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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-39, in the reply filed on March 20, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 40-51 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because it presents a plurality of elements without the required separation by line indentation. 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i); see also M.P.E.P. § 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because the article “the” should precede the term “battery can” in the last line of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-39 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.
The term “having a sheet shape” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “having a sheet shape” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Particularly, it is unclear what types of shapes Applicant considers to be that of a sheet and what types of shapes do not. For the purposes of examination, the term will be interpreted to recite “current collector sheet.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation “present intervals” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination the limitation will be interpreted to recite “preset intervals,” which is properly introduced in claim 11, upon which claim 14 depends.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 18, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 201781028 U), hereinafter “Li.”
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a battery cell comprising:
an electrode assembly, in this case the winding electrode body (¶ 0032], Fig. 2, ref. no. 2), having:
a first electrode current collector sheet, in this case the positive electrode plate (¶ [0034], Fig. 2, ref. no. 21);
a second electrode current collector sheet, in this case the negative electrode plate (¶ [0034], Fig. 2, ref. no. 22);
a separator located between the first and second current collectors, in this case the membrane (¶ [0034], Fig. 2, ref. no. 23);
where the first electrode current collector, the second electrode current collector, and the separator are wound in a winding direction, in this case the electrode body is a winding electrode body (¶ [0032]);
a battery can accommodating the electrode assembly therein, in this case the battery case (¶ [0032], Fig. 2, ref. no. 1), having:
an open portion, in this case the opening covered by the sealing plate (¶ [0032], Fig. 2, ref. no. 5); and
a partially closed portion opposite to the open portion, in this case the opposite end from the sealing plate (see Fig. 2), having a perforated hole, in this case the lead hole (¶ [0032], Fig. 2, ref. no. 111);
where the battery can is electrically connected to the second current collector, in this case the sealing plate is electrically connected to the negative plate via the elastic tab and (¶ [0035] & [0038], Fig. 2, ref. nos. 5, 23, 33, & 4);
a current collection plate electrically connected to the first electrode current collector, in this case the positive current collector plate (¶ [0037], Fig. 2, ref. no. 31);
a cell terminal connected to the current collection plate through the perforated hold of the partially closed portion of the battery can, in this case the pole (¶ [0032], Fig. 2, ref. no. 113); and
an insulator located between the battery can and the current collection plate, in this case the insulation sealing ring (¶ [0032], Fig. 2, ref. no. 112).
Regarding claim 3, Li further discloses that the insulator has a shape that corresponds to a cross-sectional shape of the electrode assembly, in this case both shapes are round (see Figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 4, Li further discloses that at least protrusion is provided on an outer circumference of the insulator (see annotated Fig. 2, below).
The limitation “so that the insulator is coupled to the battery can by press fitting when the electrode assembly is accommodated in the battery can” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here, Li discloses all of the positively-recited structural limitations set forth in the claim, thereby anticipating it.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
738
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Li further discloses that the insulator includes at least one through hole, in this case the hole in which the pole is set (see Fig. 2, ref. nos. 112 & 113).
The limitation “to allow an electrolyte to move therethrough” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Li discloses all of the positively-recited structural limitations. Thus, the claim is anticipated.
Regarding claim 18, Li further discloses that the edge of the insulator has a cross-sectional shape corresponding to a cross-sectional shape of a corner of the partially closed portion of the battery can, in this case the insulation sealing ring is form fitted to the sealing lead-out hole (see Fig. 2, ref. nos. 112 & 111).
Regarding claim 25, Li further discloses that the insulator has a center hole located opposite the cell terminal (see annotated Fig. 2, below).
Regarding claim 30, Li further discloses a cap plate configured to seal the open portion of the battery can, in this case the sealing plate (¶ [0032], Fig. 2, ref. no. 5).
PNG
media_image2.png
328
852
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li.
Regarding claim 15, Li is silent as to the diameter of the through hole. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an insulator through hole of sufficient diameter to securely seat the pole in order to provide the desired sealing function while maintaining insulation between the pole and the battery case (see ¶ [0032][-0033]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the through hole with a diameter of 1.0 mm to 3.0 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 16, Li is silent as to the distance between the center of the insulator and the end of the protrusion. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an insulator of sufficient size in order to securely seat the pole in order to provide the desired sealing function while maintaining insulation between the pole and the battery case (see ¶ [0032][-0033]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the distance from the insulator’s center to the protrusion’s end greater than the diameter of the electrode assembly’s radius in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 17, Li is silent as to the distance between the center of the insulator and the end of the protrusion. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an insulator to be of sufficient size in order to securely seat the pole in order to provide the desired sealing function while maintaining insulation between the pole and the battery case (see ¶ [0032][-0033]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the distance from the insulator’s center to the protrusion’s end greater than the inner diameter of the battery can in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 19, Li is silent as to the thickness of the insulator relative to the inner surface of the partially closed portion of the battery can and the current collection plate. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an insulator to be of sufficient size in order to securely seat the pole in order to provide the desired sealing function while maintaining insulation between the pole and the battery case (see ¶ [0032][-0033]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the insulator’s thickness to correspond to the distance between an inner surface of the partially closed portion of the battery can and the collection plate in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 20, Li is silent as to the thickness of the insulator. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to provide an insulator to be of sufficient size in order to securely seat the pole in order to provide the desired sealing function while maintaining insulation between the pole and the battery case (see ¶ [0032][-0033]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the insulator’s thickness to be between 0.8 mm to 1.6 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
Claims 2, 8, 26, 31, 32, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claims 1 and 30, above, and further in view of Kim (US 2022/0069335 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Li does not disclose the uncoated portions. However, Kim teaches a wound electrode assembly comprising:
a first electrode current collector of the electrode assembly including a first uncoated portion not coated with an active material layer at a long side end thereof, in this case the first uncoated portion (¶ [0029], Fig. 2, ref. no. 111b);
wherein the first uncoated portion is exposed beyond the separator (see Fig. 2, ref. nos. 111b & 113);
wherein the first uncoated portion forms a plurality of winding turns based on a center of the electrode assembly, in this case the electrode assembly is wound more than once (see Figs. 1, 2, 4, & 6); and
wherein the first uncoated portion is electrically connected to the current collection plate (¶ [0040], Fig. 1, ref. no. 141 & Fig. 2, ref. no. 111b).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this well-known, typical electrode assembly arrangement would have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a first uncoated portion that extends beyond the separator and electrically connects to the current collection plate in order to yield the predictable result of a functional battery.
Regarding claim 8, Li does not disclose an adhesion layer formed on a surface of the insulator to fix the insulator to the battery can. However, Kim teaches an insulator fixed to the interior of the battery can by an adhesion layer, in this case the finishing tape comprises an insulation member that is fixed in place within the battery can by a fixing member (¶ [0044], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 150, 152, & 151). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that such an arrangement would have allowed easy insertion of the battery components within the can (see ¶ [0053]), thereby facilitating ease of assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have fixed the insulator with an adhesion layer in order to have facilitated ease of assembly.
Regarding claim 26, Li does not disclose an insulating tape. However, Kim teaches an insulating tape attached to an outer circumference of the electrode assembly to at least a point corresponding to an edge of the insulator, in this case the finishing tape extends around the edge of the electrode assembly and terminates below the gasket (¶ [0043]-[0046]), Fig. 1, ref. nos. 151 & 152). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulating tape would have insulated the electrode assembly from the battery can (¶ [0046]), thereby preventing unintended discharging and short circuiting and facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore it would have been obvious to have included an insulating tape in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
Regarding claim 31, Li does not disclose the sealing gasket. However, Kim teaches that the battery further comprises:
a sealing gasket that surrounds and insulates the cap plate from the battery can (¶ [0035] & [0039], Fig. 1, ref. nos. 134 & 131);
wherein the battery can includes a beading portion formed in a region adjacent to the open portion (see annotated Fig. 1, below); and
wherein the battery can includes a crimping portion extending and ben toward a center of the battery can to wrap and fix the edge of the cap plate together with the sealing gasket (see annotated Fig. 1, below).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that this well-known, typical battery cap and sealing gasket arrangement would have yielded the predictable result of a functional battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a sealing gasket between the cap plate and battery can in order to yield the predictable result of a functional battery.
PNG
media_image3.png
441
666
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Li does not disclose the beading and crimping portions. However, Kim teaches the beading and crimping portions as discussed in the rejection of claim 31, above, and further teaches that the beading portion is located between the crimping portion and the cell terminal (see annotated Fig. 1, above).
Regarding claim 36, Li does not disclose the insulating tape. Kim teaches the insulating tape as discussed in the rejection of claim 26, above, and further teaches the folding portion (see annotated Fig. 1, below), but does not teach the width of the folding portion. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have sized the insulating tape appropriately in order to have provided the desired insulating function (see ¶ [0046]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the folding section of the insulating tape to be 3 mm to 10 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
PNG
media_image4.png
441
666
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, Li does not disclose the insulating tape. However, Kim teaches the insulating tape as discussed in the rejection of claim 26, above, and further teaches that it includes a polyimide-based resin layer, in this case the insulation member may include polyimide (¶ [0046]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulating tape would have insulated the electrode assembly from the battery can (¶ [0046]), thereby preventing unintended discharging and short circuiting and facilitating improved battery operation and safety. Therefore it would have been obvious to have included an insulating tape in order to have facilitated improved battery operation and safety.
Claims 4-6, 12-14, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claims 1 and 10, above, and further in view of Murashige et al. (US 2003/198863 A1), hereinafter “Murashige.”
Regarding claim 4, Li does not disclose the protrusion on an outer circumference of the insulator. However, Murashige teaches an insulator plate (¶ [0059] & [0072]-[0074], Fig. 1, ref. no. 7) including protrusions provided on the outer circumference, in this case the protruding parts (¶ [0072], Fig. 4, ref. no. 11). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulator with at least one protrusion on the circumference would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0012] & [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an insulator with at least on protrusion on the circumference in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
The limitation “so that the insulator is coupled to the battery can by press fitting when the electrode assembly is accommodated in the battery can” is a product-by-process limitation. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted); M.P.E.P. § 2113 I. Here, Li and Murashige all of the positively-recited structural limitations set forth in the claim, thereby rendering it obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Li does not disclose the plurality of protrusions on an outer circumference of the insulator spaced apart at preset intervals. However, Murashige teaches an insulator plate (¶ [0059] & [0072]-[0074], Fig. 1, ref. no. 7) including a plurality protrusions spaced apart at preset intervals provided on the outer circumference, in this case the protruding parts arranged in the form of a regular square (¶ [0072], Fig. 4, ref. no. 11). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulator with a plurality of protrusions on the circumference would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0012] & [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an insulator with a plurality of protrusions on the circumference in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Li does not disclose the plurality of protrusions. Murashige teaches the plurality of protrusions as discussed in the rejection of claim 5, above, and further teaches that the preset intervals are equal to each other on the outer circumference of the insulator, in this case the protruding parts are arranged in a regular square (¶ [0072], Fig. 4, ref. no. 11). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulator with a plurality of protrusions on the circumference would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0012] & [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an insulator with a plurality of protrusions on the circumference in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
Regarding claim 11, Li does not disclose that the insulator includes a plurality of through holes spaced apart at preset intervals. however, Murashige teaches an insulator comprises a plurality of through holes spaced apart at preset intervals, in this case the holes (¶ [0073], Fig. 4, ref. no. 12a) formed inside the protruding parts that are arranged in a regular square (¶ [0072], Fig. 4, ref. no. 11). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Li does not disclose the through holes. However, Murashige teaches the through holes as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, above, and further teaches that the through holes are arranged on one straight line extending from a center portion of the insulator toward an outer circumference of the insulator (see annotated Fig. 4, below). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
PNG
media_image5.png
387
588
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Li does not disclose the through holes. However, Murashige teaches the through holes as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, above, and further teaches that the through holes are arranged on a plurality of straight lines extending from a center portion of the insulator toward an outer circumference of the insulator (see annotated Fig. 4, below). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
PNG
media_image6.png
387
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Li does not disclose the through holes. However, Murashige teaches the through holes as discussed in the rejection of claim 11, above, and further teaches that the preset interval decreases along the radial direction, in this case the a through hole is placed at 180° intervals at the interior and 90° intervals at the exterior (see Fig. 4, ref. nos. 12a & 12b). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an insulator with a plurality of through holes at preset intervals in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
Regarding claim 24, Li does not disclose that the insulator is made of an elastic material. However, Murashige teaches an elastic insulator plate (¶ [0059] & [0074], Fig. 1, ref. no. 7). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such an elastic insulator would have allowed the allowed the component to be press-fitted without difficulty (¶ [0012] & [0075]), thereby facilitating ease of battery assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided an elastic insulator in order to have facilitated ease of battery assembly.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Son et al. (US 2023/0052005 A1), hereinafter “Son,” and Kogure et al. (US 2022/0216564 A1), hereinafter “Kogure.”
Regarding claim 7, Li does not disclose the thermal fusion layer. However, Son teaches that double-sided tape may be used to bond adjacent components within a battery (¶ [0065]) and Kogure teaches that a thermal fusion layer may be used in the alternative to double-sided tape (¶ [0101]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that applying double-sided tape to the insulator would have had the predictable result of fixing the insulator in place within the battery can. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that substituting the thermal fusion layer for the double-sided tape would have yielded the predictable result of bonding the desired components in place. See M.P.E.P. § 2143 I. B. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have substituted the thermal fusion layer for the double-sided tape in order to yield the predictable result of bonding the desired components in place.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Son.
Regarding claim 9, Li does not disclose the double-sided tape. However, Son teaches that double-sided tape may be used to bond adjacent components within a battery (¶ [0065]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that applying double-sided tape to the insulator would have had the predictable result of fixing the insulator in place within the battery can. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used double-sided tape to maintain the position of the insulator relative to the battery can.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Takano et al. (US 2020/0020893 A1), hereinafter “Takano.”
Regarding claim 21, Li does not disclose that the insulator contacts both the inner surface of the can and the current collection plate. However, Takano teaches a cylindrical battery comprising insulating plates that both contact the inner surface of the battery can and the adjacent current collector (¶ [0041], see Fig. 4, ref. nos. 23, 24, 100, 15a, & 16a). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that so arranging the insulator would have prevented short-circuiting (¶ [0038]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged the upper portion of the insulator to be in contact with the inner surface of the can and the lower portion of the insulator to be in contact with the upper surface of the current collection plate in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 22, Li does not specify the insulator’s material of construction. However, Takano teaches that the insulator is made of an insulating polymer material, in this case an epoxy resin (¶ [0039]). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that so making the insulator of such a polymeric material would have prevented short-circuiting (¶ [0038]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the insulator of an insulating polymer material in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Takano as applied to claim 22, above, and further in view of Kwak et al. (KR 2017-0033542 A), hereinafter “Kwak.”
Regarding claim 23, neither Li nor Takano discloses that the insulator is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), or polypropylene (PP) and at least one of a heat resistant additive and a flame retardant. However, Kwak teaches an insulator member that is insulating and flame-retardant made of materials such as polyethylene (PE), PP, and polyimide (PI) (p. 5). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that making the insulator of PP and another flame-retardant materials or additives such as PE or PI would have provided the desired insulating effect while suppressing flames, thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the insulator of PP and PE or PI in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Kim as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2021/0344033 A1), hereinafter “Park.”
Regarding claim 27, Li and Kim do not disclose that the first uncoated portion is divided into a plurality of segments along the winding direction of the electrode assembly. However, Park teaches a battery comprising such segments (¶ [0031]-[0033], Figs. 2 & 3, ref. no. 111a). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that so segmenting the first uncoated portion would have improved welding quality (¶ [0060]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have divided the first uncoated portion into segments along the winding direction in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Regarding claim 28, Li and Kim do not disclose that the first uncoated portion is divided into a plurality of segments along the winding direction of the electrode assembly. However, Park teaches the segments as discussed in the rejection of claim 27, above, and further teaches that the plurality of segments are bent along a radial direction of the electrode assembly (see annotated Fig. 1, below). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that arranging the segments in such a manner would have improved welding quality (¶ [0060]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have divided the first uncoated portion into segments along the winding direction in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
PNG
media_image7.png
471
579
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 29, Li and Kim do not disclose that the first uncoated portion is divided into a plurality of segments along the winding direction of the electrode assembly. However, Park teaches the segments as discussed in the rejection of claim 27, above, and further teaches that the plurality of segments are overlapped in several layers along a radial direction of the electrode assembly, in this case the bent segments occupy the same plane in the radial direction (see annotated Fig. 1, above). One having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that arranging the segments in such a manner would have improved welding quality (¶ [0060]), thereby facilitating improved battery operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have divided the first uncoated portion into segments along the winding direction in order to have facilitated improved battery operation.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Kim as applied to claim 30, above, and further in view of Byun et al. (US 2014/0315058 A1), hereinafter “Byun.”
Regarding claim 33, Li does not disclose the vent notch. However, Kim teaches that the cap plate includes a vent configured to rupture when pressure inside the battery can exceeds a threshold pressure, in this case the safety vent (¶ [0035] & [0037], Fig. 1, ref. no. 132). Kim does not teach the notch. However, Byun teaches a notch in the vent cap (¶ [0038], Fig. 2, ref. no. 32b). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a notch would have ensured that the cap ruptured at the desired internal battery pressure (see ¶ [0038]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the vent notch in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 34, Li does not disclose the vent notch. Kim teaches the vent, but not the notch. However, Byun teaches the vent notch as discussed in the rejection of claim 33, above, and further teaches that the notch may be circular (see Fig. 2, ref. no. 32bc) or a straight line (see Fig. 2, ref. no. 32bb). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a notch would have ensured that the cap ruptured at the desired internal battery pressure (see ¶ [0038]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the vent notch in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Regarding claim 35, Li does not disclose the vent notch. Kim teaches the vent, but not the notch. However, Byun teaches the vent notch as discussed in the rejection of claim 33, above, and further teaches that the notch may be circular (see Fig. 2, ref. no. 32bc) or a straight line (see Fig. 2, ref. no. 32bb). The combination of Byun with Li would have resulted in the vent notch being located in the sealing plate at the bottom of the battery (see Li Fig. 2, ref. no. 5). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a notch would have ensured that the cap ruptured at the desired internal battery pressure (see ¶ [0038]), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have included the vent notch in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
The limitation “wherein gas inside the battery can is discharged through the lower portion of the battery can when the vent notch is ruptured” is a functional limitation. Applicant is reminded that “[a] claim containing a ‘recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus’ if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” M.P.E.P. § 2114 II. Here, Li, Kim, and Byun teach all of the positively-recited structural limitations and the required connections between these components necessary to perform the functional limitations. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2019/0296388 A1), hereinafter “Chen.”
Regarding claim 38, Li does not disclose a battery pack. However, Chen teaches a battery pack comprising at least one battery cell (¶ [0049], Fig. 4, ref. no. 405). One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that arranging at least one battery in such a battery pack would have enabled providing power to an electric vehicle and its electrical components (see, e.g. ¶ [0002]) or some other electrical load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have arranged at least one battery cell in a pack in order to have supplied electrical power to an electric vehicle or some other electrical load.
Regarding claim 39, Li further discloses a vehicle (¶ [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights