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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al.(US2022/0021087A1, English translation of CN111989800A), in view of Myerberg et al. (US2007/0117011A1), and in further view of Nemoto et al. (US2002/0081483A1)
As to claim 1, Guo discloses a button cell [0096], comprising a housing (21) and a cover assembly (22); wherein, the housing (21) comprises a bottom wall (211,[0066] fig. 2) and an annular side wall (212,[0066] fig. 2), a bottom end of the side wall and the bottom wall being integrally formed (fig. 2); the cover assembly comprises a top cover having a through hole at its central area (via hole (201) [0066] fig. 2) and a conductive member covering the through hole (conductive member (30)),
an outer edge of the top cover (214, fig. 2) is bonded with a top of the side wall (213 fig. 2) to form an accommodating chamber (210, fig.1) for accommodating an electrode assembly (battery cell(10) [0087] fig. 1). However Guo does not prefer laser welding the joining of the top cover and side wall. In the same field of endeavor Myerberg discloses a battery cell [Abstract], and further teaches ( The cell's primary packaging (can and end caps) is composed of aluminum alloy. The weld seal is typically obtained by laser welding, or optionally by other metal joining methods such as ultrasonic welding, resistance welding, MIG welding, TIG welding [0076]… This allows for the vast majority of the inside of the cell to be used for active material, greatly improving the cell's energy storage capacity to volume ratio.[0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the ultrasonic welding of Myerberg to improve the cell’s energy storage capacity to volume ratio.
In the combination with Myerberg, modified Guo would disclose an outer surface of the outer edge of the top cover has a welding mark, and a welding penetration extends in a direction from the top cover to the side wall (As shown in fig. 2 of modified Guo, the second housing body (22) is welded to the first housing body (21) from the outside, thereby the weld penetrating from the top cover to the side wall (213) and inevitably, an outer surface of the outer edge of the top cover has a welding mark.) ; and the conductive member (30) is disposed on a side of the top cover facing the accommodating chamber (210) (Guo, fig. 2).
Guo does not explicitly disclose an electrolyte accommodated in the accommodation space (210) but battery cell (10) is accommodated in accommodation space (210), which to function as a battery would require an electrolyte. However, Myerberg discloses an end cap of fig. 4A [0085] comprising a hollow bore rivet (45) which functions as a power terminal (conductor) and serves a dual purpose of power terminal and electrolyte fill inlet, and thereby provides efficient use of space [0084].
Therefore it would be obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use hollow bore rivet of Myerberg because the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.) and at the time of the invention rivets were known to be used as a conductors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the end cap of Myerberg to improve the cell’s energy storage capacity to volume ratio by efficiently utilizing the space [0079].
Therefore in the combination substituting Myerberg’s conductor with Guo’s conductor would provide a electrolyte filling inlet in the modification of Guo, and introduce electrolyte in the accommodation space (210) via rivet (45) to activate the battery [Myerberg, 0088]
modified Guo discloses a seal gasket (47) [Myerberg, 0085] disposed between the conductive member and the top cover (Myerberg, [0085] fig. 4B), but silent on the sealing ring being made of rubber.
In the same field of endeavor Nemoto discloses ethylene propylene rubber is used to insulate terminals from the battery case as the adhesion becomes excellent and the sealing becomes more complete [0075-0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the rubber of Nemoto to improve the insulation adhesion and complete coverage.
modified Guo discloses a boss (Myerberg, (43) fig. 4B) arranged through the through hole is disposed on the conductive member (Myerberg, (rivet 45) fig. 4B), the boss is disposed on a surface of the conductive member abutting against the top cover (fig. 4B), and a side of the conductive member (45) facing the accommodating chamber is a plane (fig. 4B).
Regarding the limitation “The size of a one-sided stacked portion of the conductive member (30) and the through hole (201) in a radial direction is greater than or equal to 1 mm and a diameter difference between the conductive member and the top cover is less than or equal to 0.05 mm.” 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.
As to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses the conductive member (Myerberg, 45) is provided with an injection port for injecting the electrolyte into the accommodating chamber [Myerberg, 0084]; the cover assembly further comprises a sealing member (Myerberg, (51) covering the injection port, and the sealing member is located on a side of the conductive member facing away from the accommodating chamber (Myerberg, fig. 5A).
As to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses the injection port (Myerberg, fill hole (40) penetrates the boss, and a center of the boss coincides with a center of the injection port (Myerberg, fig. 4B).
As to claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses an end surface of the boss away from the accommodating chamber flushes with an end surface of the housing away from the accommodating chamber (Myerberg, (43) is hermetically sealed to the battery tube or the main body of the cell fig. 5A);
As to claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses an end of the boss away from the accommodating chamber is provided with a counter bore (Myerberg, (43) fig. 4A), the counter bore communicates with the injection port, and a center of the counter bore coincides with the center of the injection port (Myerberg, fig. 4A).
As to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses a distance between the end surface of the boss away from the accommodating chamber and an end surface of the boss close to the accommodating chamber is a thickness of the boss, and thickness of the boss is 0.1mm-0.5mm. (Myerberg, metal end cap has a range of thickness of about 75 µm to 125 µm [0026])
It is noted a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
As to claim 15, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses a groove (Myerberg, cavity formed by conforming plug (51) to fill hole (40)) is disposed on a side of the sealing member facing away from the accommodating chamber (Myerberg, fig. 5B), the groove forms a thinning area (Myerberg, [0088], fill hole plug (51), a deformable insert, e.g., a deformable metal insert…. The fill hole plug (51) is then pressed into this same fill hole, expanding... achieving a hermitic seal where the fill hole used to be. Where expanding metal would provide a thinning area) and a center of the thinning area coincides with the center of the injection port (Myerberg, fig.5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the metal sealing groove (51) of Myerberg to prevent electrolyte leakage..
As to claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses a groove (Myerberg, cavity formed by conforming plug (51) to fill hole (40)) is disposed on a side of the sealing member facing away from the accommodating chamber (Myerberg, fig. 5B), the groove forms a thinning area (Myerberg, [0088], fill hole plug (51), a deformable insert, e.g., a deformable metal insert…. The fill hole plug (51) is then pressed into this same fill hole, expanding... achieving a hermitic seal where the fill hole used to be. Where expanding metal would provide a thinning area) and a center of the thinning area coincides with the center of the injection port (Myerberg, fig.5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the metal sealing groove (51) of Myerberg to prevent electrolyte leakage..
As to claim 17, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses a groove (Myerberg, cavity formed by conforming plug (51) to fill hole (40)) is disposed on a side of the sealing member facing away from the accommodating chamber (Myerberg, fig. 5B), the groove forms a thinning area (Myerberg, [0088], fill hole plug (51), a deformable insert, e.g., a deformable metal insert…. The fill hole plug (51) is then pressed into this same fill hole, expanding... achieving a hermitic seal where the fill hole used to be. Where expanding metal would provide a thinning area) and a center of the thinning area coincides with the center of the injection port (Myerberg, fig.5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the metal sealing groove (51) of Myerberg to prevent electrolyte leakage..
As to claim 18, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses a groove (Myerberg, cavity formed by conforming plug (51) to fill hole (40)) is disposed on a side of the sealing member facing away from the accommodating chamber (Myerberg, fig. 5B), the groove forms a thinning area (Myerberg, [0088], fill hole plug (51), a deformable insert, e.g., a deformable metal insert…. The fill hole plug (51) is then pressed into this same fill hole, expanding... achieving a hermitic seal where the fill hole used to be. Where expanding metal would provide a thinning area) and a center of the thinning area coincides with the center of the injection port (Myerberg, fig.5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the metal sealing groove (51) of Myerberg to prevent electrolyte leakage..
As to claim 19, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses a groove (Myerberg, cavity formed by conforming plug (51) to fill hole (40)) is disposed on a side of the sealing member facing away from the accommodating chamber (Myerberg, fig. 5B), the groove forms a thinning area (Myerberg, [0088], fill hole plug (51), a deformable insert, e.g., a deformable metal insert…. The fill hole plug (51) is then pressed into this same fill hole, expanding... achieving a hermitic seal where the fill hole used to be. Where expanding metal would provide a thinning area) and a center of the thinning area coincides with the center of the injection port (Myerberg, fig.5B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time the application was filed to modify Guo with the metal sealing groove (51) of Myerberg to prevent electrolyte leakage..
As to claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, modified Guo discloses an electronic device comprising an electronic device body and the button cell according to claim 1, the button cell providing electric energy for the electronic device body ([0088] fig. 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, pages 6-8, Guo, Myerberg, and Nemoto fail to teach the amended limitations of “the size of a one-sided stacked portion of the conductive member and the through hole in a radial direction is greater than or equal to 1 mm and a diameter difference between the conductive member and the top cover is less than or equal to 0.05 mm.” This limitation describes a relative dimensional relationship between the conductive member and the through-hole, and the conductive member and the top cover, 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.
Applicant argues, page 8, the amended limitation enhances the conductive component resistance to internal pressure within the button battery. It is noted the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure. .
Kawada et al. (US2014/0020241A1) Welding marks.
Iwamoto et al. (US2015/0358441A1) Rubber sealing ring.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BART A HORNSBY whose telephone number is (313)446-6637. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
BART HORNSBY
Examiner
Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728