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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 17-18 & 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20130273411) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0204463)
With respect to claim 1, Kim discloses a battery cell, comprising: a housing 20, comprising two first side walls 22/21 arranged opposite each other in a first direction and two second side walls arranged opposite each other in a second direction [Figure 1] wherein the two first side walls 21/22 and the two second side walls enclose an accommodating cavity [Figure 3], the housing 20 has at least one opening in a third direction, and the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are perpendicular to one another [Figure 1]; an electrode assembly 10, accommodated in the accommodating cavity and comprising a body structure and a tab 12b/11b protruding out of the body structure; and a pole 51/52, wherein the pole 51/52 is disposed on one of the first side walls 21/22 and electrically connected to the tab 12b/11b, and wherein the tab 12b/11b protrudes from the body structure to one side of the opening, and the battery cell further comprises an adapter 62/611/612, wherein the adapter 62 comprises two bent pieces (first adapter 611 and a second adapter 612) that are disposed separately [Figure 4; Figure 2], the first adapter 611 is connected to the pole 51/52, the second adapter is connected to the tab 12b/11b, the first adapter 611 substantially extends along the third direction, the second adapter 612 substantially extends along the first direction [Figure 4], and the first adapter 611 is connected to the second adapter 612 through a conductive structure 411/412. [Figures 2-4; 0035-0050]
Kim does not specifically disclose wherein the tabs 11b,12b and the poles 51, 52 perpendicular to each other.
Lee et al. discloses a battery cell 1, comprising:
a housing 15, comprising two first side walls arranged opposite each other in a first direction and two second side walls arranged opposite each other in a second direction, wherein the two first side walls and the two second side walls enclose an accommodating cavity, the housing has at least one opening in a third direction, and the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are perpendicular to one another; [Figure 1]
an electrode assembly 10, accommodated in the accommodating cavity and comprising a body structure and a tab 12b/11b protruding out of the body structure [Figure 1]; and
a pole 21a, wherein the pole electrically connected to the tab, and
wherein the tabs 11b,12b and the poles 51, 52 perpendicular to each other.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery cell of Kim to have the tabs and poles perpendicular to each other as disclosed in Lee et al., in order to allow for easy package assembly and damage prevention.
With respect to claim 2, Kim discloses wherein the housing 20 further comprises a bottom wall [Figure 2] disposed opposite the opening, and the battery cell further comprises an end cover 33, wherein the end cover is disposed at the opening to close the accommodating cavity. [Figure 2]
With respect to claim 3, Kim discloses wherein the housing 102/103 has two openings arranged opposite each other in the third direction, and the battery cell further comprises two end covers, wherein the two end covers are correspondingly disposed at the two openings to close the accommodating cavity. [Figure 8]
With respect to claim 4, Kim discloses wherein the pole 51/52 is disposed on the one of the first side walls [Figure 4].
The further limitation regarding “through riveting or injection molding” is a product-by-process limitation that does not further limit the scope of the claim.
“[E]ven 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).
Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
With respect to claim 6, Kim discloses wherein the first adapter 611 comprises a first body and a first connector disposed at an end portion of the first body, wherein the first body is connected to the pole 51/52, the first body extends along the third direction, the first connector extends along the first direction, and the first connector is connected to the second adapter 612. [Figure 2]
PNG
media_image1.png
528
664
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 7, Kim discloses wherein the second adapter 612 comprises a second body and a second connector connected to the first connector, wherein the second body is connected to the tab 12b/11b, and the first connector extends, relative to the first body, toward a side approaching the second body. [Figure 2]
PNG
media_image2.png
528
664
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 17, Kim discloses a battery, comprising the battery cell according to claim 1. [Abstract]
With respect to claim 18, Kim discloses an electric apparatus, comprising the battery according to claim 17. [0005-0024]
With respect to claim 21, Kim does not disclose wherein the pole partially protrudes outside the one of the first side walls in the first direction, and the tab protrudes from the body structure in the third direction to one side of the opening.
Lee et al. discloses wherein the pole 21a partially protrudes outside the one of the first side walls in the first direction, and the tab 11b/12b protrudes from the body structure in the third direction to one side of the opening.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery cell of Kim to have wherein the pole partially protrudes outside the one of the first side walls in the first direction, and the tab protrudes from the body structure in the third direction to one side of the opening, as disclosed in Lee et al., in order to allow for easy package assembly and damage prevention.
With respect to claim 22, Kim discloses wherein the first adapter 611 is connected to the second adapter 612 through a structure
Kim does not disclose wherein the first adapter is connected to the second adapter through a conductive structure so that the first adapter and the second adapter conductively connect the pole to the tab.
Lee et al. discloses wherein a first adapter 182 is connected to a second adapter 31 through a conductive structure so that the first adapter and the second adapter conductively connect the pole 21a to the tab 11b/12b [0050-0055; Figure 2].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery cell of Kim to have wherein the first adapter is connected to the second adapter through a conductive structure so that the first adapter and the second adapter conductively connect the pole to the tab, as disclosed in Lee et al., in order to allow for easy package assembly and damage prevention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot 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 KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7589. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-7PM.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1292. 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.
/KIRAN QURAISHI AKHTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751