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, Claims 1-8 (Figures 10 and 12), battery case with planar portion in the reply filed on 04 June, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04 June, 2026.
Claims 1-8 are examined below.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 20170237045 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim et al teach a battery cell, comprising:
an electrode assembly (electrode assembly [0021]); and
a case accommodating the electrode assembly (battery case surrounds an electrode assembly [0021]),
wherein the case includes a plurality of corner portions and a planar portion located between the plurality of corner portions (see annotated figure 8 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
297
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is deemed that the planar portion being configured to press the electrode assembly when the electrode assembly swells is an inherent characteristic and/or property of the specifically disclosed prismatic battery cell. In this respect, MPEP 2112 sets forth the following:
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kim et al. teach that their prismatic battery cell has improves overall rigidity, preventing the battery cell from being deformed due to gas generated in the battery cell ([0021]). Since the overall structures of the claimed invention and Kim et al.’s battery cell are the same, the planar portion of Kim et al.’s case is expected to press the electrode assembly when the electrode assembly swells, preventing the battery cell from being deformed.
Regarding Claim 8, Kim et al. teach the battery cell of claim 1, wherein the case comprises a wide surface and a narrow surface,
PNG
media_image2.png
272
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and at least a portion of the wide surface is configured to press the electrode assembly, when the electrode assembly swells (deemed inherent, when the electrode assembly swells, it will be pressed by at least a portion of the wide surface; see rejection of claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170237045 A1) in view of Kanemoto (US 20240372197 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Kim et al. teach the battery cell of claim 1.
Kim et al. do not teach wherein the case comprises at least one support sleeve forming at least a portion of the planar portion.
However, Kanemoto teaches the use of a support sleeve (reinforcing member 50, [0061]), which provides a protective effect to the battery cell (impact absorption [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the planar portion of Kim et al.’s battery case to have included at least one support sleeve (reinforcing member) forming at least a portion of the planar portion to alleviate impacts, as taught by Kanemoto.
Regarding Claim 7, Kim et al. teach the battery cell of claim 1.
Kim et al. do not teach wherein a thickness of at least a portion of the planar portion is greater than a thickness of each of the plurality of corner portions.
However, the obvious combination of the support sleeve combined with the planar portion of the battery case would lead to the thickness of at least a portion of the planar portion reinforced by a support sleeve to be greater in thickness than each of the plurality of corner portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the thickness of at least a portion of the planar portion greater than a thickness of each of the plurality of corner portions to alleviate impacts, as taught by Kanemoto.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170237045 A1) in view of Kanemoto (US 20240372197 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Norimine et al. (US 20240222768 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Kim et al. teach the battery cell of claim 2 in view of Kanemoto.
They do not teach that the support sleeve comprises steel.
However, Kanemoto teaches, “the reinforcing member 50 is a plate-shaped member made of a metal material such as an aluminum alloy or iron and is a member which improves the safety of the energy storage apparatus 1 by reinforcing the outer case.” The outer case of Kanemoto may comprise steel (stainless steel or plated steel [0045]).
Norimine et al. teach a reinforcement plate made of a metal such as aluminum or steel for improving the rigidity of electrical storage devices ([0041]). This teaching suggests that steel and aluminum are effective for providing structural support and are possible substitutes for one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the support sleeve of Kim et al. in view of Kanemoto out of steel instead of aluminum or iron for improved rigidity, as taught by Norimine et al.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170237045 A1) in view of Kang (US 20070151590 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Kim et al. teach the battery cell of claim 1.
Kim et al. do not teach wherein the planar portion comprises a reinforcing portion protruding toward the electrode assembly.
However, Kang teaches a prismatic type lithium secondary battery wherein the planar portion of the case comprises a reinforcing portion protruding toward the electrode assembly (Figure 6, stopper 50; see paragraphs 16-20 and paragraph [0047]), which serve as structural support for the cap assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the planar portion of Kim et al.’s battery case to have included a reinforcing portion protruding toward the electrode assembly as this would provide support for the cap assembly, as taught by Kang. This combination would work as expected because the planar portion that extends toward the electrode assembly provides a buffer zone for force absorption as the electrode assembly swells toward the case wall.
Claim 5 is considered product-by-process claim. The cited prior art, Kim et al., teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP § 2113).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20170237045 A1) in view of Ueda et al. (US Patent No. 6,946,221 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Kim et al. teach the battery cell of claim 1.
Kim et al. do not teach wherein the planar portion comprises an ironing region and a protrusion extending from the ironing region and protruding outwardly of the case.
However, Ueda et al. teach a battery cell with a case made by an extrusion process, comprising an ironing region (the flat portions between the protrusions, see figure 9B and 44 of figure 9C) and a protrusion extending from the ironing region (convex protruding portions 43, figures 9A, 9B, and 9C), which effectively restrains expanding deformation due to a rise in pressure within the battery while maintaining sufficient energy density (col 15, lines 40-49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the battery cell container of Kim et al. to include a convex protrusion portion extending from the ironing region and protruding outwardly from the case to restrain expansion deformation as taught by Ueda et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Burkert (US-20190252647-A1) discloses a method and device for producing a prismatic battery cell container, using impact extrusion to shape the battery cell’s case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW N KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-9169. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ANDREW KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/Maria Laios/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights