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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 7/5/2023, and 12/12/2024 were received and are being considered by the examiner, except where lined-through. Foreign Documents 1-7 are lined through because 1-3, and 5-7 only have a translation of the abstract in English and lack the actual documents. Foreign Document 4 is lined through because only the first page of the original document is present with no translation into English. If the applicant wishes to have these documents considered a complete copy of the foreign document along with a translation of the pertinent section of the document in English needs to be provided.
The information disclosure statement filed 7/18/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because no English translation of the foreign document has been provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the term "FIG. #" appears twice in each drawing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figures 5 and 6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is over the 150-word limit and does not utilize normal language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A BATTERY AND BATTERY CASE WITH A PRESSURE SENSITIVE LID.
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 1-13 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 1 recites the limitation "closes the opening" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, it is not clear what (means) is causing the function, if “closes” is interpreted as a function. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as “seals the opening”.
Regarding claims 2-13. The claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4804593 A, HARA et al.
Regarding claim 1. HARA discloses a battery in the annotated figure depicted below comprising:
an outer package member having an outer diameter and a height;
a battery device contained inside the outer package member;
a sealing member having an insulating property; and
a terminal member supported by the outer package member via the sealing member, wherein
[col 7 line 10] a ratio of the outer diameter (17 mm) to the height (33.5 mm) is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than 1, HARA discloses 17 / 33.5 = 0.507
the outer package member includes
a container member that has an opening, and contains the battery device in an inside of the container member, and
a cover member that is connected to the container member, closes the opening, and has a through hole,
the terminal member is fixed to the cover member via the sealing member, and covers the through hole, and
a fixation strength of the terminal member to the cover member is lower than a connecting strength of the cover member to the container member.
PNG
media_image1.png
614
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.6. HARA [col 7 line 10] discloses 17 mm / 33.5 mm = 0.507
Regarding claim 3. HARA [col 7 line 10 and col 9 line 5] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of the terminal (17 mm) member to an inner diameter of the through hole (9 mm) is greater than or equal to 1.13 and less than or equal to 3.37. HARA discloses 17 mm/ 9 mm = 1.89
Regarding claim 4. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the terminal member is disposed on an outer side of the cover member in the annotated figure depicted below.
PNG
media_image2.png
614
993
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, in the annotated figure depicted below
the battery device includes a positive electrode (8) and a negative electrode (7) that are opposed to each other and are wound, and has a winding center space at a center around which the positive electrode and the negative electrode are wound, and
the through hole is positioned to overlap at least a portion of the winding center space.
PNG
media_image3.png
614
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1 in the annotated figure depicted below,
a wiring member that couples the battery device and the terminal member to each other, wherein
the wiring member is folded once or more between the battery device and the terminal member.
PNG
media_image4.png
534
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1 in the annotated figure depicted below, wherein
the cover member has a recessed part,
in the recessed part, the cover member bends to protrude in part toward the inside of the container member, and
the terminal member is disposed inside the recessed part.
PNG
media_image5.png
614
721
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11. HARA [col 3 lines 65-68] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein
the battery device includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode,
the negative electrode is electrically coupled to the terminal member, and
the positive electrode is electrically coupled to the outer package member.
Regarding claim 12. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1 in the annotated figure depicted below, wherein the battery comprises a battery of a cylindrical type.
PNG
media_image6.png
466
558
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13. HARA [col 6 line 47] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4804593 A, HARA et al. with PALMETTO IND. website as supporting evidence.
Regarding claim 5. HARA [col 4 line 5] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the sealing member includes polypropylene having a melting point of higher than or equal to 130 degrees Celsius and lower than or equal to 250 degrees Celsius.
PALMETTO INDUSTRIES website discloses the inherent property of polypropylene’s melting point to be 160°C to 170°C which is clearly anticipated with sufficient specificity by HARA.
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 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4804593 A, HARA et al.
Regarding claim 7. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 6.
HARA does not explicitly disclose an inner diameter of the through hole is larger than an inner diameter of the winding center space.
It has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.04. IV. A
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have changed the size of the opening without modifying the functionality of the device.
Regarding claim 10. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery device includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode.
HARA does not disclose the positive electrode is electrically coupled to the terminal member, and the negative electrode is electrically coupled to the outer package member.
The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have switched the polarities on the battery device without changing the functionality or effectiveness of the claimed safety features of the battery.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5376467 A, ABE et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727 /Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727