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
Claim 1 is amended. Support for amendment can be found in instant specification [0019].
Claims 2-4 are previously presented.
Claims 1-4 are considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
Kim does not disclose or suggest the claimed three relational expressions (1) to (3) and there would have been no general condition to optimize to arrive at the claimed relational expressions.
The sealing member is less likely to get damaged when the relational expressions (1) and (2) are met and contact between the case and the cap is prevented when relational expression (3) is met.
Kim neither discloses nor suggest the object of the instant application and Kim neither discloses nor suggests that satisfying the claimed relational expressions would prevent breakage while an end portion thereof is pressure bonded.
Because Kim teaches that the adequate gasket elasticity is required to achieve the objective, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to replace PP with a perfluoropolymer, such as PFA, which has lower elasticity.
Regarding argument a, Kim teaches Kim teaches that a thickness of a gasket portion interposed between a case and a cap (T1) may be greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than 1.0 mm ([0028]; [0053]; [0058]; [0059]; T1 equivalent to TG in the instant application). Kim teaches that a second thickness of a gasket, the portion formed between the inner surface of the cylindrical can and the outermost tip of the crimping part (T2), should be between 1.5-1.9 mm to avoid a decrease in sealing pressure and prevent unnecessary blocking of electrical connections via the cap assembly ([0063]; [0064[; Fig. 5; T2 is considered equivalent to HG in instant application). The values of T1 and T2 (corresponding to TG and HG in the instant application) meet the claimed relational expression (1)1. While the Examiner acknowledges that Kim does not explicitly disclose the claimed three relational expressions (1) to (3), it is the Examiner’s position that Kim identifies the length of the upper part of the cylindrical can as a known result effective variable and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the upper part of the cylindrical can (L1), within the bounds taught by Kim, such that an axial distance from a cap upper surface to a leading end portion is a value wherein the claimed inequalities are satisfied. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to vary the length L1 to create an appropriate sealing pressure to maintain adequate seal while preventing damage to the gasket ([0047]; [0053]; [0045]). The resulting structure would be reasonably expected to have an axial distance from a cap upper surface to a leading end portion such that claimed expression (2) and (3) are met.
Regarding argument b, as discussed above, the values of T1 and T2 taught by Kim and corresponding to TG and HG in the instant application, meet the claimed relational expression (1)2. Fig. 5 clearly illustrates that a crimping portion of the battery case does not directly, physically contact the cap assembly (Fig. 5). Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding argument c, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. The instant claims do not require the prevention of breakage while an end portion thereof is pressure bonded.
Regarding argument d, Kim teaches that “the gasket 140 may be formed of a polypropylene-based material” ([0043]) and that “the gasket 140 may be formed of an insulating material, for example, a polypropylene-based material” ([0075]). Kim further teaches that a reduction is elasticity can result in the gasket being improperly attached to an end portion of the external surface of the cap assembly ([0058]). Notably, Kim merely teaches a “polypropylene-based material” and does not specify the precise material, leaving the precise selection of material up to one of ordinary skill in the art. Kim and Mukai are silent as to the tensile module of the sealing member material. Kim does not quantify what tensile modulus or level of elasticity is desired, nor what tensile modulus would be problematic. Kim, Mukai and Aoyama are directed to the same field of endeavor, i.e. battery sealing structures such as gaskets, and Mukai explicitly teaches benefits to using fluorine-containing resins ([0038]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to substiture the material of the gasket taught by Kim for a perfluoropolymer as taught by Mukai and would further have performed this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success because a perfluoropolymer is a known material for battery gaskets. Therefore, applicants arguments are not persuasive.
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20120094169 A1) hereinafter "Kim" in view of Mukai (WO 2019163440 A1) hereinafter "Mukai" in further view of Aoyoma et al. (JP 2015178899 A) hereinafter "Aoyoma", cited on the IDS filed 03/10/2023, reference is made to the enclosed machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a sealing member used for a cylindrical lithium-ion battery, wherein the sealing member is used by being interposed between a bottom-closed cylindrical case and a cap ([0027]-[0028] gasket is considered a sealing member; [0031]; [0033]; [0036]; Fig. 2; [0069]). Kim teaches that a thickness of a gasket portion interposed between a case and a cap (T1) may be greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than 1.0 mm ([0028]; [0053]; [0058]; [0059]; T1 equivalent to TG in the instant application). Kim teaches that a second thickness of a gasket, the portion formed between the inner surface of the cylindrical can and the outermost tip of the crimping part (T2), should be between 1.5-1.9 mm to avoid a decrease in sealing pressure and prevent unnecessary blocking of electrical connections via the cap assembly ([0063]; [0064[; Fig. 5; T2 is considered equivalent to HG in instant application).
Kim does not teach wherein the sealing member has dimensions that meet the following relational expressions: when an axial distance from a cap upper surface to a leading end portion in a case is defined as HC, an axial distance from the cap upper surface to a leading end portion in the sealing member is defined as HG, a thickness of the sealing member is defined as TG, a value of TG divided by HG is defined as X (=TG/HG), and a value of HG divided by HC is defined as Y (=HG/HC),
X > 0.800TG - 0.324 (1)
Y < -0.778TG + 1.670 (2)
Y > 0.594X2 - 1.176X + 0.913 (3)
However, Kim teaches that safety is improved when a sealing pressure increases and the sealing pressure is impacted by factors such as the length of the upper part of the cylindrical can (L1) and the external diameter ([0045]). Kim teaches that the longer the length of the upper part of the can is, the higher the sealing pressure ([0047]), however, too high of a pressure may damage the gasket, and thus a pressure applied to the gasket should be controlled ([0053]). Further, Fig. 5 clearly illustrates that a crimping portion of the battery case does not directly, physically contact the cap assembly (Fig. 5) providing a further limitation to the axial distance from a cap upper surface to a crimping end portion.
Thus, Kim identifies the length of the upper part of the cylindrical can as a known result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the upper part of the cylindrical can (L1), within the bounds taught by Kim, such that an axial distance from a cap upper surface to a leading end portion is a value wherein the claimed inequalities are satisfied.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to vary the length L1 to create an appropriate sealing pressure to maintain adequate seal while preventing damage to the gasket ([0047]; [0053]; [0045]).
Kim does not teach wherein the sealing member is made of a perfluoropolymer.
However, Mukai teaches a sealing member used for a cylindrical lithium-ion battery, wherein the sealing member is used by being interposed between a bottom-closed cylindrical case and a cap, is made of perfluoropolymer, such as a perfluoroalkoxyalkane (PFA), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), perfluoroethylene propane copolymer (FEP), ethylenetetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE) ([0006]; [0025]; [0038]). Mukai teaches that fluorine- containing resins have good chemical stability, thermal stability, flame retardancy, low water absorption, and the like ([0038]).
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 substituted the material of the gasket taught by Kim for a perfluoropolymer as taught by Mukai.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substituted the material of the gasket taught by Kim for a perfluoropolymer as taught by Mukai due to the good chemical stability, thermal stability, flame retardancy, low water absorption, and the like of fluorine-containing resins ([0038]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have performed this substitution with a reasonable expectation of success because a perfluoropolymer is a known material for battery gaskets. The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP §2144.07).
Kim in view of Mukai does not teach wherein the perfluoropolymer is specifically a tetrafluorethylene-perfluoroalkylvinylether copolymer or a fluoroethylene propylene resin.
However, Aoyoma teaches a battery sealing member made of a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether, specifically Neoflon PFA AP-230 ([0050]; [0011]; [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Kim in view of Mukai by selecting Neoflon PFA AP-230 as the perfluoropolymer as taught by Aoyoma.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have further modified Kim in view of Mukai by selecting a tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether, such as Neoflon PFA AP-230, as the perfluoropolymer as taught by Aoyoma with a reasonable expectation of successfully sealing a battery because tetrafluoroethylene and perfluoroalkyl vinyl ether is a known fluorine-based material used in battery sealing members ([0034]; [0050]; [0037]; [0011]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kim teaches the sealing member according to claim 1. Modified Kim further teaches that Neoflon PFA AP-230 has a tensile strength of 34.0 MPa (Aoyama [0050]; [0011]; [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kim teaches the sealing member according to claim 1. Kim teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery having a structure in which a sealing member is used by being interposed between a bottom-closed cylindrical case and a cap and pressure-bonded by being bent at an upper end of the case ([0038]; [0049]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kim teaches the sealing member according to claim 1. Kim teaches a cylindrical lithium-ion battery having a structure in which a sealing member is used by being interposed between a bottom-closed cylindrical case and a cap and pressure-bonded by being bent at an upper end of the case ([0038]; [0049]).
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 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
1In the case where TG = 0.5mm and HG = 1.6mm then X =
0.5
m
m
1.6
m
m
=
3.13 and 0.8TG-0.324 = 0.076; 3.03 > 0.076
2In the case where TG = 0.5mm and HG = 1.6mm then X =
0.5
m
m
1.6
m
m
=
3.13 and 0.8TG-0.324 = 0.076; 3.03 > 0.076
Prosecution Insights