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 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 5 and 7-8 are 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 5, partially recites- “when viewed from a drawn direction.” It is unclear to the Examiner, what exactly the claim is requiring. Does this mean the view is from the bottom of the tab, or the top of the tab, or a side view. This also appears to be a conditional cause, which is considered to be indefinite.
Claims 7-8, partially recite- “when viewed from a drawn direction of the tab, a size of the lid member is smaller/larger than a size of the battery element.” Does this mean the view is from the bottom of the tab, or the top of the tab, or a side view. This also appears to be a conditional cause, which is considered to be indefinite. Since the Examiner does not understand this limitation, as what is meant by larger and smaller. How does the size of the lid change based on the view of the tab. Is the thickness, the length, width, direction that would affect how the side of the lid is larger/smaller. Due to the lack of understanding of the requirement of this limitation, Examiner has rejected it with her best interpretation of the required features of the claim; the claim is rejected accordingly and is illustrated below. The rejection does not address the larger/smaller size of the lid, as the specification does not provide any understanding on how the size changes based on the view of the tab.
Applicant is required to respond and provide further clarification for these limitations.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20170104193A1 (Kang).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a lithium secondary battery [abs]. Kang teaches a battery cell comprising: a battery element [#200; 0033]; a tab electrically connected to the battery element [#110-0037]; a lid member [#310; 0049, 0062] covering an end portion of the battery element with the tab drawn from the lid member; and an exterior film [#400; 0056] at least partially wrapped around the battery element, wherein at least a part of the lid member covers at least a part of an end portion of the exterior film [annotated below].
PNG
media_image1.png
402
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kang teaches wherein at least a part of the lid member covers at least a part of an outer circumferential surface of the exterior film [0062 and illustrated above in claim 1].
Regarding claim 3, Kang teaches further comprising another lid member covering another end portion of the battery element on a side opposite to the end portion [fig 3a, 0060; depicted in claim 1].
Regarding claim 4, Kang teaches a battery cell comprising: a battery element; a tab electrically connected to the battery element; a lid member covering one end of the battery element with the tab drawn from the lid member; an exterior film at least partially wrapped around the battery element [these are limitations recited in claim 1; please refer to the rejection of claim 1]; and a barrier member [fig. 1 #300a- 0048; i.e. outer layer] provided at the lid member [depicted below; fig. 3a].
PNG
media_image1.png
402
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Kang teaches when viewed from a drawn direction of the tab, the barrier member is provided in an area of equal to or more than 85 % of an entire area of the lid member [0048- the electrode tap receptor 300 may be formed in a structure in which an outer layer 300 a and a gas barrier layer 300 b are laminated, and the gas barrier layer 300 b may be formed on a portion which contacts with the electrode assembly 200, which is preferable in terms of securing the resistance to permeability]. It is noted, the when viewed part of the limitation recited in claim 5, is a conditional clause, therefore, Examiner notes that this is
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20140302381A1 (Song)
Regarding claim 6, Song teaches a battery cell comprising: a battery element [#10; 0050]; a tab [#320; 0054] electrically connected to the battery element; a lid member [#30; cap assembly; 0054] covering one end portion of the battery element via a collection portion [11a; 0053] of a current collector [#324; 0058] drawn from the battery element
with the tab drawn from the lid member; and an exterior film [#20; case; 0075] at least partially wrapped around the battery element [fig.2.
Song does not teach the following limitation: “wherein a wrinkle of the exterior film is present around the collection portion of the current collector of the exterior film.” 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 Song teaches all the key structural elements of the claim, i.e. tab, battery element, current collector, collection portion. Song further teaches, the case, i.e. exterior film is welded to the cap plate (i.e.lid) 0075; 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 [0081]. Therefore, it is the Examiners understanding, Song teaches the recited structure.
Regarding claim 7, Song teaches the tab, lid and battery element as claimed. In regards to wherein, when viewed from a drawn direction of the tab, a size of the lid member is larger than a size of the battery element; please refer to the 112 rejection above. Depending on the angle from where the tab is drawn, the size of the lid would be larger than the battery element.
Regarding claim 8, Song teaches the tab, lid and battery element as claimed. In regards to wherein, wherein, when viewed from a drawn direction of the tab, a size of the lid member is smaller than a size of the battery element; please refer to the 112 rejection above. Depending on the angle from where the tab is drawn, the size of the lid would be smaller than the battery element.
Conclusion
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