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 .
This is the initial Office Action based on 18/222,365 filed July 14, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20210184184 A1) in view of Volz (US 6143440 A).
Regarding claim 1 and 2: Woo teaches an ultra-small rechargeable battery that may be a coin cell type battery or a button cell-type battery (para. 0035). Woo discloses a button cell (para. 0035 and Fig. 3, 1) comprising: an electrode assembly (para. 0043 and Fig. 3, 10) comprising a first electrode (para. 0043 and Fig. 3, 11), a second electrode (para. 0043 and Fig. 3, 12), and a separator (para. 0043 and Fig. 3, 13) between the first electrode and the second electrode (para. 0043 and Fig. 3 shows separator 13 positioned between the first electrode and the second electrode in the circle at the bottom of the figure). Woo discloses a second plate above the electrode assembly and connected to the second electrode (para. 0039 and Fig. 1, cap assembly 30 is considered a second plate positioned above the electrode assembly and is connected to the electrode assembly through a second electrode tab 52). Additionally, Woo discloses wherein the second fused portion overlaps the entire edge of the upper surface of the second plate in the vertical direction (see Annotated Figure 1, circle).
Annotated Figure 1
PNG
media_image1.png
767
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Woo does not specifically disclose a first plate below the electrode assembly and connected to the first electrode. However, Woo discloses a case (Fig. 3, 20) with a bottom portion (see Annotated Figure 2, oval) that resembles a first plate. This bottom portion of the case (Fig. 3, 20) is positioned below the electrode Assembly (Fig. 3, 10) and is connected to the first electrode (Fig. 3, 11) through an electrode tab (Fig. 3, 51).
Annotated Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
767
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Woo does not specifically disclose an insulating pouch at a side portion of the electrode assembly, the insulating pouch sealing the electrode assembly with the first plate and the second plate. However, Woo discloses a case (Fig. 3, 20) with side portions (see Annotated Figure 2, rectangles) that resembles an insulating pouch at a side portion of the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, 10). The case (Fig. 3, 20) accommodates an electrode assembly (para. 0045 and Fig. 3, 10) sealing the case with the cap assembly (para. 0048 and Fig. 1, 30; considered a second plate as already stated), resembling the insulating pouch sealing the electrode assembly with the first plate and the second plate (cap assembly 30 in Fig. 1). Woo does disclose the insulating pouch has a first fused portion overlapping in a vertical direction and thermally fused to an edge of a lower surface of the first plate.
Woo does not disclose wherein the first fused portion overlaps the entire edge of the lower surface of the first plate in the vertical direction. However, Volz et al. teaches a protective housing for a repeatedly rechargeable electrochemical battery (abstract). However, Volz discloses an insulating pouch at a side portion (Fig. 6, 156) of the electrode assembly (Fig. 6, 10), the insulating pouch sealing the electrode assembly with the first plate (Fig. 6, 158) and the second plate (Fig. 6, 162), the insulating pouch has a first fused portion (Fig. 6, 160) overlapping in a vertical direction (Fig. 6, 160) and thermally fused to an edge of a lower surface of the first plate and a second fused portion (Fig. 6, 164). Additionally, Volz discloses wherein the first fused portion overlaps the entire edge of the lower surface of the first plate in the vertical direction (Fig. 6, 160). Volz discloses a second fuse portion (Fig. 6, 164) in a horizontal direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the case of Woo with the housing disclosed by Volz because it would be obvious to fuse the second plate with the side portion in the vertical direction since the direction of the fuse portion would not have modified the operation of the device with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, the case of Woo and the housing structure of Volz are considered as functionally equivalent case/insulating pouch of a button cell. See MPEP 2143. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 4: Woo further teaches the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, 10) comprises: a first electrode tab (Fig. 3, 51) extending from the first electrode (Fig. 3, 11) and welded to the first plate (Fig. 3, bottom portion of the case 20); and a second electrode tab (Fig. 3, 52) extending from the second electrode (Fig. 3, 12) and welded to the second plate (Fig. 3, 322, a protrusion of the cap assembly 30).
Regarding claim 5: Woo further teaches the electrode assembly is wound about a vertical axis in a jelly roll shape (para. 0043 and Fig. 3), and wherein the lower surface of the first plate and the upper surface of the second plate each have a circular shape in a plane view (para. 0045, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6: Woo further teaches the insulating pouch has a ring shape in the plane view (para. 0045, Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7 and 8: While Woo discloses the button cell as described above, Woo does not disclose wherein the first plate has a thickness that is smaller than that of the insulating pouch, or wherein the second plate has a thickness that is smaller than that of the insulating pouch. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to select relative component thicknesses such that the insulation pouch is thicker than the first and second plates in order to provide sufficient insulation, protection, and structural support for the button cell. The claimed thickness relationship represents a predictable variation in the relative sizing of the components, and applicant has not shown that the claimed thickness relationship is critical or produces unexpected results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In addition, it is the position of the examiner that the disclosure provides no evidence of criticality between the relative thickness between the first plate, the second plate and the insulation pouch.
Regarding claim 9: Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 7, wherein the first plate has a thickness that is smaller than that of the second plate (see Annotated Figure 3, T1 thickness 1st plate, T2 thickness second plate).
Annotated Figure 3
PNG
media_image3.png
467
437
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19: Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 1, wherein the button cell comprises a coin cell (para. 0035).
Regarding claim 20: Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 1, wherein a ratio of a height to a diameter of the button cell is 1 or less (para. 0035).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20210184184 A1) and Volz (US 6143440 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurokawa et al. (US 6139986 A).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Woo and Volz discloses the button cell as described above in paragraph 2. However, Woo and Volz fail to teach wherein the insulating pouch has: a body portion extending in the vertical direction to surround the side portion of the electrode assembly; the first fused portion bent and extending from the body portion toward a center of the lower surface of the first plate; and the second fused portion bent and extending from the body portion toward a center of the upper surface of the second plate.
However, Kurokawa et al. teaches a cylindrical battery and discloses wherein the insulating pouch (Fig 1, case 63) has: a body portion extending in the vertical direction to surround the side portion of the electrode assembly (Fig. 1, side portion of case 63); the first fused portion bent and extending from the body portion toward a center of the lower surface of the first plate (see Annotated Figure 4, circle). Kurokawa discloses that the battery case is bent to be subjected to caulking, so that the negative internal terminal and the like are fixed in the battery (col. 6, ln. 8-11). Examiner notes that caulking is defined as a sealing material used to fill gags, cracks, and joints, thus reading in the fuse portion of the claimed invention. Even though, Kurokawa does not disclose a specific second fused portion bent and extending from the body portion toward a center of the upper surface of the second plate. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use a second fuse portion similar to the first fuse portion disclosed by Kurokawa because Kurokawa teaches that it fixes the battery in place (the particular direction of the fuse portion and duplicated part is held to be an obvious matter of design choice). In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Annotated Figure 4
PNG
media_image4.png
493
349
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the fuse portion of Woo and Volz with the fuse portion of Kurokawa because Kurokawa teaches that it fixes the parts of the battery in place inside the case.
Claims 10,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20210184184 A1) and Volz (US 6143440 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kimura (JP 2006032313 A, (see corresponding English Translation) and further evidenced by Aluminium vs. Stainless Steel: Main differences (https://www.metalswarehouse.co.uk/aluminium-vs-stainless-steel-what-are-the-main-differences/).
Regarding claim 10 and 11: The combination of Woo and Volz discloses the button cell as described above in Paragraph 2. However, the combination of Woo and Volz does not teach wherein the first plate comprises a material having greater strength than that of the second plate, or wherein the first plate comprises stainless steel, and wherein the second plate comprises aluminum.
However, Kimura teaches a coin-shaped battery. Kimura discloses wherein the first plate (can 5) comprises stainless steel (para. 0019), and wherein the second plate (can 6) comprises aluminum para. 0019). Kimura does not teach wherein the first plate comprises a material having greater strength than that of the second plate. However, as evidenced by the publication Aluminium vs. Stainless Steel: Main differences, stainless steel is having a greater strength than aluminum.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify Woo and Volz and utilize aluminum and stainless steel for the plate’s materials since these are known materials conventionally used for button cells and would have been selected according to the known material properties and suitability for intended use. The claimed material selection merely involves selecting known materials based on their recognized suitability and known properties, which is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) .
Claims 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woo (US 20210184184 A1) and Volz (US 6143440 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ochi (US 20230037438 A1).
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Woo and Volz discloses the button cell as described above in Paragraph 2. Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 1, wherein the second fused portion of the insulating pouch forms a second opening exposing an upper portion of the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, 21), and wherein the second plate covers the second opening (para. 0039 and Fig. 1, cap assembly 30). Woo and Volz fail to teach wherein the first fused portion of the insulating pouch forms a first opening exposing a lower portion of the electrode assembly, wherein the first plate covers the first opening.
However, Ochi teaches a secondary battery including an electrode assembly and an exterior body that houses the electrode assembly. Ochi discloses a button cell (Fig. 3, secondary battery 30) with a first plate below the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, lid-shaped member 33b) wherein the first fused portion of the insulating pouch (Fig. 3, case 33a is coupled to lid-shaped member 33b) forms a first opening exposing a lower portion of the electrode assembly (bottom end of the secondary battery), wherein the first plate (Fig. 3, lid-shape member 33b) covers the first opening (para. 0081). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Woo and Volz with the bottom plate of Ochi because it is considered as functionally equivalent to the bottom plate of the combination of Woo and Volz.
Regarding claim 13: Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 12, wherein the second plate comprises: a cap plate (para. 0039 and Fig. 3, 31) thermally fused to the second fused portion and covering an outer area of the second opening (para. 0045 and Fig. 3, 21), the cap plate having a through hole (para 0059 and Fig. 3, 611) exposing a central area of the second opening; and a terminal plate connected (para. 0039 and Fig. 3, 32) to the second electrode, insulatively bonded to the cap plate (para. 0039), and covering the through hole (see Annotated Figure 5).
Annotated Figure 5
PNG
media_image5.png
467
437
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14: Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 13, further comprising a bonding layer (Fig. 3, 34) between the cap plate (Fig. 3, 31) and the terminal plate (Fig. 3, 32) and insulatively bonding the cap plate (Fig. 3, 31) and the terminal plate (para. 0039 and Fig. 3, 32).
Regarding claim 15: Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 14, wherein the terminal plate has: a flange portion (Fig. 3, 321) covering the through hole (Fig. 3, 611) and contacting the bonding layer (Fig. 3, 34); and a protrusion (Fig. 3, 322) extending from the flange portion (Fig. 3, 321) through the through hole (Fig. 3, 611).
Regarding claim 16: Woo further teaches the button cell of claim 15, wherein the electrode assembly comprises: a first electrode tab (Fig. 3, 51) extending from the first electrode and welded to the first plate (bottom portion of the case 20 as modified by Volz in claim 1); and a second electrode tab (Fig. 3, 52) extending from the second electrode and welded to the protrusion of the terminal plate. Woo discloses that the electrode tabs are electrically connected to the case and the terminal plate, but also discloses that the flat surface of the terminal plate improves weldability of the electrode tab, thus the examiner notes that this determines that the electrode tabs are not only electrically connected but also welded to the terminal plate and case.
Regarding claim 17: The button cell of claim 13, wherein the first plate has a thickness that is smaller than that of the second plate (see Annotated Figure 3).
Regarding claim 18: While Woo discloses the button cell of claim 13, Woo does not disclose wherein the first plate has a thickness that is smaller than that of the insulating pouch. However, it would have been obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to select relative component thicknesses such that the insulation pouch is thicker than the first in order to provide sufficient insulation, protection, and structural support for the button cell. The claimed thickness relationship represents a predictable variation in the relative sizing of the components, and applicant has not shown that the claimed thickness relationship is critical or produces unexpected results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Button cell structure, Wang (US 9564654 B2), Ota (US 7341802 B1), Tamachi (US 20170207491 A1), Yamagami (US 20200280027 A1) Lee (US 20210057681 A1), Zhou (US 20210075051 A1), Gaugler (US 10971776 B2); Cap plate, Adamson (US 10305111 B2); Plate materials Sato (US 20070109721 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIANA P CLAUDIO VAZQUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571)272-1295. 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.
/APCV/Examiner, Art Unit 1717
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights