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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of priority in view of PCT/CN2020/129889 with an effective filing date of 11/18/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/25/2024 and 11/27/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/11/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12 are amended, Claims 13-17 are newly added and Claims 1-17 are pending.
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.
Claim 12 and Claim 17 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the opening" in Line 5. Claim 6 from which claim 12 depends recites “an opening” however, claim 12 is refereeing to more than one opening and claim 6 is only introducing a single opening. Thus, the language is unclear and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "each tab" in Line 25. Claim 11 from which claim 17 depends on requires one tab and claim 17’s “each tab” is requiring multiple tabs. Thus, the language is unclear and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seong et al. (US 20150111068 A1), hereinafter "Seong".
In regard to Claim 1, Seong et al. discloses a battery cover plate and an electrode terminal being provided on the battery cover plate (Seong, Figure 1 (150, 140)). Seong et al. also discloses wherein an explosion-proof groove which is consistent with the definition of an explosion proof groove in the current application (Original Specification, [0038]) is also provided on the battery cover plate (Seong, Figure 2 (154), [0044,0067]). Further, Seong et al. discloses the explosion-proof groove surrounds the electrode terminal (Seong, Figure 2 (154), [0044]).
In regard to Claim 5, Seong et al. discloses the battery cover plate as claimed in claim 1, wherein the explosion- proof groove is a closed annular structure (Seong, Figure 2 (154), [0044]).
In regard to Claim 6, Seong et al. discloses a lithium-ion secondary battery, comprising a shell, and a battery cover plate, a battery cell being packaged in the shell, one end of the shell being provided with an opening, and the battery cover plate sealing the opening (Seong, Figure 1, [0039]). Seong et al also discloses an electrode terminal being provided on the battery cover plate (Seong, 140), wherein an explosion-proof groove which is consistent with the definition of an explosion proof groove in the current application (Original Specification, [0038]) is also provided on the battery cover plate (Seong, Figure 2 (154), [0044,0067]). Further, Seong et al. discloses the explosion-proof groove surrounds the electrode terminal (Seong, Figure 2 (154), [0044]).
In regard to Claim 10, Seong et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as claimed in claim 6, wherein the explosion-proof groove is a closed annular structure (Seong, Figure 2 (154), [0044]).
In regard to Claims 13 and 15, Seong et al. discloses the battery cover plate as claimed in claim 1 and claim 6, wherein the explosion-proof groove is an indentation formed on a surface of the battery cover plate (Seong, [0010, 0044]).
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.
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 2-4, 7-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. (US 20150111068 A1), hereinafter "Song" as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Baek et al. (US 20110300414 A1), hereinafter "Baek". Seong and Baek et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery covers and assembly.
In regard to Claims 2-4 and 7-9, Seong et al. discloses the battery cover plate as claimed in claim 1. While Seong et al. discloses a battery with a single terminal on the cover plate, if the skilled artisan were to provide a battery with two terminals on the cover plate based on design incentives or other market forces it would be obvious to include the explosion proof groove (154) around both terminals.
In fact, Baek et al. teaches a battery cover plate wherein two terminals are provided on the cover (Baek, Figure 1 (143, 144)) wherein two explosion proof grooves consistent with the definition of an explosion proof groove in the current application (Original Specification, [0038]) are provided around both terminals (Baek, grooves 141a, 141b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide two explosion proof grooves when there are two terminals on the cover plate as taught in Baek et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
In regard to Claim 12, Seong et al discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as claimed in claim 6. While Seong discloses a pouch type cell with a cover plate it is silent as to the bottom opening or second cover.
Baek et al discloses a pouch type cell wherein two opposite ends of the shell are each provided with an opening and thus the design requires a first battery cover plate and a second battery cover plate wherein the first battery cover plate seals the opening at one end of the shell and the second battery cover plate seals the opening at the other end of the shell (Baek, [0030]). Baek et al also discloses the explosion-proof groove is set on the first battery cover plate (Beak, [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a second cover plate when the pouch cell design requires one as taught in Baek et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. (US 20150111068 A1), hereinafter "Song" as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, in view of Cho et al. (US 20180102521 A1), hereinafter "Cho". Seong and Cho et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery covers and assembly.
In regard to Claims 11 and 17, Seong et al. discloses the lithium-ion secondary battery as claimed in claim 6. While Seong et al. discloses wherein a tab is provided in the shell and the electrode terminal is electrically connected to the battery cell through the tab and that one end of the tab is connected to the battery cell and the other end of the tab is connected to the electrode terminal (Seong, [0040]), Seong et al. fails to explicitly disclose a cutout provided on the tab.
Cho et al. discloses wherein the tab is provided with a plurality of cutouts (Cho, items 36, 38), and the cutouts are arranged on two opposite lateral sides of each tab (Cho, Figure 10). Cho et al. discloses these cutouts have the benefit of the electrode lead to be broken and separated more easily, thereby interrupting further current flow and preventing extreme situations and as a result, safety is improved (Cho, [0073-0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide cutouts as taught in Cho et al. to the tabs of Seong et al. as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Cho et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. (US 20150111068 A1), hereinafter "Song" as applied to claims 1 and 6 above. Seong et al. is analogous prior art to the claimed invention because it pertains to the same field of endeavor, namely battery covers and assembly.
In regard to Claims 15 and 16, Seong et al. discloses the battery cover plate as claimed in claim 13, while Seong et al. is silent as to the exact dimensions of the explosion proof groove, Seong discloses that the weakened portion (explosion proof groove) comprises a portion of the cap plate of reduced thickness (Seong, Claim 3), i.e. the thickness of the cap plate is 100% and thus the range of the depth of the groove is >0 and <100%, which overlaps the claimed range and is within the realm of routine optimization for the skilled artisan. Therefore, 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 overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obvious. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6 and 12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/266,277 (reference application 1) and over claims 1, 14, 15 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/266,278 (reference application 2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of reference application 1 comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery with at least two cells and a cooling unit wherein the current application comprises a single cell and is silent as to the cooling unit, however, this is nothing more than an obvious variation of a secondary battery to the skilled artisan. Claim 8 of the reference application 1 is identical to claim 12 of the current application and Claim 12 of the reference application 1 is identical to claims 1 and 6 of the current application except that the explosion proof groove is provided on both covers instead of one when the terminal is provided on each cover, which is nothing more than a routine variation for the skilled artisan to provide the same explosion proof groove around the terminal when the terminal is provided on each cover plate.
Further, Claims 1 and 14 of reference application 2 comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery open at both ends and a cooling unit wherein the current application comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery open at both ends but is silent as to the cooling unit, however, this is nothing more than an obvious variation of a secondary battery to the skilled artisan. Claims 15 of reference application 2 is identical to claim 12 of the current application and claim 17 of the reference application 2 except that the explosion proof groove is provided on both covers instead of one when the terminal is provided on each cover, which is nothing more than a routine variation for the skilled artisan to provide the same explosion proof groove around the terminal when the terminal is provided on each cover plate.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725