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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities, whereby the claim language is oddly worded:
Claim 1 line 10 “is existed at at least”
Claim 1 line 12 “is existed at”
Claim 1 line 14 “is existed at”
Claim 2 line 2 “is existed at”
Claim 2 line 4 “is existed at”
Claim 3 line 2 “are existed at at least”
Claim 3 line 4 “are respectively existed at”
Claim 5 line 5 “at at least”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20060112743 A (Uh).
Regarding claim 1, Uh teaches a battery (Tech-Solution ¶ 2, lithium-ion secondary battery) comprising:
an electrode body including respective electrodes of positive and negative electrodes (Tech-Solution ¶ 7-8, electrode assembly; positive electrode current collector; negative electrode current collector);
a battery case including an opening, and for accommodating the electrode body (Tech-Solution ¶ 5, electrode assembly accommodated in the can, and an upper end opening of the can);
a sealing plate including a terminal mounting hole, and for sealing the opening (Tech-Solution ¶ 6, the top opening of the can is sealed by the cap assembly);
an electrode terminal electrically joined at one end thereof with any electrode of the positive and negative electrodes inside the battery case, and inserted at another end thereof through the terminal mounting hole to be exposed to outside the sealing plate (Tech-Solution ¶ 12, electrode terminal is penetrated and coupled to the terminal through hole formed on the cap plate);
and an insulating member for establishing an insulation between at least a part of the sealing plate and the electrode terminal (Tech-Solution ¶ 12, for the electrical insulation between the electrode terminal and the cap plate a tubular gasket is installed. The gasket may be formed of insulating rubber or synthetic resin),
wherein one or a plurality of concave parts are existed at at least any one of the sealing plate and the insulating member (Tech-Solution ¶ 16, a groove is formed on the cap plate),
when the concave part is existed at the sealing plate, the concave part is filled with the insulating member opposed to the concave part (Tech-Solution ¶ 16, the gasket corresponds to a shape of the groove at a position corresponding to the groove formed on the cap plate. A protrusion having a shape is formed and coupled to the groove of the cap plate), and
when the concave part is existed at the insulating member, the sealing plate opposed to the concave part is buried in the concave part (Tech-Solution ¶ 20, the cap plate has a protrusion protruding upwards, and the gasket corresponds to the shape of the protrusion at a position corresponding to the protrusion).
Regarding claims 3, figures 5-7 of Uh shows a plurality of the concave parts (Tech-Solution ¶ 22, two grooves) formed symmetrically at both sides of the electrode terminal.
Regarding claim 4, figure 6 shows the plurality of concave parts with a round shape (Figure 6).
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.
Claims 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20060112743 A (Uh) in view of JP 2020145088 A (Mizukami et al., hereinafter Mizukami).
Regarding claims 2 and 6, Uh discloses the battery of claim 1 with a sealing plate (cap plate), an insulating member, and concave parts on both, but not their depths nor thicknesses. In the same field of endeavor of battery seals, Mizukami discloses a sealing body with a metal plate constituting the first cap with a thickness between 0.1 to 1.0 mm (Description-Of-Embodiments ¶ 6), an insulating gasket with a thickness between 0.05 to 0.8 mm (Description-Of-Embodiments ¶ 55-56), and recesses facing convex portions with heights of 10 to 300 µm (Description-Of-Embodiments ¶ 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the disclosure of Uh with the dimensions of Mizukami for the sealing body first cap plate thickness to optimize battery capacity and first cap strength and formability (Description-Of-Embodiments ¶ 6), for the insulating gasket thickness to optimize sealing body height and insulation, and for the recess/convex portion height to optimize electrical connection between first cap and protective element sealing body height (Description-Of-Embodiments ¶ 13).
Regarding claim 5, Uh discloses the battery of claim 1 with a cylindrical terminal mounting hole, a cylindrical terminal inserted through the mounting hole, and concave parts (protrusions, grooves), but not that each has a corner of an opening with an R shape (R shape is interpreted to mean rounded shape). Mizukami discloses recesses with cross-sectional shapes that can be for example, a polygon, circular shape, elliptical shape, or a shape obtained by combining these.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the disclosure of Uh with the cross-sectional recess shapes of Mizukami. The rounded corner shape can be achieved by overlapping multiple circle/elliptical shapes. The recess/convex portions have the same function regardless of their shape and so one would have had a reasonable expectation of success of improving the reliability of the sealing body.
Claim 7 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20060112743A (Uh) in view of US 2022/0102732 A1 (Li et al., hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 7, Uh discloses the battery of claim 1 with an insulation member (gasket), but not insulation filler included in the insulation member. In the same field of endeavor of batteries, Li discloses an insulation layer (¶ 0165, support protection layer) with insulation filler (¶ 0168, inorganic insulation layer may include an insulation filler (preferably inorganic insulation particles)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the disclosure of Uh with the insulation filler disclosed by Li as this would ensure that the insulator has improved properties such as hardness and mechanical strength (¶ 0168).
Claim 8 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20060112743A (Uh) in view of WO 2017198136 A1 (Guo et al., hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 8, Uh discloses the battery of claim 1, including an electrode terminal and insulating member, but not that they are an integrally molded product. In the same field of endeavor of battery seals, Guo discloses a pole assembly that includes a pole member and an injection molded plastic member integrally molded in the gap between the between the pole member and the top cover (Specific Embodiment ¶ 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the disclosure of Uh with the method of integral molding from Guo in order to improve structural stability in high and low temperature and long-term aging environments (Specific Embodiment ¶ 6).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claims of copending Application No. 18/356,899 in view of KR 20060112743 A (Uh). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, the instant application and the copending ‘899 application both disclose:
A battery comprising:
an electrode body including respective electrodes of positive and negative electrodes;
a battery case including an opening, and for accommodating the electrode body;
a sealing plate including a terminal mounting hole, and for sealing the opening;
an electrode terminal electrically joined at one end thereof with any electrode of the positive and negative electrodes inside the battery case, and inserted at another end thereof through the terminal mounting hole to be exposed to outside the sealing plate; and
an insulating member for establishing an insulation between at least a part of the sealing plate and the electrode terminal.
However, the copending ‘899 application differs in the following portion of the independent claim:
wherein one or a plurality of concave parts are existed at at least any one of the electrode terminal and the insulating member,
when the concave part is existed at the electrode terminal, the concave part is filled with the insulating member opposed to the concave part, and
when the concave part is existed at the insulating member, the electrode terminal opposed to the concave part is buried in the concave part.
The instant application is directed to these concave parts being on the sealing plate, and not the electrode terminal. In the same field of endeavor of batteries and providing stability between the electrode terminal and the sealing plate, in KR 20060112743 A Uh is directed towards the sealing plate with concave parts on the sealing plate or the insulating gasket. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the battery of copending ‘899 application with the concave part positions from Uh to achieve the instant application. The concave parts in both copending and Uh share the same purpose of stabilizing the electrode terminal with the sealing plate.
Regarding claim 2, claims 1 and 2 of the copending ‘899 application in view of Uh, and the instant application are both directed to the depth of the concave part being 1/5th of the electrode terminal/sealing plate and insulating gasket.
Regarding claim 3, claims 1 and 3 of the copending ‘899 application in view of Uh, and the instant application are both directed to the plurality of concave parts on the electrode terminal/sealing plate and are positioned symmetrically around the terminal. The copending ‘899 application claim 3 states that the concave parts are 90° apart in the rotation direction, suggesting that there are four concave parts symmetrically spaced around the terminal.
Regarding claim 4, while there is no explicitly stated shape as seen from an opening of the concave parts in the claims of the copending ‘899 application, the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 5, while not identical, is not patentably distinct from claim 4 of the copending ‘899 application in view of Uh.
Regarding claim 6, while there is no explicitly stated thickness of the sealing plate in the claims of the copending ‘899 application, the courts have held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 7, claim 5 of the copending ‘899 application in view of Uh is identical.
Regarding claim 8, claim 6 of the copending ‘899 application in view of Uh is identical.
Therefore, the scope of the instant application is encompassed by the copending ‘899 application in view of Uh.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights