end cover are the same or different [0038].
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.
Claim(s) 4-6, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US 2014/0120412 A1).
As to claim 4, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 2, a diameter of the fourth annular wall is greater than a diameter of the third annular wall; a connection surface of the third annular wall and the fourth annular wall is parallel to the second bottom cover (as seen below in the annotated figure);
PNG
media_image4.png
442
659
media_image4.png
Greyscale
But Nielsen does not mention the height of the first annular wall is m, and m is in a range of 0.7-1.5 mm. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144. In this case, Nielsen discloses [0040] that the size of the first and second housing can be reduced as such can be made to the dimensions required by the device and/or cost of materials.
As to claim 5, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 1, wherein the first insulating sleeve(38, 22) is arranged on surfaces of an inner side, an outer side and the end portion of the first surrounding wall (see figure 2);
the second insulating sleeve (36, 22) is arranged on surfaces of an inner side, an outer side and the end portion of the second surrounding wall (see figure 2);
However Nielsen does not disclose a thickness of the first surrounding wall and a thickness of the second surrounding wall are independently in a range of 0.1-0.3 mm;
a thickness of a portion of the first insulating sleeve arranged on the inner side of the first surrounding wall and a thickness of a portion of the first insulating sleeve arranged on the outer side of the first surrounding wall are independently in a range of 0.2-0.8 mm;
a thickness of a portion of the second insulating sleeve arranged on the inner side of the second surrounding wall and a thickness of a portion of the second insulating sleeve arranged on the outer side of the second surrounding wall are independently 0.1-5 mm.
. However, it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144. In this case, Nielsen discloses in [0051] the dimensions of components are selected and configurable depending on the dimensions of the enclosure.
As to claim 6, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 5,
wherein a portion of the first insulating sleeve arranged on the inner side of the first surrounding wall abuts against the connection surface of the first annular wall and the second annular wall (figure 2 or 3), and
a portion of the first insulating sleeve arranged on the outer side of the first surrounding wall abuts against an outer side of the first annular wall (see figure 2);
a portion of the first insulating sleeve arranged on the inner side of the first surrounding wall coincides with an inner diameter annular surface of the first annular wall;
a portion of the second insulating sleeve arranged on the inner side of the second surrounding wall abuts against the connection surface of the third annular wall and the second annular wall, and
a portion of the second insulating sleeve arranged on the outer side of the second surrounding wall abuts against an outer side of the third annular wall;
a portion of the second insulating sleeve arranged on the inner side of the second surrounding wall coincides with an inner diameter annular surface of the third annular wall. (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
466
659
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 11, Nielsen discloses the button battery shell according to claim 1, wherein a material of the first insulating sleeve and a material of the second insulating sleeve independently comprise at least one of polymeric materials [0041].
However Nielsen does not disclose the first insulating sleeve and the second insulating sleeve are provided in different colors to distinguish a positive electrode side from a negative electrode side. However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have different colors because this would indicate which material is used or which shell is used during the assembling of the battery.
As to claim 13, Nielson discloses the button battery shell according to claim 11, wherein a material of the first insulating sleeve and a material of the second insulating sleeve independently comprise polypropylene [0041].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen (US 2014/0120412 A1) in view of Uyama et al. (US 2003/0186118 A1).
As to claim 12, Nielson discloses battery (abstract), comprising: the button battery shell according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 incorporated herein) and a battery cell/electrochemical module (11) located in the accommodating cavity of the button battery shell [0037];
a shape of the button battery comprises a cylinder, and the cylinder comprises at least one of a regular polygonal cylinder or a cylinder with irregular cross-section (figure 4) [0053] [0007];
a diameter-to-height ratio of the button battery is more than 1, equal to 1 or less than 1 (any size of the battery would fulfill one of the 3 options);
However Nielson does not disclose the following:
wherein the button battery comprises a lithium-ion button battery;
the button battery comprises a liquid button battery, a semi-solid button battery or an all-solid button battery;
the battery cell is a wound battery cell or a stacked battery cell;
for the wound battery cell, an axial direction of the battery cell is perpendicular to the first bottom cover and the second bottom cover;
for the stacked battery cell, a stacked surface of the battery cell is parallel to the first bottom cover and the second bottom cover.
Uyama et al. discloses a battery and teaches the battery can be lithium [0032]
the button battery comprises a liquid button battery[0030];
the battery cell a stacked battery cell (figure 1);
for the stacked battery cell, a stacked surface of the battery cell is parallel to the first bottom cover and the second bottom cover (figure 1).
The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. (see MPEP § 2143, B.). In this case, making batteries of lithium and a liquid electrolyte with a stacked electrode are known configuration of a battery and one of ordinary skill at the time the application was effectively filed would have known to use those of Uyama in the battery cell of Nielson.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In this case newly found art of Nielsen is used to reject the claims.
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 MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. 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.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727