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 .
VENTING OF PRISMATIC BATTERY CELLS
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/358,431 Art Unit: 1727 January 31, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on July 25, 2023 has been received. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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) 1-2, 6-8, 11-12 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aaron et al. (US 2023/0318092 A1).
As to Claims 1-2 and 11-12, Aaron discloses a battery 400, comprising: a plurality of stacked anodes, separators, and cathodes that are housed in a metal can housing, and comprising metal lids provided on each end to close an opening on each end, wherein the lids are brazed (reads on the claimed brazed filler material) and/or crimped to the housing (Abstract, Fig. 4, paragraphs [0013 and 0019]).
As to Claims 6-7 and 14-15, Aaron discloses wherein the housing and lids are made of the same material, such as stainless steel or aluminum (paragraph [0012]).
As to Claims 8 and 16, Aaron discloses wherein the housing and lids are made of different materials (paragraph [0012]).
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) 3-4, 9 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron et al. (US 2023/0318092 A1).
As to Claims 3-4, Aaron does not specifically disclose the brazing materials. However, there are a known finite number of predictable options for selecting a first and second brazing material for connecting the lids to the battery casing (either the same material or different materials with different melting temperatures). The courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose either the same brazing materials or different brazing materials because Aaron teaches that a hermetically sealed battery cell can be provided (paragraph [0012]).
As to Claims 9 and 17, Aaron discloses wherein the housing and lids are made of the different materials, such as stainless steel or aluminum (paragraph [0012]). Aaron does not specifically teach that the first metal is different from the second metal in the claimed manner. However, Aaron teaches of a known finite number of predictable solutions for choosing different metals for the battery housing and lids (paragraph [0012]). The courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose either the same brazing materials or different brazing materials because Aaron teaches that a hermetically sealed battery cell can be provided (paragraph [0012]).
As to Claims 18-19, Aaron discloses wherein the housing and lids can be connected via brazing and crimping (paragraph [0012]). Aaron does not specifically the claimed configurations of brazing and crimping. However, Aaron teaches of a known finite number of predictable solutions for connecting the battery housing and lids (paragraph [0012]). The courts have held that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense, see MPEP 2143, I, E. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose either the same brazing materials or different brazing materials because Aaron teaches that a hermetically sealed battery cell can be provided (paragraph [0012]).
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron et al. (US 2023/0318092 A1) as applied to claims 3-4, 9 and 17-19 in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2007/0059586 A1).
As to Claims 5 and 13, Aaron does not specifically disclose a pressure vent cap provided in either of the lids.
However, Matsumoto teaches of a sealed prismatic battery 1, comprising a pressure-based vent 16 provided in the lid 3 of the battery (Abstract, Fig. 2-3 and paragraph [0021]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of Aaron to comprise the claimed pressure-based vent because Matsumoto teaches that the gas in a battery can be released quickly in order to prevent burst of the batteries (paragraph [0024]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaron et al. (US 2023/0318092 A1) as applied to claims 3-4, 9 and 17-19 in view of Lee (EP 2913862 A1).
As to Claim 10, Aaron does not specifically disclose the claimed brazing materials.
However, Lee teaches of a process of joining at least two same or different metal components in a battery cell, comprising a brazing process using a brazing material comprising an alloy of aluminum and zinc (paragraph [0008]). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the brazing material of Aaron to comprise an alloy of aluminum and zinc because Lee teaches that such a brazing flux material is noncorrosive and suitable for brazing of parts of aluminum and/or steel (paragraph [0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727