DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (i.e., claims 1-14 and 16-20) in the reply filed on 03/18/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/10/25 was considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/28/23.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” “The present disclosure provides”, etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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. It does not appear to capture the essence of the disclosed/claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the term “insulted” in line 8 is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by the publication CN 114497904 (heretofore CN’904).
As to claims 1, 2:
CN’904 discloses that it is known in the art to make a battery shell/cover structure including an open space/cavity for holding a core element, the battery shell/cover including an opening, orifice or hole connected to the open space/cavity; a pole placed at an end of the battery shell/cover structure opposite to surfaces thereof and electrically connected to the core element; an insulating member/layers 50, 51, 52, 53 placed between the pole and the battery shell/cover structure so that surfaces of the both the pole and the battery shell/cover structure are covered with the insulating member/layers 50, 51, 52, 53 (Abstract; 0018-0026; 0040; 0043-0048; see Figures 2-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
570
292
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
286
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
542
504
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3:
CN’904 discloses the pole partially introduced into the open space/cavity and including a slot/slit/aperture extending into the opening/orifice/hole of the battery shell/cover structure so that the insulating member/layers 50, 51, 52, 53 (assembly) covers/connects the same (Abstract; 0018-0026; 0040; 0043-0048; see Figures 2-6).
As to claim 13:
CN’904 discloses the insulating layer is made of a ceramic material such as Al2O3 or ZrO2 (0040).
Thus, the present claims are anticipated.
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) 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication CN 114497904 (heretofore CN’904) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of He et al 2022/0102725.
CN’904 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific thickness of the insulating layer.
As to claims 12, 20:
In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, He et al disclose that it is known in the art to make an insulating layer for a battery cell having a thickness of 50 microns (0.05 mm) (0085).
By compounding the above teachings, it would have been within the ambit of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the insulating layer/member of CN’904 by having the specific thickness as instantly claimed as He et al teach that the insulating layer assists in preventing a first cell component from contacting the battery shell directly, thereby preventing a short circuit. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, 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. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a detailed search for the prior art failed to reveal or fairly suggest what is instantly claimed, in particular: the battery shell assembly comprising all of the claimed components/elements satisfying the specific structural and functional interrelationship as recited in dependent claim 4.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note that claims 5-11, 14 and 16-19 are also allowably by virtue of their dependency from claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is (571)272-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, 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.
/RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights