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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 18 recites “…the non-cuboidal battery of claim 1; and a battery housing that houses the non-cuboidal battery, wherein the battery housing includes a shape that compliments a shape of the non-cuboidal battery” and claim 1 recites “…the non-cuboidal battery comprising: a metal can housing; a metal lid coupled to the metal can housing…”. The “battery housing” of claim 18 is recited as an additional component to the metal can housing and metal lid of independent claim 1 (battery with metal can/lid and battery housing). Claim 20 further recites “…the battery housing is disposed in at least one of…”. However, based on the instant disclosure, it appears that “a battery housing” of claim 18 is the “metal can housing and metal lid” of claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to, or know how to form an additional housing between the metal can housing/ metal lid and the strap/lid/band based on the instant disclosure.
Claims 19-20 are rejected for depending on claim 18.
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 1-3, 5-6, 9-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O’Phelan et al. (US 2004/0127952).
Regarding claim 1, O’Phelan teaches a non-cuboidal battery having a cross-sectional area and a thickness (P95-96; Fig. 1), the non-cuboidal battery comprising: metal can housing 20/26; a metal lid 28 coupled to the metal can housing 20/26 (P95-96; Fig. 1.25-26); an electrode stack 24 disposed in the metal can housing 20/26, the electrode stack comprising:
an anode layer; a cathode layer stacked on the anode layer; and a separator layer 200 interposed between the cathode layer 300 and the anode layer 100(P97), wherein the electrode stack is hermetically sealed by the metal can housing and the metal lid (P162-163.216); and
a negative terminal electrically coupled to the anode layer and a positive terminal electrically coupled to the cathode layer, wherein the negative terminal and the positive terminal are disposed on an exterior side of the metal can housing or the metal lid (P96-100.165-166.207-211; Fig. 46-47); and wherein the thickness of the non-cuboidal battery is substantially uniform over the cross-sectional area (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 2, O’Phelan teaches a shape of the electrode stack 24 complements a shape of at least one of the metal can housing 26 or the metal lid 28 (P95-99.121.171; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 3, O’Phelan teaches the metal can housing 20 further comprising an electrolyte fill hole 43/806 disposed in at least one of the metal can housing or the metal lid 28/802 at a position proximate an edge of the at least one of the metal can housing or the metal lid (P96.166; Fig. 1.25-26).
Regarding claim 5, O’Phelan teaches a shape of the cross-sectional area of the non-cuboidal battery comprises a semicircle (P95; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 6, O’Phelan teaches a flange, or lip 825 disposed around a perimeter of the metal can housing or the metal lid 802/803/804 (P167; Fig. 26).
Regarding claim 9, O’Phelan teaches a method for manufacturing a non-cuboidal battery having a cross-sectional area and a thickness, the method comprising: forming a metal can housing 20/26 and a metal lid 28 configure to be coupled to the metal can housing (P95-96; Fig. 1.25-26); forming an electrode stack 24 and encasing the electrode stack in the metal can housing 20/26 and metal lid 28 (P95-96; Fig. 1.25-26), securing the metal can housing to the metal lid (P162-163.215); the electrode stack comprising:
an anode layer; a cathode layer stacked on the anode layer; and a separator layer 200 interposed between the cathode layer 300 and the anode layer 100(P97), wherein the electrode stack is hermetically sealed by the metal can housing and the metal lid (P162-163.216); and
forming a negative terminal that extends through at least one of the metal can housing or the metal lid and is electrically coupled to the anode layer, and a positive terminal that extends through at least one of the metal can housing or the metal lid and is electrically coupled to the cathode layer (P96-100.165-166.207-211; Fig. 46-47); and wherein the thickness of the non-cuboidal battery is substantially uniform over the cross-sectional area (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, O’Phelan teaches a shape of the electrode stack 24 complements a shape of at least one of the metal can housing 26 or the metal lid 28 (P95-99.121.171; Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 11, O’Phelan teaches the metal lid is welded to the metal can housing (P215)
Regarding claim 12, O’Phelan teaches the method further comprising forming an electrolyte fill hole 43/806 disposed in at least one of the metal can housing or the metal lid 28/802 at a position proximate an edge of the at least one of the metal can housing or the metal lid (P96.166; Fig. 1.25-26); and filling the non-cuboidal battery with electrolyte through the electrolyte fill hole; and hermetically sealing the non-cuboidal battery (P215.225.252)
Regarding claim 14, O’Phelan teaches a shape of the cross-sectional area of the non-cuboidal battery comprises a semicircle (P95; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, O’Phelan teaches the metal can housing and metal lid are hermetically sealed by forming a flange, or lip 825 around a perimeter of the metal can housing or the metal lid 802/803/804 (P162-167.216.252; Fig. 26).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Phelan as applied to at least claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, O’Phelan teaches the metal can housing wherein a cross-sectional area of the metal can housing can be defined by a width and a length.
O’Phelan is silent in teaching the width and the length are at least five times the thickness of the non-cuboidal battery; however, O’Phelan also teaches the metal battery is a flat thin battery designed to take up as little room as possible to allow the manufacture of almost any arbitrarily shaped battery to allow a designer to fit the battery in a given space, including examples of staggering the battery along two dimensions to prevent wasted space (P97-100.121.155.165.168.257).
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence commensurate in scope with the claim is offered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the above components in order to minimize the size of the non-cuboidal battery, making the battery thin and flat, and arrive at a battery with dimensions where the width and the length of the metal can housing are at least five times the thickness of the non-cuboidal battery to fit a desired space.
Where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” MPEP 2144
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Phelan as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al. (US 20030064285).
Regarding claim 7, O’Phelan teaches the non-cuboidal battery may be any shape such as non-rectangular, cylindrical, or flattened cylindrical in shape with terminals provided anywhere, such as the same or opposite ends and is made to minimize size optimizing space (P4.141.165-166.249).
O’Phelan is silent in teaching the non-cuboidal battery wherein the metal lid is a first metal lid, and the metal can housing includes a hollow tube, wherein securing the metal can housing to the metal lid includes: securing the first metal lid to a first end of the metal can housing; and securing a second metal lid to a second end of the metal can housing; however, Kawamura teaches a battery with excellent space-saving characteristic and excellent productivity (P1).
Kawamura teaches forming a cylindrical battery case with a first metal lid 13, a metal can housing including a hollow tube 11, and a second metal lid 13, wherein securing the metal can housing to the metal lid includes: securing the first metal lid to a first end of the metal can housing; and securing a second metal lid to a second end of the metal can housing to improve a space-saving characteristic and energy density (P1.10.78-79.84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that when forming the metal lid and metal can housing of O’Phelan in another shape, to have the metal lid as a first metal lid, and the metal can housing as a hollow tube, the non-cuboidal battery further comprising a second metal lid, wherein the first metal lid is secured to a first end of the metal can housing, and the second metal lid is secured to a second side of the metal can housing opposite the first end of the metal can housing, as taught by Kawamura to save space and improve density.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, teaches modified O’Phelan in view of Kawamura teaches the negative terminal and the positive terminal are disposed on an exterior surface of the second metal lid to save space (P78-79). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Phelan as applied to at least claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 13, O’Phelan teaches the metal can housing wherein a cross-sectional area of the metal can housing can be defined by a width and a length.
O’Phelan is silent in teaching the width and the length are at least five times the thickness of the non-cuboidal battery; however, O’Phelan also teaches the metal battery is a flat thin battery designed to take up as little room as possible to allow the manufacture of almost any arbitrarily shaped battery to allow a designer to fit the battery in a given space, including examples of staggering the battery along two dimensions to prevent wasted space (P97-100.121.155.164-165.168.257).
Therefore, in the absence of new or unexpected results for which objective evidence commensurate in scope with the claim is offered, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to determine the optimum or workable ranges of the above components in order to minimize the size of the non-cuboidal battery, making the battery thin and flat, and arrive at a battery with dimensions where the width and the length of the metal can housing are at least five times the thickness of the non-cuboidal battery to fit a desired space.
Where the difference between the prior art and the claims are a recitation of relative dimension of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. “It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.” MPEP 2144
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Phelan as applied to at least claim 9 above, and further in view of Kawamura et al. (US 20030064285).
Regarding claim 16, O’Phelan teaches the non-cuboidal battery may be any shape such as non-rectangular, cylindrical, or flattened cylindrical in shape with terminals provided anywhere, such as the same or opposite ends and is made to minimize size optimizing space (P4.141.165-166.249).
O’Phelan is silent in teaching the non-cuboidal battery wherein the metal lid is a first metal lid, and the metal can housing includes a hollow tube, wherein securing the metal can housing to the metal lid includes: securing the first metal lid to a first end of the metal can housing; and securing a second metal lid to a second end of the metal can housing; however, Kawamura teaches a battery with excellent space-saving characteristic and excellent productivity (P1).
Kawamura teaches forming a cylindrical battery case with a first metal lid 13, a metal can housing including a hollow tube 11, and a second metal lid 13, wherein securing the metal can housing to the metal lid includes: securing the first metal lid to a first end of the metal can housing; and securing a second metal lid to a second end of the metal can housing to improve a space-saving characteristic and energy density (P1.10.78-79.84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that when forming the metal lid and metal can housing of O’Phelan in another shape, to have the metal lid as a first metal lid, and the metal can housing as a hollow tube, the non-cuboidal battery further comprising a second metal lid, wherein the first metal lid is secured to a first end of the metal can housing, and the second metal lid is secured to a second side of the metal can housing opposite the first end of the metal can housing, as taught by Kawamura to save space and improve density.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a "base" device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143 C
Furthermore, with respect to the above combination of overall element, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that 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 yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, teaches modified O’Phelan in view of Kawamura teaches the negative terminal and the positive terminal are disposed on an exterior surface of the second metal lid to save space (P78-79). The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Phelan as applied to at least claim 1 above, and further in view Reykhert (US 2021/0193977).
Regarding claim 18, Reykhert teaches a wearable electronic device, comprising a non-cuboidal battery and a battery housing that houses the non-cuboidal battery (i.e., 216 Fig. 2-4), wherein the battery housing includes a shape that compliments a shape of the non-cuboidal battery (P25.55-56)
Reykhert teaches efficiently using space within the device wherein the battery can be a regular battery, thin film, button, coin, etc. and having a design that allows the device to be small and minimize space and the device can include medical application and non-medical applications (P2.16-17.51.56), but is silent in teaching the device includes the non-cuboidal battery of claim 1.
However, O’Phelan teaches the non-cuboidal battery of claim 1 (see above) wherein the battery can be flat stacked with discrete layers and made into any shape desirable where the battery can incorporated into medical application and non-medical applications (P97-98.249). The non-cuboidal battery provides efficient use of space within a case and increased capacity (P257).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the O’Phelan’s non-cuboidal battery according to claim 1 in the wearable electronic device of Reykhert to provide efficient use of space and increased capacity and because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. MPEP 2143
Regarding claim 19, modified Reykhert teaches the wearable electronic device includes glasses, a wristwatch, or a ring (P17).
Regarding claim 20, modified Reykhert teaches the battery housing is disposed in at least one of: a frame of the glasses; a band of the wristwatch; or a band of the ring (P17.55-56).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/Helen Oi K CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752