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
Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 1-7, and 18-19 being considered in the present Office action.
Claims 8-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07 July 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species I, sup-species A, sub-sub-species A1, in the reply filed on 07 July 2026, is acknowledged. It appears Applicant traverses to the species restriction on the grounds that all of the embodiments are based on a “single inventive concept” and are not patentably distinct, which is not found persuasive. Applicant submits the species are “implemented according to the same thermal cutoff principle and are merely differences in the manner of coupling the same thermal fuse to the electrode terminal”, but stops short of admitting the species are obvious variants. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it is exactly the different manner of coupling the fuse to the terminal, which results in structurally different combinations of the fuse/terminal, that patentably distinguishes one species structure from another. The fuse is coordinated in/with the terminal in structurally different ways (the structural differences were highlighted in the restriction), such that the species are independent or distinct, and the species do not appear to be obvious variants of each other based on the current record. Moreover, since each species possess a different structure, each species necessitates a different field of search to cover the unique structural features of that species (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, unique search quires or search strategies to encompassed the different manner of coupling the fuse to the terminal), hence there is a serious search and/or examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
It is noted that the electrode terminal in the prior art (e.g., Jang) is interpreted two different ways. In one interpretation (1), the electrode terminal is interpreted as element 21 in Jang to satisfy the features of claim 7; in another interpretation (2), the electrode terminal is interpreted as element 211c in Jang to satisfy the features of claim 5.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “A battery cell comprising: A battery cell comprising:”; examiner assumes “A battery cell comprising”. Claims 2-7 and 18-19 depend from claim 1, thus are also objected to. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (US 2016/0260956), hereinafter Jang.
Regarding Claim 1, interpretation (1): Jang suggests a battery cell comprising: an electrode assembly (10) including an electrode foil (e.g., 11, 12) and an electrode terminal (e.g., 21, 22) electrically connected (via 51, 52) to the electrode foil (11, 12, [0042]); and a thermal fuse (e.g., 21d) coupled to the electrode terminal (e.g., 21) and deformable (e.g., melted, [0044]) at a set temperature or higher, wherein the thermal fuse (21d) is configured to block a current flow ([0007]) between the electrode terminal (21) and outside of the battery cell at a set temperature or higher (i.e., once 21d is cut or melted, current is blocked between 21a and outside of the battery cell (212c)).
Regarding Clam 2, Jang suggests the thermal fuse includes a first portion (21d) including at least one of a material that melts ([0043]) at a set temperature or higher.
Regarding Claim 3, Jang suggests the thermal fuse (21d) further includes a second portion and a third portion disposed on both sides of the first portion with respect to a current flow direction (i.e., 211c, 212c are on both sides of the first portion 21d, see Fig. 3), and wherein the second portion and the third portion are electrically conductive ([0043]).
Regarding Claim 4, Jang suggests the thermal fuse further includes a non-conductive side surface disposed around the first portion (insulating members 313, 314 is disposed around 21d, Figs. 3, 5, [0047-0048]).
Regarding Claim 18, Jang suggests the electrode terminal (21, 22) and the electrode foil (11, 12) are connected to each other by a current collector (i.e., 51, 52);
Regarding Claim 19, Jang suggests the electrode terminal includes an anode terminal and a cathode terminal (21, 22), and wherein the thermal fuse (e.g., 21d) is disposed on at least one of the anode terminal (i.e., 21, 211c are associated with the anode [0035]).
Regarding Claims 1, and 5-6, interpretation (2), Jang suggests 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 (see Figs.). The electrode assembly (10) including an electrode foil (e.g., 11, 12) and the electrode terminal (e.g., 211c) electrically connected to the electrode foil (11, 12, [0042], e.g., via 51, 21); and a thermal fuse (e.g., 21d) coupled to the electrode terminal (e.g., 211c) and deformable (e.g., melted, [0044]) at a set temperature or higher, wherein the thermal fuse (21d) is configured to block a current flow ([0007]) between the electrode terminal (211c) and outside of the battery cell at a set temperature or higher (i.e., once 21d is cut or melted, current is blocked between 211c and outside of the battery cell (212c)). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang (cited above) and Tang et al. (US 2022/0123418), hereinafter Tang.
Regarding Claim 5, interpretation (1), Jang does not suggest the thermal fuse (21d) is integrally coupled to the electrode terminal (21). However, a one piece construction is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, MPEP 2144.04, V., B. From a practical standpoint, an integral one piece construction would be advantageous because it insures the parts are rigidly secured. Further, 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, or fuse 522 is connected to 512 of terminal 511 via 523 through welding [0097-0099]). It is apparent from Tang that integrally coupling the fuse and electrode terminal is known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have integrally coupled the fuse and electrode terminal of Jang (as claimed) by known methods (e.g., welding) 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. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the thermal fuse of Jang was integrally couple to the electrode terminal, as taught by Tang, 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.
Regarding Claim 6, interpretation (1), Jang suggests a case (15) accommodating the electrode assembly (10); and a cap plate (20) covering the case, wherein the electrode terminal is disposed on the cap plate (see Figs.).
Regarding Claim 7, interpretation (1), 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). Jang does not suggest the thermal fuse is integrally coupled to at least one of the first terminal body and the second terminal body or the electrode terminal (21). However, Tang describes a fuse (522) incorporated into the terminal (511) of a battery such that the fuse (522) is integrally coupled (e.g., via weld) to the electrode terminal (511). 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 the terminal 511 by welding, or fuse 522 is connected to 512 of the terminal 511 via 523 through welding [0097-0099]). It is apparent from Tang that integrally coupling (via weld) the fuse and electrode terminal is known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have integrally coupled the fuse (21d) with the first terminal body (21a) and the second terminal body (21b) of the electrode terminal (21) of Jang by known methods (e.g., welding) 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. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the thermal fuse of Jang was integrally couple to the electrode terminal, as taught by Tang, as doing so is taught by prior art and within the design choice of the practitioner in the art and allows the fuse to cut off current.
Regarding Claim 7, interpretation (2), Jang suggests the thermal fuse (21d) is integrally coupled to the electrode terminal (211c). Further, Jang suggests the electrode terminal includes a first terminal body (211c) having at least a portion disposed externally of the case, see e.g., Figs. 2-3. While Jang suggests a second terminal body (e.g., 21b) disposed in the case (Fig. 2) and electrically connects the electrode foil (11, 12) to the first terminal body (211c), Jang does not suggest the fuse (21d) is integrally coupled with 211c, 21a, and 21b. However, Tang suggests the fuse (522) is integrally connected to the terminal portions, (511, 512). That is, 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 the terminal 511 by welding, or fuse 522 is connected to 512 of the terminal 511 via 523 through welding [0097-0099]). Tang shows integrally coupling (via weld) the fuse and electrode terminal sections is known in the prior art by known methods (e.g., welding) with no change in 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. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to integrally couple the thermal fuse to the electrode terminal sections, as suggested by Tang, 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.
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 1-7, 18-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18360811 in view of Jang, and Tang (cited above) and White (US 20070099073).
The instant claims appear to be substantially identical to those in the copending application except the instant claims recite a thermal fuse while the copending application makes reference to a PTC fuse. However, as evidenced by Jang and White, both fuse types are known to interrupt current, i.e., thermal fuse melts (Jang [0044], Tang [0099]), or blows (White [0038]) to interrupt current flow, and PTC device increases resistance with temperature to limit current (White [0040]). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other with the expectation of limiting the current of the cell, thereby preventing a thermal overload condition as suggested by Jang, Tang, and White.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 pm.
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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights