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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, species A in the reply filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because each species is a separate embodiment with separate features each requiring a separate search and likewise the method and the apparatus contain different features which each require separate searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Furthermore, species A does not include “wherein the first protruding structure surrounds the cap body” as recited in claims 6 and 12, therefore claim 6 and its dependents 7-8 and 17-19 as well as claim 12 are withdrawn. Species A also does not include “wherein the first protruding structure abuts on and is welded to the first tab” as recited in claim 3, therefore claim 3 is also withdrawn.
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 16 recites the limitation "the second protruding structure" in lines 1 and 2. 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 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 13, 20, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyata et. al. (US20170133645A1 as cited in the IDS dated 06/04/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Miyata discloses a battery cell(10, Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing having an opening(i.e. exterior case 15);
an electrode assembly(14), accommodated in the housing, wherein a first tab(i.e. current collector 18) is disposed on the electrode assembly at an end oriented toward the opening; and
an end cap to fit and cover the opening(i.e. sealing member 20), wherein the end cap comprises a cap body(i.e. lid 22) and a first protruding structure connected to the cap body(i.e. step 22b), a rupturable structure is disposed on the cap body(i.e. fragile portion 22a), and the end cap ruptures along the rupturable structure when an internal pressure of the battery cell reaches a threshold, so as to release the internal pressure(¶[0018]), wherein
the first protruding structure protrudes from the cap body toward the electrode assembly and supports the first tab so that an avoidance clearance configured to avoid the rupturable structure is formed between the first tab and the cap body(see gap directly below the fragile portion 22a in Fig. 1 as an avoidance clearance and step 22b is supporting the tab 18 through terminal plate 24).
Regarding claim 2, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 1, wherein a first recess(see space above step 22b in Fig. 1) is formed on the end cap at a position corresponding to the first protruding structure, the first recess is recessed from an outer surface of the cap body toward the electrode assembly, and a bottom face of the first recess is closer to the first tab than an inner surface of the cap body(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 1, further comprising a current collecting structure(i.e. terminal plate 24) disposed between the end cap and the first tab, wherein
the current collecting structure connects the end cap and the first tab to implement electrical connection between the end cap and the first tab(see Fig. 1, ¶[0013]); and
in a thickness direction of the end cap, the avoidance clearance is located between the current collecting structure and the cap body(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 4, wherein the current collecting structure overlays the rupturable structure along the thickness direction of the end cap to separate the rupturable structure from the first tab(see Fig. 1 where the current collector is between the rupturable structure and the first tab, in this case the term overlay is understood according to ¶[0179] of the instant specification where the current collector may be spaced apart from the rupturable structure and a projection of the fragile portion along the thickness direction is located within a projection of the current collecting member along the thickness direction).
Regarding claim 9, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 4, wherein at least a part of the current collecting structure is located between the first protruding structure and the first tab; and
the first protruding structure supports the first tab through the current collecting structure(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 9, wherein a part of the current collecting structure abuts on and is welded to the first tab(¶[0034]), and another part of the current collecting structure abuts on and is welded to the first protruding structure(¶[0031], see weld 25, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 9, wherein the cap body surrounds the first protruding structure(see cell is a cylindrical cell with the cap body closer to the exterior than the first protruding structure, ¶[0050], Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 1, wherein a groove is disposed on the cap body, and the rupturable structure is formed in a region opposite to the groove on the cap body(Fig. 1 see groove in surface of cap body directly above fragile portion 22a).
Regarding claim 26, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 1, wherein the battery cell is a cylindrical cell(¶[0009]).
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 11, 14-16, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et. al. (US20170133645A1 as cited in the IDS dated 06/04/2025) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 13, 20, and 26 above, and further in view of Biegger (US4879187A).
Regarding claim 11, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the current collecting structure is a flat plate structure.
Biegger, related to batteries, teaches an electrode assembly(16) with a flat plate tab(2, Figs. 2-3) connected to electrodes(18).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the flat plate design of Biegger in the battery of Miyata would have provided a space and cost saving design(col 1, lines 59-61).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have used the flat plate design of Biegger in the battery of Miyata to provide a space and cost saving design.
Regarding claim 14-16, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the end cap further comprises a second protruding structure, and the second protruding structure surrounds the cap body; and the second protruding structure protrudes from an inner surface of the cap body toward the electrode assembly, and a top end face of the second protruding structure is closer to the first tab than a top end face of the first protruding structure, so that the second protruding structure abuts on the first tab and supports the first tab.
Biegger, related to batteries, teaches a cover(26) with a protruding structure at the edge of the cover and welded to the walls of the container 24(Fig. 3, col. 5, lines 66-68), where the structure protrudes toward the electrode assembly such that second protruding structure abuts on the tab(2) and supports the first tab and this the protrusion thereby provides a recess from the outer surface toward the electrode assembly(Fig. 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized adding the protrusion of Biegger to the edge of the end cap of Miyata would produce a second protruding structure which surrounds the cap body due to its position on the exterior potion of the cap, and a top end face of the second protruding structure is closer to the first tab than a top end face of the first protruding structure because the second protruding structure abuts the tab and the first protruding structure does not, and a bottom face of the second recess is closer to the first tab than the inner surface of the cap body as it extends from the cap body and that this arrangement would have a space and cost saving design(col 1, lines 59-61).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have added the second protrusion design of Biegger in the battery of Miyata to provide a space and cost saving design.
A change in proportion or relative dimension(such as the height of the first and second protrusion and recess) is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. 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), the Federal Circuit 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.
Regarding claim 21, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the end cap electrically connects the first tab and the housing.
Biegger, related to batteries, teaches an electrode assembly(16) with a metal tab 2 (col. 3, lines 5-7) a metal cover 26 and a container 24(col. 4, lines 50-52).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the all metal design and placement of the tab, cover and container of Biegger in the battery of Miyata would have provide electrical connection and a space and cost saving design(col 1, lines 59-61).
Therefore it would have been obvious to have used the flat plate design of Biegger in the battery of Miyata to provide electrical connection and a space and cost saving design.
The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). The Courts have held that it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use, for an old product, does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2114).
Regarding claim 25, modified Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 22, and Biegger further teaches the negative tab and the substrate material of the housing may be steel (col. 3, lines 5-7 and col. 4, lines 50-52).
Claims 11, 14-16, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et. al. (US20170133645A1 as cited in the IDS dated 06/04/2025) in view of Biegger (US4879187A) as applied to claim 21 and further in view of Zhang et. al. (WO2019148663A1, reference made to US20210074963A1 as English translation).
Regarding claim 22, modified Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 21, and Miyata further discloses wherein the housing comprises a sidewall and a bottom wall connected to the sidewall, the sidewall extends along a thickness direction of the end cap and is disposed around the electrode assembly(Fig. 1) but does not disclose wherein an electrode lead-out hole is disposed on the bottom wall.
Zhang, related to batteries, teaches a cylindrical battery with a case(300) surrounding an electrode assembly(200) including a bottom wall(10) with a first and second tab at opposite ends of the electrode assembly(210/220, ¶[0045]) and an electrode terminal(21 and 41) mounted in an electrode lead-out hole(11) and electrically connected to each respective tab(¶[0050], Fig. 6).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized using the lead-out hole and terminal structure of Zhang in the battery of modified Miyata would ensure the connection strength between electrode terminals and electrode assemblies(¶[0041])
Therefore it would have been obvious to use the lead-out hole and terminal structure of Zhang in the battery of modified Miyata to ensure the connection strength between electrode terminals and electrode assemblies.
Regarding claim 23, modified Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 22, and Miyata further discloses a wherein the bottom wall and the sidewall are disposed in a one-piece form(Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, modified Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 22, and Miyata further discloses the housing is steel(¶[0082]) and Zhang further discloses each end of the cylindrical battery may have a positive or negative tab(¶[0045]).
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et. al. (US20170133645A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park(US20110269011A1).
Regarding claims 27 and 28, Miyata discloses a battery cell according to claim 1, but does not disclose a battery comprising a plurality of cells.
Park, related to batteries, teaches The rechargeable batteries can be used in the form of a single cell or in the form of a pack having a plurality of cells electrically connected according to the type of equipment used to provide electrical energy(¶[0005]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized arranging the cells of Miyata into a battery pack taught by Park would provide greater electrical energy/capacity.
Therefore it would have been obvious to have arranged the cells of Miyata into a battery pack taught by Park provide greater electrical energy/capacity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREN J. ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1243. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am-6 pm 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, Jeffrey Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.J.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1726 /RYAN S CANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights