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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-2 are cancelled.
Claims 3-6, 8 are amended,
Claims 3-8 are considered on the merits.
Response to Amendment
The amendment to claim 5 overcomes the U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/31/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would not have had any motivation, suggestion, or expectation of success in modifying Watanabe to include a gap between the tapered surfaces and the sealing plate (Remarks pp. 9-10).
The proposed modifications of Watanabe would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose and would change the principle of operation of Watanabe.
In regards to argument a, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kume teaches a cylindrical battery with a sealing plate where the outer can and the sealing plate are sealed by laser welding ([0009]-[0012]) and a notch is provided in the inner peripheral edge of the outer can and a cutout groove is provided between the sealing plate and the outer can such that the cross-sectional shape of the notch groove is gradually narrowed towards the groove bottom ([0025]; [0027]; Fig. 11 annotated below). Kume teaches that a sealed battery formed according to the structure taught allows for laser welding at a high temperature state and suppresses blow holes thereby improving the laser weld [(0015]-[0017]; [0019]; [0020]-[0022]; Fig. 9-11 & 7).
In regards to argument b, Watanabe teaches wherein the inner surfaces of the pair of long side portions facing each other are tapered surfaces inclined inward toward their lower portions (Fig. 4; [0022]-[0023]) and that a gap may occur between a long side portion and a cover plate and the long side portion is tapered to prevent laser light from entering ([0021]-[0023]). Fig. 7 of Watanabe is annotated below showing a long side portion with tapered surfaces. Watanabe teaches a laser welding method for attaching and sealing a cover plate ([0021]-[0027]). Kume teaches a laser welding method for attaching and sealing a cover plate ([0015]-[0017]), illustrated by Fig. 11 annotated below. As illustrated in the Figures below, modifying Watanabe according to the teachings of Kume would modify the welding portion only. Therefore, it would be obvious to modify the sides having a tapered portion taught by Watanabe such that there is a gap between the sealing plate and each of the sides having the tapered portion that is wider toward the upper edge of the opening as taught by Kume to suppress blow holes and improve the laser welding ([0016]-[0017]).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 7 of Watanabe)][AltContent: textbox (Fig. 11 of Kume)]
PNG
media_image1.png
218
259
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
316
451
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 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) 3, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2013093119 A) in view of Kume (JP 2011204396 A). References is made to the previously enclosed machine translations.
Regarding claim 3, Watanabe teaches a battery case comprising: a case body in bottomed rectangular parallelopiped shape having a substantially rectangular opening in one side surface facing a bottom surface (Fig. 1; [0008]; [0013]); and a substantially rectangular sealing plate attached to the opening and having a shape corresponding to an upper edge of the opening, wherein the opening of the case body comprises: a pair of long side portions facing each other; a pair of short side portions located at both ends of the pair of long side portions and facing each other ([0008]; [0013]; [0017]); R portions provided at four corners between the long side portions and the short side portions (Fig. 5; [0024]; R portions are considered the rounded corner portions); and steps protruding from the inner surfaces of the pair of short side portions ([0015]; Fig. 3), each the R portions comprises a gradual change region, and in each the gradual change region, along each the R portions, a shape of each the steps changes to be gradually close to a shape of each the inner surfaces of the long side portions toward the long side portions ([0020]; [0024]; Fig. 5 annotated below; Within each of the rounded corner R portions, there is a transition, 33, from the step portion 32 to the tapered portion 31 which is considered a gradual change region). Watanabe further teaches wherein the inner surfaces of the pair of long side portions facing each other are tapered surfaces inclined inward toward their lower portions (Fig. 4 reproduced below; [0022]-[0023]), and in the gradual change region, the shape of each the steps changes to be gradually close to each the tapered surfaces toward the long side portions ([0008]; Fig. 5 annotated above and [0024]; Within each of the rounded corner R portions, there is a transition from the step portion 32 to the tapered portion 31 which is considered a gradual change region). Watanabe teaches that a gap may occur between a long side portion and a cover plate and the long side portion is tapered to prevent laser light from entering ([0021]-[0023]).
PNG
media_image3.png
394
362
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
275
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
507
584
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Watanabe does not teach wherein the battery case has a gap which is wider toward the upper edge of the opening, between a portion having each the tapered surfaces and the sealing plate, with the sealing plate attached to the opening.
However, Kume teaches a cylindrical battery with a sealing plate where the outer can and the sealing plate are sealed by laser welding ([0009]-[0012]). Kume teaches a notch provided in the inner peripheral edge of the outer can and a cutout groove is provided between the sealing plate and the outer can such that the cross-sectional shape of the notch groove is gradually narrowed towards the groove bottom ([0025]; [0027]; Fig. 11). Kume teaches that a sealed battery formed according to the structure taught allows for laser welding at a high temperature state and suppresses blow holes thereby improving the laser weld [(0015]-[0017]; [0019]; [0020]-[0022]; Fig. 9-11 & 7). Kume teaches that inert gas may or may not be used to further reduce the generation of blowholes ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to modify the long sides having a tapered portion taught by Watanabe such that there is a gap between the sealing plate and each of the sides having the tapered portion that is wider toward the upper edge of the opening as taught by Kume.
One of ordinary skill in the art to modify the sides having a tapered portion taught by Watanabe such that there is a gap between the sealing plate and each of the sides having the tapered portion that is wider toward the upper edge of the opening as taught by Kume to suppress blow holes and improve the laser welding ([0016]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Watanabe in view of Kume teaches the battery case according to claim 3. Watanabe further teaches wherein an edge of the lower surface of the sealing plate is chamfered (Fig. 3-4 surface 42; [0016]-[0017]; [0033]; Instant specification allows for chamfered to include a rounded surface see [0058]).
PNG
media_image6.png
302
636
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe in view of Kume teaches the battery case according to claim 3. Watanabe further teaches a secondary battery ([0033]).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2013093119 A) in view of Kume (JP 2011204396 A), as applied above, in further view of Yoichi et al. (JP 2016219344 A) hereinafter "Yoichi", cited on the IDS filed 03/13/2024, references is made to the previously enclosed machine translations.
Regarding claim 4, Watanabe in view of Kume teaches the battery case according to claim 3.
Watanabe does not teach wherein the inner surfaces of the pair of long side portions facing each other are flat, and in the gradual change region, the shape of each the steps changes to be gradually close to a flat shape toward the long side portions along the R portions.
However, Yoichi teaches a battery case comprising: a case body in bottomed rectangular parallelopiped shape having a substantially rectangular opening in one side surface facing a bottom surface ([0015]); and a substantially rectangular sealing plate attached to the opening and having a shape corresponding to an upper edge of the opening, wherein the opening of the case body comprises: a pair of long side portions facing each other; a pair of short side portions located at both ends of the pair of long side portions and facing each other ([0010]; [0015]; Fig. 1); R portions provided at four corners between the long side portions and the short side portions ([0015]); each the R portions comprises a gradual change region, and in each the gradual change region, along each the R portions, a shape of each the steps changes to be gradually close to a shape of each the inner surfaces of the long side portions toward the long side portions (Fig. 4b; [0017]). Yoichi teaches wherein the inner surfaces of the pair of long side portions facing each other are flat, and in the gradual change region, the shape of each the steps changes to be gradually close to a flat shape toward the long side portions along the R portions (Fig. 2 & 4; [0015]; [0017]).
PNG
media_image7.png
423
669
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Watanabe and Yoichi both teach a battery case according to the limitations of claim 1. Further, Watanabe and Yoichi both teach the importance of preventing laser leak, the situation where the laser enters the case through a gap between a sealing plate and a long side portion (Watanabe [0022]-[0023]; Yoichi [0005], [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery case taught by Watanabe by making the inner surfaces of the pair of long side portions facing each other flat, and in the gradual change region, the shape of each the steps changes to be gradually close to a flat shape toward the long side portions along the R portions as taught by Yoichi.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the battery case taught by Watanabe by making the inner surfaces of the pair of long side portions facing each other flat, and in the gradual change region, the shape of each the steps changes to be gradually close to a flat shape toward the long side portions along the R portions as taught by Yoichi with a reasonable expectation of success because the case configuration taught by Yoichi is an alternate configuration that solves the same technical problem as Watanabe.
Claim(s) 5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (JP 2013093119 A) in view of Kume (JP 2011204396 A). Cited on the IDS filed 03/03/2023, references is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 5, Watanabe in view of Kume teaches the battery case according to claim 3.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein a straight line connecting a center of each of the R portions and a first boundary between each of the R portion and each of the pair of the short side portions is set as a reference (0°), the gradual change region is provided in a range from 45° or more and 90° or less from the straight line toward a second boundary between each of the R portions and each pair of the long side portions.
However, as shown in Fig. 1 and 5, annotated below, a center of the R portion is chosen which falls between the long side and the short side. Dashed arrows are drawn to the short side start of the gradual change region, the long side of the gradual change region, and the center line. The solid arrowed lines are drawn roughly to show a range of 90°. As shown in the annotated figures, the gradual change region (33) appears to be located in a range from 45 or more and 90° or less from a straight line connecting a center of each of the R portions and a first boundary between each of the R portions and each of the pair of the short side portions and a second boundary . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
PNG
media_image8.png
356
532
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
462
454
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe in view of Kume teaches the battery case according to claim 6.
Watanabe does not explicitly teach wherein a region of the edge of the lower surface superimposed on the gradual change region with the sealing plate attached to the opening is chamfered according to a shape of the gradual change region.
However, Watanabe teaches a gradual change region and a sealing plate with a lower chamfered surface (Fig. 3-4 surface 42; [0016]- [0017]; [0033]; [0020]; [0024] Fig. 5).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the chamfered portion of the sealing plate taught by Watanabe such that the chamfered portion was chamfered according to a shape of the gradual change region with a reasonable expectation of success because changes in shape are within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP 2144.04).
Conclusion
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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights