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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 15, 2026.
It is noted that appropriate claim status identifiers such as (withdrawn) should be utilized in future filed claim sets.
Claim Comments
It is noted that if the all of the cumulative claim limitations indicated as allowable are added to the independent claims, if claim 20 is amendment to include the allowable features, the examiner will consider it for rejoinder. However, please note that claim 20 currently recites a controller, but it does not appear to recite what the controller is configured to do, i.e. what operation of the cell does it control? The controller could just be when the device is turned on and the cell is activated. It is recommended that claim 20 also be amended to better recite what the controller is configured to do when a cell rapidly decreases in comparison to a set reference so that it is not considered indefinite.
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 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 and claims 1-20 of copending Application Nos. 18362967 and 18360819. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications teach a battery comprising a fuse connected to a terminal and configured to block current which is connected to the electrode.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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) 1-4, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng (US 20130176655).
Regarding claims 1-4, 14 and 19, Tseng teaches a battery having a resistive device (PTC fuse) includes a first electrode foil, a second electrode foil and a positive temperature coefficient (PTC) material layer laminated between the electrode foils (claim 3). One of the first and second electrode foils is configured to electrically connect to a protective circuit module (PCM), and the other one is configured to electrically connect to an electrode terminal of a battery to be protected (abstract). The conductive connecting member is insulated from the second electrode foil ([0012], claim 4).
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) 1, 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Seymour (US 20170317333) in view of Rho (US 20230083775).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 19, Seymour teaches a battery comprising an electrode assembly having tabs #108/109 having a PTC fuse #123/124 coupled to the electrode lead. How the PTC works is its intended use and a PTC fuse would logically include a PTC material, i.e. polymer (see fig. 1, claim 1, [0020-30]).
Seymour does not specifically teach the use of “foils”.
However, Rho teaches a battery that comprises “foils”, i.e. the cathode lead 120a and the anode lead 120b may be formed of a thin plate-shaped metal, i.e. reads on applicant’s definition of a foil [0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized a connection means such as foils in the device of Seymour as taught by Rho in order to provide electrical connection between the PTC fuse and electrode.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Seymour (US 20170317333) and Rho (US 20230083775), as applied to claim 2 above, in further view of either Sakaguchi (US 20180166817) or Ahearne (US 20210384683).
Regarding claim 3, Seymour and Rho are silent as to the composition of the PTC fuse.
However, Sakaguchi teaches PTC fuses are known to comprise a conductive inner polymer layer surrounded by metal outside layers [0046].
Additionally, Ahearne also teaches a PTC fuse and that they comprise a conductive inner polymer layer surrounded by metal outside layers [0019].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have used a PTC fuse comprising a conductive inner polymer layer surrounded by metal external layers in the device of Seymour as taught by either Sakaguchi or Ahearne as these are known construction of PTC fuses.
Claims 1-3, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rho (US 20230083775) in view of Sakaguchi (US 20180166817).
Regarding claims 1-3, 14 and 19, Rho teaches a battery that comprises “foils”, i.e. the cathode lead 120a and the anode lead 120b may be formed of a thin plate-shaped metal, i.e. reads on applicant’s definition of a foil [0048]. Rho does not teach the use of a PTC fuse.
However, Sakaguchi also teaches a battery and that a PTC #10 (conductive polymer) element surrounded by a top and bottom plate both formed of a nickel or aluminum plate (conductive) (reads on claim 3’s second and third portions) wherein the PTC element is configured to be attached to the flat plate-shaped electrode terminal #111 in the cylindrical battery #110 [0046-47] (reads on claim 2 wherein the PTC fuse is electrically connected) and one end mounted to a circuit board via lead wire #50 (see fig. 1, [0005-9] in order to protect the external device and battery from overheating.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have incorporated a PTC/polyfuse device into Rho as taught by Sakaguchi as the PTC fuse will protect the battery and connected device.
Regarding claim 15, Rho teaches a two part case #110a/b (see abstract, [0038]) wherein the electrode terminals #120 may protrude from an inside of the case to the outside (See fig. 1).
Claims 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rho (US 20230083775), Sakaguchi (US 20180166817), in further view of Jang (US20160260956) and Tang (US20220123418).
Regarding claims 5-13, Rho in view of Sakaguchi do not specifically teach the limitations in claims 5-13. First, note that a one piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, MPEP 2144.04, V., B. Additionally, with regards to claim 8, it should also be known that limitations relating to size and dimensions are held not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); MPEP 2144.04 IV.
Jang also teaches a battery cell comprising a case (15) accommodating an electrode assembly (10) and a cap plate (20) covering the case, wherein an electrode terminal (e.g., 211c) is disposed on the cap plate (claims 6-10). Jang suggest the thermal fuse (21d) is integrally coupled to the electrode terminal (211c), i.e., 211c and 21d are shown as a single piece construction (claim 5). Jang suggests the electrode terminal (21) includes a first terminal body having at least a portion disposed externally of the case (15), see e.g., 21a in Fig. 1, and a second terminal body (21b) having at least a portion disposed in the case (15), see e.g., Fig. 2, and electrically connecting the electrode foil (e.g., 11) to the first terminal body (21a, via 51)(claims 7 and 13).
Jang does not suggest the thermal fuse (21d) is integrally coupled to the electrode terminal (21) or the use of welding or screw threads.
However, Tang describes a fuse (522) incorporated into the terminal (511) of a battery such that the fuse is integrally coupled (via weld) to the electrode terminal. Specifically, terminal sections 511 and 512 are integral, and fuse sections 521, 522, and 523 are integral [0100]; further, fuse 522 is either directed connected to 512 of terminal 511 by welding (claim 11 - product-by-process claim), or fuse 522 is connected to 512 of terminal 511 via 523 through welding [0097-0099]).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized the terminal connection means taught by Jang and the integral connection/weld taught by Tang in the device of Rho as doing so is taught by prior art and within the design choice of the practitioner in the art and allows the fuse to function to cut off current. by known methods (e.g., welding or screw thread) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395; Sakraida V. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282, 189 USPQ 449, 453 (1976); Anderson's-Black Rock, Inc. V. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57, 62-63, 163 USPQ 673, 675 (1969); Great Atl. & P. Tea Co. V. Supermarket Equip. Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 152, 87 USPQ 303, 306 (1950). As stated in KSR International V. Teleflex Inc. (550 USPQ2d 1385), combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rho (US 20230083775) in view of Sakaguchi (US 20180166817), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Jang (US20160260956).
Regarding claim 18, Rho does not specifically teach wherein the electrode terminal and the electrode foil are connected to each other by a current collector.
However, Jang also teaches a battery cell that comprises a thermal fuse (]0044]), electrode foils, etc. wherein the foils (#11/12) are connected to each other by a current collector (#51/52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized a well-known current collect to connect the foils in Rho as taught by Jang in order to connect the cells.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Tseng (US 20130176655), as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Jang (US20160260956).
Regarding claim 18, Tseng does not specifically teach wherein the electrode terminal and the electrode foil are connected to each other by a current collector.
However, Jang also teaches a battery cell that comprises a thermal fuse (]0044]), electrode foils, etc. wherein the foils (#11/12) are connected to each other by a current collector (#51/52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective file date of the present invention to have utilized a well-known current collect to connect the foils in Tseng as taught by Jang in order to connect the cells.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 16 and 17 recite structural limitations as to how the fuse is connected within the device (i.e. portion inside and portion outside and connection). These cumulative claim limitations are not taught or rendered obvious by the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20240380086 teaches a PTC fuse between electrodes in a button battery.
CN100373659 teaches the use of a PTC fuse in a battery cell.
Mohiuddin (PTC Fuses provide compact, resettable protection for electronic devices, Publication No. 11054 BU-MC20031, March 2020).
US 20160314108 teaches that in the case of low voltage applications, such as battery power, USB, or transformer voltage reduction, in the unlikely occurrence of a short (caused by a break in the insulation of the other wire), there is no shock or fire hazard. Furthermore, a device (such as PTC or fuse) or thin foil trace that is, or acts like, a fuse can be in inserted in the circuit as further protection [0009].
US20100008167 – teaches a method to make a PTC element and attach to a battery.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER M DIETERLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7872. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights