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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1, Lee 1 is no longer applied in the rejection and Inoue (JP-2005210930-A) is newly applied as the primary reference.
Regarding new claim 7, Lee B. (US-20190386270-A1) and Brechling (US-20180138464-A1) are newly combined to teach claim 7.
Regarding new claim 8, Lee B. (US-20190386270-A1) and Martinson (US-20060228620-A1) are newly combined to teach claim 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue (JP-2005210930-A) (see translation).
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a sealed battery (see e.g., Inoue; [0001]), comprising: a bottomed tubular exterior can that houses an electrode assembly (see e.g., Inoue; [0006], [0029], regarding metal case 8 having bottomed dish shape, [0069], regarding wherein the battery shape may be cylindrical); and a sealing assembly that closes an opening of the exterior can (see e.g., Inoue; fig. 1), wherein at the exterior can, a crimped portion is formed by folding an end of the opening inward in a radial direction for crimping and fixing the sealing assembly (see e.g., Inoue; fig. 1, wherein the peripheral of the case 8 is crimped inwards to hold the sealing assembly), the sealing assembly has: a rupture disc (see e.g., Inoue; fig. 1, [0029], regarding metal foil 1 and 2); a positive electrode cap having a flange (see e.g., Inoue; fig. 1, [0034], [0029], regarding conductive metal cap 7 and the flange portion within the crimp); and
a metal-made height adjusting portion for adjusting a height of the crimped portion (see e.g., Inoue; fig. 1, [0011], [0029], regarding spacer 4, [0016]-[0021], regarding tin and copper material of the spacer), and the height adjusting portion is a metal-made spacer formed as a separate component from the rupture disc and the positive electrode cap (see e.g., Inoue; fig. 1), the height adjusting portion being arranged between an upper surface of the flange of the positive electrode cap and the rupture disc (see e.g., Inoue; fig. 1).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue (JP-2005210930-A) (see translation), and in further view of Ligeois (US-20010023038-A1).
Regarding claim 6, Inoue discloses the sealed battery according to claim 1. Inoue discloses wherein the spacer is welded to the metal foil (see e.g., Inoue; [0013]). Inoue does not explicitly disclose wherein the metal-made spacer is welded or adhesively bonded to the flange. However, Ligeois discloses a similar cylindrical battery comprising a sealing assembly, wherein a washer 12 corresponding to a spacer is welded to the terminal 3 comprising a flange (see e.g., Ligeois; fig. 2, abstract, [0071], regarding transparent laser welding terminal 3 with washer 12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealing assembly disclosed by Inoue by providing a welded connection between the spacer and the flange of the positive electrode cap as disclosed by Ligeois in order to provide a firm and reliable mechanical connection (see e.g., Ligeois; [0071]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee B. (US-20190386270-A1), and in further view of Brechling (US-20180138464-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee B. discloses a sealed battery, comprising:
a bottomed tubular exterior can that houses an electrode assembly (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, [0032], regarding cylindrical can 20); and
a sealing assembly that closes an opening of the exterior can (see e.g., Lee B.; figs. 1-3, regarding assembly at opening of can), wherein
at the exterior can, a crimped portion is formed by folding an end of the opening inward in a radial direction for crimping and fixing the sealing assembly (see e.g., Lee B.; figs. 1-3, [0013], [0023], regarding crimping area, annotated fig. 2), and
the sealing assembly has: a rupture disc (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, [0038], regarding safety vent 36 that ruptures); a positive electrode cap having a flange (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, regarding electrode cap 30 with flange that extends into the crimp portion); and a metal-made height adjusting portion for adjusting a height of the crimped portion (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, [0037], regarding bent portion of safety vent 36, [0038] regarding metal-made safety vent).
Lee B. does not explicitly disclose the height adjusting portion is formed by folding a peripheral edge of the flange of the positive electrode cap inward in the radial direction. However, Brechling discloses a cylindrical battery wherein the peripheral edges of the battery cap folds inwards in the radial direction with the case of the battery (see e.g., Brechling; figs. 2, 9, abstract, [0008]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the positive electrode cap of Lee B. such that the peripheral edge of the flange of the positive electrode cap folds inward in a radial direction as disclosed by Brechling in order to maximize the available interior space for the core material and ensure a small design having a simple production (see e.g., Brechling; [0007]), and also having a tight connection that is produced in a simple manner (see e.g., Brechling; [0029]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee B. (US-20190386270-A1), and in further view of Martinson (US-20060228620-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Lee B. discloses a sealed battery, comprising:
a bottomed tubular exterior can that houses an electrode assembly (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, [0032], regarding cylindrical can 20); and
a sealing assembly that closes an opening of the exterior can (see e.g., Lee B.; figs. 1-3, regarding assembly at opening of can), wherein
at the exterior can, a crimped portion is formed by folding an end of the opening inward in a radial direction for crimping and fixing the sealing assembly (see e.g., Lee B.; figs. 1-3, [0013], [0023], regarding crimping area, annotated fig. 2),
the sealing assembly has: a rupture disc (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, [0038], regarding safety vent 36 that ruptures); a positive electrode cap having a flange (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, regarding electrode cap 30 with flange that extends into the crimp portion); and a metal-made height adjusting portion for adjusting a height of the crimped portion (see e.g., Lee B.; fig. 2, [0037], regarding bent portion of safety vent 36, [0038] regarding metal-made safety vent), and
Lee B. does not explicitly disclose the height adjusting portion is formed by folding a peripheral edge of the rupture disc inward in the radial direction at least twice (see e.g., Lee B.; annotated fig. 2). However, Martinson discloses a sealing assembly comprising a vent seal wherein the vent seal comprises a plurality of inward radial direction folds (see e.g., Martinson; abstract, fig. 6). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the height adjusting portion disclosed by Lee B. to comprise a plurality of inward radial folds as disclosed by Martinson in order to prevent overlap and wrinkles which ensures proper sealing (see e.g., Martinson; abstract).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7337. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/KEVIN SONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights