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 Amendment
The amendment received 6/18/2026 (“Amendment”) has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 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.
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, 3-4, 9-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20110086262A1 (Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a battery [abs]; battery cell comprising: a battery element [#10; electrode group]; a tab [#21; positive terminal; 0027] electrically connected to the battery element; a lid member [#20 case] covering an end portion of the battery element with the tab drawn from the lid member [0027-0028]; and an exterior film [#40. i.e central case 0034] including a conductor [The central case 40 can be formed with a laminate sheet in which a metal layer and a resin layer are bonded by an adhesive layer; it is noted, the instant spec teaches the conductor is a metal sheet- thus Kim teaches the central case has a metal layer]; and at least partially wrapped around the battery element [fig. 2], wherein the lid member includes a first portion [#24; linear portion] around which a portion of the exterior film is wrapped [0035], the portion of the exterior film includes a first end portion from which the conductor is exposed and an outer circumferential surface of the exterior film continuous with the first end portion and directed to a direction orthogonal to a longitudinal direction of the battery element [fig. 2], and the lid member further includes a second portion covering at least a part of the first end portion and at least a part of the outer circumferential surface of the exterior film [0028-The positive electrode case 20 can include a first receiving portion 22 that encloses the curve portion 141 and a part of a central portion 16 toward the curve portion 141, a second receiving portion 23 that is positioned at the outside of the first receiving portion 22 and that encloses the positive electrode current collecting portion 142, and the positive electrode terminal 21 that is positioned at the outside of the second receiving portion 23. The first receiving portion 22, the second receiving portion 23, and the positive electrode terminal 21 may be integrally connected]. Please refer to fig 2 of the Kim which teaches the claimed structure.
Regarding claim 3, Kim teaches further comprising another lid member covering another end portion of the battery element on a side opposite to the end portion [#30 i.e. negative electrode case; 0027].
Regarding claim 4, Kim teaches a battery cell comprising: and a barrier member [fig. 5 #411 sealing portion 0048] provided at the lid member [#20- 0048].
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches wherein the first portion of the lid member is in direct contact with the portion of the exterior film [fig 2].
Regarding claim 10, Kim teaches wherein the battery cell includes a housing space [#40; stores the electrode group; 0034] that houses the battery element, one end of the housing is in direct contact with the lid member, the portion of the exterior film extends out from the end of the housing space in the longitudinal direction toward the lid member, and the portion of the exterior film is embedded in the lid member [fig. 2, 3 and 4; 0032-0037].
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches wherein the second portion covers an entire surface of the at least part of the first end portion and an entire surface of the at least the part of the outer circumferential surface of the exterior film [0028-0030].
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches wherein the first portion and the second portion of the lid member form a groove, and the first end portion of the exterior film is inserted in the groove [fig 3 0028-0032].
Regarding claim 14, Kim teaches wherein the portion of the exterior film is embedded in the lid member [fig. 3; 0035-0036].
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) 5-8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20110086262A1 (Kim)
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches when viewed from the longitudinal direction of the battery element the barrier member is provided; however is silent with regards to the claimed “in an area of equal to or more than 85 % of an entire area of the lid member.” However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim and set the area of the barrier member as claimed, as this is an obvious variation in the sizes of the area with no change in the function of the electrochemical system and it would yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches a battery cell comprising: a battery element [#10;]; a tab [#21] electrically connected to the battery element [0022-0027];
Kim does not teach the following limitation: “wherein a wrinkle of the exterior film is present around the collection portion of the current collector.” In the instant specification, the wrinkle is present due to a distortion in a shape of the exterior film, and in a portion in presence of a wrinkle, an ion resistance may vary because unevenness may occur in an interval between a positive electrode and a negative electrode. As another example, unevenness of an interval between a positive electrode and a negative electrode may further accelerate deterioration in a portion having a relatively small resistance between the positive electrode and the negative electrode than in another portion; (per the instant spec para 0137). Thus, it is the Examiner’s position, this feature is a product by process limitation and will be rejected accordingly. The cited prior art 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). Thus, it is the Examiner’s position, as Kim teaches all the key structural elements of the claim, i.e. tab, battery element, current collector, collection portion. Kim further teaches, the case, i.e. exterior film is welded to the case 0032; therefore as noted above, the case may deteriorate due to some unevenness. In this case, due to the welding, a wrinkle that would be caused on the exterior film [0033]. Therefore, it is the Examiners understanding, Kim teaches the recited structure.
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches the tab, lid and battery element as claimed. Kim does not explicitly teach wherein, when viewed from the longitudinal direction of the battery element a size of the lid would be larger than the battery element; however, this is considered to be a change of shape or size. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size accordingly as it would have reasonable expectation of success with no affect on how the battery functions.
Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches the tab, lid and battery element as claimed. Kim does not explicitly teach wherein, when viewed from the longitudinal direction of the battery element a size of the lid would be smaller than the battery element; however, this is considered to be a change of shape or size. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the size accordingly as it would have reasonable expectation of success with no effect on how the battery functions.
Regarding claim 12, Kim teaches the battery cell of claim 1; with regards to “wherein no wrinkle is present in a central portion of the exterior film” Please refer to claim 6 with the interpretation for the wrinkle. Since there is no welding/heating in the central portion of the exterior film, no wrinkle will be formed; therefore, no distortion in shape will occur; therefore, Kim teaches the claimed structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights