DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/237088, “RECHARGEABLE BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF”, was filed with the USPTO on 8/23/23 claims priority from a foreign application filed on 1/27/23.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action on the merits is in response to communication filed on 5/7/26.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 6/22/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US 2012/019849), Barenberg (US 2018/0159093) and Wohrle (US 2017/0229712).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a rechargeable battery (abstract, Fig. 2), comprising: an electrode assembly (item 200); a can (item 300) accommodating the electrode assembly and an electrolyte solution therein, the can including: a body part (item 310) having an opening, a bottom part (item 320) connected to the body part, and a beading part (item 330/340) on the body part in a region between the opening and the electrode assembly; a cap assembly (item 400) that closes and seals the opening of the can and is connected to the can (see Fig. 2); and a coating film on the beading part (Fig. 3 item 503; Fig. 4 item 620; abstract; Fig. 4 best shows the film 620 disposed on the exterior surfaces of a gasket 600; Fig. 2 clarifies that gasket is disposed in contact with the beading part of the can, such that the coating film abuts the can).
Kim further teaches that the function of the coating film is to inhibit electrolyte leakage between the gasket and the can (abstract, paragraph [0007, 0043, 0045]), but does not appear to teach wherein the coating film is a super-hydrophobic coating film exhibiting super-hydrophobicity by exposing a plurality of nano materials at a surface thereof.
In the battery art, Barenberg teaches providing a hydrophobic and/or nanostructured superhydrophobic coating on various parts of the battery such as on an electrode cap, a housing, or gasket (paragraphs [0005, 0033, 0035]), so that a non-wettable area can be provided at the desired location (paragraph [0033]).
In the battery art, Woehrle teaches a blocking layer comprised of a super-hydrophobic coating film exhibiting super-hydrophobicity by exposing a plurality of nano materials at a surface thereof, which is superior to other forms of liquid repellant protective layers because it maintains repellant properties even when defects are present (paragraph [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to replace the coating film of Kim with a coating film comprised of a super-hydrophobic coating film exhibiting super-hydrophobicity by exposing a plurality of nano materials at a surface thereof, for the benefit of providing superior protection from liquid leakage or wetting, such as even when defects are present, as taught by Barenberg and/or Woehrle.
Regarding claim 4, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Barenberg further teaches that the superhydrophobic surface is provided by roughening a surface (paragraph [0027]), and further teaches that the roughened surface may comprise polytetrafluoroethylene based polymers and/or silicone oils (paragraph [0027]). Accordinlgy, the requirement that the plurality of nano materials of the super-hydrophobic coating film include polytetrafluoroethylene or silicone is obvious in view of Barenberg.
Regarding claim 5, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. The cited art further suggests wherein a contact angle of the electrolyte solution on the super-hydrophobic coating film is 150° to 160° (Barenberg paragraph [0029] teaches a contact angle of “greater than about 150°, or even greater than about 165°”, suggesting embodiments in the 150 to 165° range, overlapping the claimed range).
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim (US 2012/019849), Barenberg (US 2018/0159093), Wohrle (US 2017/0229712) and Kim’048 (US 2020/0358048).
Regarding claim 2-3, the cited art remains as applied to claim 1. Kim further teaches wherein: the beading part includes a first surface facing the cap assembly, a second surface facing the electrode assembly, and a third surface connecting the first surface and the second surface (Kim Fig. 2 teaches the beading part 340 including the first, second and third surfaces, as the structure of the beading part is identical to that illustrated in applicant’s Fig. 3 which labels the first, second and third surfaces), and as to claim 3, the can further includes an opening side vertical part between the opening and the beading part surface (Kim Fig. 2 teaches the required, as the structure of the can is identical to that illustrated in applicant’s Fig. 2 which labels the opening side vertical part).
Kim further teaches the coating film [to be substituted with the super-hydrophobic coating film material in view of Barenberg and Wohrle] disposed on the opening side vertical part (see Fig. 2) and the first surface [upper surface of beading part 340] (see Fig. 2). Kim does not teach the coating film disposed on the third surface [rounded inner edge of beading part 340] because the coated gasket (item 500) is spaced apart from the third surface (see Fig. 2).
However, in the battery art, Kim’048 teaches (Fig. 1B) that a gasket (item 150) may be disposed in contact with the first and third surfaces of a beading part (item 113), a structure which facilitates prevention of electrolyte leakage and infiltration (paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to extend the gasket-beading part contact surface onto the third part as taught by Kim’048, as a matter of simple substitution of one known gasket/beading part geometry for another to yield the predictable effect of a structure sealed from leaking by the gasket. Additionally, such a modification may provide the additional advantage of further preventing leakage and infiltration of electrolyte since the gasket/beading part contact area is increased, thus a teaching-suggestion-motivation rationale for modification also exists.
Relevant or Related Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, though not necessarily pertinent to applicant’s invention as claimed.
Uetani (USP 4220694) battery cell comprising triazole compound between collector and gasket; discloses fluororesins as conventional for the same purpose;
Kim’507 (US 2011/0171507) battery cell comprising adhesive layer 150 on inside of a gasket 140
Baker (US 2015/0311494) teaches that surfaces having contact angle 90° or greater are considered “hydrophobic”, while surfaces having contact angle 150° or greater are considered “superhydrophobic”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMIAH R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9 AM-5 PM (EST).
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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached on (571)270-7078. 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.
/JEREMIAH R SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights