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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A drawn to element 19 as shown in Fig. 3 and claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged.
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the shield is a drawn portion” it is unclear what is a drawn portion. The specification does not indicate any additional details on what entails a drawn portion. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (US 20130171510 A1) in view of Nakayama (US 20180358603 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsumi discloses a sealed battery comprising (See Figs. 1-6 [0009]-[0016]):
an electrode body (30 which includes 300 and 301, see Fig. 2 [0105]) including an electrode (300/301 [0105]) ;
a battery case (10a of 10, see Fig. 1, [0096]) including an opening (see opening shown in Fig. 2 within case 10a) and housing the electrode body (30 [0105]);
a closing plate (10b [0096]) including a terminal insertion hole (203 [0100] see Fig. 2 or Fig. 4) and closing the opening (see Fig. 1);
a collector terminal (312, [0100], see Fig. 2) including an electrode body connector (30 [0100]) connected to the electrode (30 see Fig. 2 or Fig. 4) inside the battery case (10a see Fig. 2),
a shaft (311 [0099] see Fig. 2) inserted through the terminal insertion hole, and
an external connector (310 [0099] see Fig. 2) exposed at an outer surface of the closing plate;
an insulator (20 and 21 [0096]-[0101]) insulating at least the outer surface of the closing plate (10b) and the external connector (310) from each other;
a laser-welded region (see Fig. 2, P [0005]) formed on a fitted portion (flat portion of 10b shown in Fig. 2 or Fig. 4 section shown extending in the direction of distance D) between the battery case (10a) and the closing plate (10b);
and a shield (4 [0096] shown in Fig. 2) disposed at least on a region of the outer surface of the closing plate (10b) where the fitted portion (flat portion of 10b shown in Fig. 2, section shown extending in the direction of distance D) and the insulator (20 and 21) are located closest to each other, the shield (4) being interposed between the insulator (20 and 21) and the fitted portion (flat portion of 10b shown in Fig. 2, section shown extending in the direction of distance D).
However, Tsutsumi discloses that the shield has a rectangular cross-section and does not disclose wherein the shield includes an inclined portion inclined toward the fitted portion, the inclined portion defining a side face of the shield adjacent to the fitted portion.
Tsutsumi discloses that the shield serves to block spatter and also serves to reflect laser light so as to prevent damage to insulated gasket ([0073][0085]).
Nakayama discloses an inclined surface (see surface 24 which would reflect light from L1 ([0034]) which will reflect and absorb laser light acting as a laser light shield ([0034] The laser light beam L1A received by the second light-receiving face 24 is partially absorbed by the second light-receiving face 24, and the remainder is reflected outward.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shield shape of Tsutsumi so that the outer surface outside of portion covered by 20 is inclined toward the fitted portion, the inclined portion defining a side face of the shield adjacent to the fitted portion as disclosed by Nakayama as it is merely the selection of a functionally equivalent surface structure that is able to reflect and absorb laser light acting as a laser light shield.
Tsutsumi discloses an insulator (20 and 21 [0096]-[0101]) insulating at least the outer surface of the closing plate (10b) and the external connector (310) from each other and discloses that the insulating material of an insulating gasket can be a resin ([0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the lower gasket of modified Tsutsumi so that it is also formed of a resin material since Tsutsui teaches that is appropriate to form an insulating gasket from a resin material.
Regarding claim 3, modified Tsutsumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Tsutsumi discloses the shield is integral with the closing plate ([0118]) and has the same structure as instantly claimed, therefore with regards to the limitation “the shield is a drawn portion” Tsutsumi discloses said limitation.
Regarding claim 4, modified Tsutsumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Tsutsumi discloses that the insulator region does not have to have a flange portion (See embodiment shown in Fig 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the insulator region of modified Tsutsumi to have the insulator region not having a flange portion as disclosed in the embodiment shown in Fig. 4 because Tsutsumi discloses it is obvious to do so.
Nakayama discloses an inclined surface (see surface 24 which would reflect light from L1 ([0034]) which will reflect and absorb laser light acting as a laser light shield ([0034] The laser light beam L1A received by the second light-receiving face 24 is partially absorbed by the second light-receiving face 24, and the remainder is reflected outward.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shield shape of Tsutsumi so that the outer surface rectangular surface is inclined in a triangular shape towards the fitted portion, the inclined portion defining a side face of the shield adjacent to the fitted portion as disclosed by Nakayama as it is merely the selection of a functionally equivalent surface structure that is able to reflect and absorb laser light acting as a laser light shield.
Modified Tsutsumi discloses the shield has a substantially triangular shape with a pointed tip when viewed in cross section in a thickness direction of the closing plate.
Regarding claim 5, modified Tsutsumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Tsutsumi discloses a side face of the shield adjacent to the insulator extends along the insulator (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, modified Tsutsumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Tsutsumi discloses a height of the shield is between a first value and a second value inclusive, where the first value is 1/2 of a thickness of the insulator (thickness of insulator extends from top surface of flange portion 202 to bottom surface of 20 in contact with surface of 10b, see Fig. 2) and the second value is the thickness of the insulator.
Regarding claim 7, modified Tsutsumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Tsutsumi discloses the fitted portion (flat portion of 10b shown in Fig. 2, section shown extending in the direction of distance D) has a substantially rectangular shape, and the shield is provided at least on an area where a long-side region of the fitted portion (flat portion of 10b shown in Fig. 2, section shown extending in the direction of distance D) and the insulator (20 and 21) face each other.
Regarding claim 8, modified Tsutsumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Tsutsumi discloses that the shield comprises the inclined portion (see modification above with Nakayama) and a vertical wall (see portion embedded within insulator 20 of Fig. 2) extending vertically from the outer surface of the closing plate.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsumi (US 20130171510 A1) in view of Nakayama (US 20180358603 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 3-8 above and in further view of Ebara (JP2021086813A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2, modified Tsutsumi discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Tsutsumi does not explicitly disclose that the closing plate, the collector terminal, and the insulator are insert-molded.
Ebara discloses that a closing plate, a collector terminal and an insulator for a sealed battery can have the closing plate, the collector terminal, and the insulator be integrally molded which is also insert-molded ([0010]) and this can ease joining processing requirements ([0038][0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of joining the closing plate, the collector terminal, and the insulator of modified Tsutsumi as disclosed by Ebara by using an integral/insert molding method because Ebara discloses this can ease joining processing requirements.
The instant specification discloses that Ebara discloses an insert-molding method (see para [0051] of PGPub US 20240014488 A1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights