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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11, 13 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 June 2026.
Claims 1-17 are pending, with claims 1-10, 12, and 14-15 being considered in the present Office action.
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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the peripheral surface of the support body" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes “a peripheral surface of the support body”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a peripheral surface of the support body”; however, claim 6, from which claim 8, already recites this feature (i.e., “the peripheral surface of the support body”). Its unclear whether these two components are the same or two separate features. Examiner assumes “a peripheral surface of the support body” in claim 6, followed by “the peripheral surface of the support body” in claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the inner side surface of the support body " in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner assumes “an inner side surface of the support”.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2020/0127250)
Regarding Claims 1, and 14-15, Kim suggests an apparatus (e.g., vehicle, instruments, facilities, energy storage system) comprising a battery (1, Fig. 9) comprising a battery cell (i.e., 10, see Figs. 1 and 9), the battery is configured to provide electric energy, [0064-0065]. Kim suggests the battery cell (10, Fig. 1) comprising a case (i.e., 260) having an opening and an end cover (i.e., 220) configured to cover the opening (see Fig. 1, [0011]); wherein the end cover (220) comprises an end cover body (see annotated Fig. 1) and a support body (e.g., 226, see annotated Fig.1), the end cover body is configured to be welded and fixed to the case (e.g., via 222), the support body (226) is disposed on a bottom surface of the end cover body and is disposed along an edge of the end cover body in a circumferential direction, and the support body (226) is configured to abut against an inner side surface (265) of the case (260).
PNG
media_image1.png
1036
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Kim suggests the end cover body is constructed as a plate structure with a preset thickness (Figs. 1 and 9, [0011]), and a peripheral surface (see annotated Fig. 1) of the support body (226) is parallel to a thickness direction (e.g., up and down direction) of the end cover body and is configured to abut against the inner side surface (265) of the case (260).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim suggests the support body and the end cover body are of an integrated structure, see Fig. 1, a single piece is shown.
Regarding Claim 5, Applicant attempts to differentiate the claimed product by the process in which it was made, i.e., “the integrated structure … formed by stamping forming or injection molding”. Applicant is reminded that “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process” (see In re Thorpe, 111 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2113. In this case, the top cover plate is formed from plastic, hence is configured to be formed by stamping forming or injection molding.
Regarding Claim 6-7, Kim suggests a groove (G, Fig. 4, 6, below rib 222) is formed on a peripheral surface (see annotated Fig. 4, and 112 rejection for the interpretation of claim 6) of the support body (226), the groove (i.e., G below rib 222) being configured to be filled with colloid (e.g., G filled with 222 after welding/melting of rib 222, see Figs. 1 and 7), the colloid being constructed to connect the support body (226) with the case (260) and seal a gap between the support body and the case, see Figs. 1, 7-8).
PNG
media_image2.png
809
764
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Kim suggests the groove (i.e., G, under rib 222, see Figs. 4, 6) is constructed as an annular groove (obtuse inner corner) formed on the peripheral surface (see annotated Fig. 4, see the 112 rejection for the interpretation of claim 8) of the support body (226). A center line of the annular groove (i.e., solid line drawn in the left to right direction, which intersects the inner corner of the obtuse shape of the groove, see annotated Fig. 4) is parallel to a thickness direction (e.g., left to right direction represented by the dotted double headed arrow in annotated Fig. 4) of the end cover body. Alternatively, a center line of the annular groove (i.e., line drawn into the page of Fig. 4, which intersects the inner corner of the obtuse shape of the groove) is parallel to a thickness direction (e.g., into the page of Fig. 4) of the end cover body.
Regarding Claim 9, Kim suggests there are a plurality of ribs 222 distributed at intervals, see e.g., Fig. 5; consequentially, the groove (i.e., G, below ribs 222) is one of a plurality of grooves (under each rib 222) formed on the peripheral surface of the support body (226, see Fig. 6), the plurality of grooves being distributed at intervals in the thickness direction (i.e., into the page in Fig. 4 (up and down direction in Fig. 5), following the interval distribution of ribs 222) of the end cover body, each of the plurality of grooves being configured to be filled with the colloid (i.e., melting of 222 during welding).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (cited above).
PNG
media_image3.png
428
715
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Kim suggests the end cover (“top cover”) and case (“side plate”) are coupled around the entire periphery (of the cell 10), see e.g., [0006, 0011], and Fig. 9. The coupling of the end cover and case is achieved through multiple fitting ribs (located on all of the opposing side surfaces of the top cover, [0011-0013]), at least one anti-deformation rib (on a lower surface of the top cover) on the end cover, and at least one anti-deformation rib insert groove in the case ([0017-0018]); the anti-deformation ribs inserted into the corresponding anti-deformation rib insert groove prevent/minimize the case (260) from deforming ([0041, 0045-0046]). Coupling strength between the cover (220) and case (200) is secured through quality welding of the fitting ribs located on all of the opposing side surfaces of the top cover, and a visual inspection to ensuring the gap G is filled with melted fitting ribs ([0059-0060, 0066]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the anti-deforming ribs and corresponding insert grooves extend along the entire periphery of the cover (220) and case (260), respectively, with the expectation of preventing/minimizing the deformation of the case (260), see e.g., [0017, 0046]). As detailed above, Kim suggests a plurality of plate like structures (i.e., ribs 226) disposed continuously in the circumferential direction of the end cover body with the expectation of preventing/minimizing the deformation of the case (e.g., considering all of the opposing side surfaces of the top cover, of which there are four, there are four total anti-deformation ribs, one at each of the four opposing sides surface of the top cover).
Further, in forming the fitting ribs 222 on the end cover (220) and fitting end cover (220) with the case (260), the plurality of plate like structures (226) forms an annular structure (e.g., G, below ribs 222, Fig. 4) configured to abut against the inner side surface of the case 260 (e.g., upon welding, G is filled, and contacts 260, see Figs. 6-7).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Watanabe (US 6,013,374), hereinafter Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 10, Kim suggests the cover (220) is formed of plastic but does not disclose the plastic is polyurethane, polyamide, polyester, and copolyolefin. However, Watanabe suggests battery covers utilize polyolefin resins including polyethylene, polypropylene and copolymers thereof because polyolefin resins are excellent in heat and chemical resistance, col. 1 line 4-16, col. 2 lines 49-53. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the cover of Kim, hence ribs 222 which form the colloid, is selected from polyurethane, polyamide, polyester, or copolyolefin because these materials are suitable as battery covers from the standpoint of their excellent heat and chemical resistance, as suggested by Watanabe. Further, Watanabe has recognized polyethylene, polypropylene, and copolyolefin (i.e., copolymer of polyethylene and polypropylene) as equivalents known for the same purpose (i.e., resin materials used for a battery cover); hence, the art presence strong evidence of obviousness in substituting one for the other as the cover of a battery.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda (US 2013/0171511), and Saimaru et al. (US 2016/0254501), hereinafter Matsuda, and Saimaru.
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuda suggests a battery cell (1) comprising a case (10) having an opening (10x) and an end cover (2) configured to cover the opening (Fig. 1); the end cover comprises an end cover body (20a, Fig.1) and a support body (20c, Fig. 2); the support body (20c) is disposed on a bottom surface of the end cover body and is disposed along an edge of the end cover body in a circumferential direction (see Figs. 2-3); the support body (20c) is configured to abut against an inner side surface of the case, see e.g., Fig. 3.
Matsuda is not explicit about whether the end cover body is configured to be welded and fixed to the case. However, Saimaru suggests an end cover (200) covering the opening (100d) of a case (100), see Figs. and [0038]; the end cover comprises an end cover body (230) and a support body (250) over the entire circumference of the end cover body (Fig. 8A-8B, [0088-0090]); the support body (250) abuts against an inner side surface (111) of the case (100) and extends the vertical boundary Fy between the end cover (200) and case (100) over a wider area (see e.g., Figs. 7 vs. 8), such that when laser EB is used be to form a weld (301, see e.g., Fig. 8A-8B), to hermetically seal the end cover (200) to the case (100), the welding height w2 is extended, thereby increasing the resistance to a force in a shearing direction exerted on the boundary surface Fy to a greater extent, see e.g., [0061-0062, 0088-0090]. Further, by increasing the boundary surface Fy between the end cover and case, a higher quality battery is achieved because welding metal (spatters) between the inner side surface (111) of the case (100) and end cover (200) are prevented from entering the inside of the battery case (100), [0090]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the end cover body is welded and fixed to the case through a support body disposed along the edge of the end cover body in a circumferential direction, which is configured to abut against an inner side surface of the case, with the expectation of achieving a hermetic seal that is able to resist a force in a shearing direction exerted on the boundary surface between the case and end cover, and to produce a higher quality battery by preventing the welding metal (spatters) from entering inside of the battery case (100), as suggested by Saimaru.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda and Saimaru (cited above), further in view of Huang et al. (CN209658246), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding Claim 12, Matsuda suggests an electrode assembly (11) disposed within the case (10); the end cover further comprises an insulator (13), the insulator comprising a first insulator (13b) and a second insulator (13c), the first insulator (13b) being attached to the bottom surface of the end cover body (20a, see Fig. 2), the second insulator (13c) being connected to the first insulator (13b).
Matsuda does not show that the second insulator (13c) exceeds the support body (20c) in a direction (Z) facing the electrode assembly (11), see e.g., Fig. 2.
However, Huang utilizes a lower insulator 14 disposed on the bottom of the top cover plate 13, which extends to the surface of the electrode assembly 16, to achieve insulation between the top cover plate 13, the electrode assembly and the connecting plate 15, [0057]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to extend the second insulator (13c) to the electrode assembly, hence exceeding the support body (20c), with the expectation of insulating the end cover body from the electrode assembly.
Matsuda does not show the second insulator (13c) attached to an inner side surface of the support body (20c). However, Masuda suggests collector 12 ([0077]) and the container 30 ([0005, 0105]) are metallic and require insulation to prevent a short circuit, [0005]. Huang suggests a longer creepage distance (i.e., shortest distance between two conductive components along the surface of an insulating material) is advantageous in lowering the risk of high voltage discharge between conductors. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to extend the second insulator (13c) to an inner side surface of the support body (20c), and to exceed the support body (20c) in a direction (Z) facing the electrode assembly, with the expectation of forming a longer creepage distance between conductive components (i.e., longer creepage distance between support body 20c and collector 12 along the surface of the second insulator 13c in Matsuda), hence an expectation of lowering the risk of high voltage discharge/short circuit between the conductive components, as suggested by Huang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights