DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/29/26. The applicant has overcome the objections and the 35 USC 102 rejection as set forth in the previous office action. Refer to the aforementioned amendment for specific details on applicant's rebuttal arguments and/or remarks. However, the present claims are now finally rejected over new grounds of rejection as formulated hereinbelow and for the reasons of record:
Election/Restrictions
Claims14-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/01/25.
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.
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 1, 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication EP 1914818 (hereinafter EP’818) in view of Harwood et al 2023/0253668.
As to claims 1, 3-5:
EP’818 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery/electrochemical cell 10 comprising a conductive housing 12 including sidewall 14 surrounding an enclosed volume 16, external surface, and proximal/distal ends/openings 18, 20 (opposite ends) (0016; 0021; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11); a polymer-based insulating coating 44 formed on the inner surface of the housing 12 (0024; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11); a sealing/header cap assembly 22 disposed in the proximal end/opening 18; an electrode assembly including respective anode/cathode components (0027-0028; 0033); an interelectrode/separator section/region and a solid electrolyte (Abstract; 0016-0018; 0019-0021; 0022-0025; 0030-0031; 0033 see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11). EP’818 teaches that case serving as the anode terminal/case-negative design, or also being case-positive design (0026; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11); a cathode active material 53 in a powdered form (i.e., porous) filled/placed into volume 55 (i.e., interelectrode region/area) within insulator 44 and being in electrical contact with proximal end 50 of terminal pin 28; an electrolyte/separator disc 64 (0030-0031) is positioned contiguously with a portion 66 of the side wall 14 in contact with cathode 54 (0027-0028; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
608
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
636
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
662
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7-8:
EP’818 teaches a polymer-based insulating coating 44 formed on the inner surface of the housing 12 (0024; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11). EP’818 teaches the cathode active material 53 in a powdered form (i.e., porous) filled/placed into volume 55 (i.e., interelectrode region/area) within insulator 44 and being in electrical contact with proximal end 50 of terminal pin 28 so that separator disc 64 is positioned contiguously with a portion 66 of the side wall 14 in contact with cathode 54 (0027-0028; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11).
EP’818 discloses a battery according to the foregoing description. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific nonporous insulating coating/layer coating a portion of the conductive housing.
As to claim 1:
In the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Harwood et al disclose that it is known in the art to make a hermetically closed battery comprising a non-porous insulating rupturable venting film closing over and sealing off the battery housing/enclosure relative to the environment (0006) wherein the non-porous insulating venting film is configured to deflect towards a spike in response to overpressure and to tear or rupture to release overpressure in the battery enclosure/pack/housing (Abstract; 0001; 0006-0011; 0021; 0023). In this case, Harwood et al readily envision the formation of a nonporous insulating coating which coats at least a portion of the housing inner surface as instantly claimed.
In view of the above, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific nonporous insulating coating or layer of Harwood et al to coat at least a portion of the conductive housing of EP’818 as Harwood et al teach that the specifically disclosed non-porous insulating rupturable venting film closing over and sealing off the battery housing/enclosure forms a hermetic seal to hermetically sealing the pressure venting opening until the nonporous venting film is rupture in an overpressure condition, thereby preventing gas exchange with the environment incursion of water or moisture into the battery enclosure/pack/housing. Further, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson’s-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 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.
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 9-10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the publication EP 1914818 (hereinafter EP’818).
As to claims 9-10, 12:
EP’818 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery/electrochemical cell 10 comprising a conductive housing 12 including sidewall 14 surrounding an enclosed volume 16, external surface, and proximal/distal ends/openings 18, 20 (opposite ends) (0016; 0021; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11); a polymer-based insulating coating 44 formed on the inner surface of the housing 12 (0024; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11); a sealing/header cap assembly 22 disposed in the proximal end/opening 18; an electrode assembly including respective anode/cathode components (0027-0028; 0033); an interelectrode/separator section/region and a solid electrolyte (Abstract; 0016-0018; 0019-0021; 0022-0025; 0030-0031; 0033 see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11). EP’818 teaches that case serving as the anode terminal/case-negative design, or also being case-positive design (0026; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11); a cathode active material 53 in a powdered form (i.e., porous) filled/placed into volume 55 (i.e., interelectrode region/area) within insulator 44 and being in electrical contact with proximal end 50 of terminal pin 28; an electrolyte/separator disc 64 (0030-0031) is positioned contiguously with a portion 66 of the side wall 14 in contact with cathode 54 (0027-0028; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11).
PNG
media_image1.png
746
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
608
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
636
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
662
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s note: with respect to claims 9-10 and 12, it is noted that the limitations: (i) “a solid-state electrolyte prepared by: mixing an electrolyte pre-cursor to form a solid-state precursor mixture; adding a volume of the solid-state precursor mixture to the electrode assembly, the volume being the same or less than the void volume; and forming the solid-state electrolyte, the solid-state electrolyte being confined to the void volume (claim 9); (ii) “wherein forming the solid-state electrolyte comprises polymerizing the solid-state precursor mixture via a thermal or an ultraviolet treatment (claim 10); and (iii) “mixing the electrolyte pre-cursor and adding a volume of the mixture to the electrode assembly are done above a melting temperature of the electrolyte pre-cursor, and forming the solid-state electrolyte comprises cooling the electrode assembly to freeze the mixture into the solid-state electrolyte (claim 12)” are being construed as product-by-process limitation/claim, and have not been given patentable weight) and that the product itself does not depend on the process of making it. Accordingly, in a product-by-process claim, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In that, it is further noted that the product in the instant claims is the same as or obvious over the product of the prior art. In re Thorpe 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964,966 (Fed Cir. 1985) and MPEP 2113. As a result, the process steps of a product-by-process claim do not impart any significant property or structure to the claimed end product. And, if there is any difference, the difference would have been minor and obvious. Therefore, the present claims are unpatentable over a reference that satisfies the claimed compositional or physical or property or structural limitations, and/or a reference that discloses a product made by a process that reasonably substantially comprises every limitation of the claimed process. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972) and In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974);See also In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) [prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics] & Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (BPAI 1989) [needs to show that the claimed process imparts unexpected property or structure](Refer to MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process Claims).
As to claim 13:
EP’818 teaches a porous separator disc 64 positioned contiguously with a portion 66 of the side wall 14 in contact with cathode 54 (0030-0031; see Figures 1, 5-8 & 11).
Therefore, the claims are anticipated by EP’818. However, if the claims are not anticipated the claims are obvious as it has been held similar products claimed in product-by-process limitations are obvious. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972) and In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974); See also In re Best, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) [prove that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics] & Ex parte Gray, 10 USPQ2d 1922 (BPAI 1989) [needs to show that the claimed process imparts unexpected property or structure](Refer to MPEP 2113: Product-by-Process Claims).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the battery comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and compositional interrelationship as recited in dependent claims 6 and 11, respectively.
Claims 6 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection, and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights