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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/15/2026 has been entered.
The sole independent Claim 1 is amended; support for amendment can be found in paragraph [0077, 0085, 0088, 0089] of the specification; thus, claims 1-13 are pending and are rejected under prior art on their merits below.
The objections of Drawings, Figs. 1-11, made in the previous Office action are overcome by the submitted Replacement Sheets that include amendment to Figs. 1-11 and are now withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pages 6-8, filed 07/15/2026, with respect to independent claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of the prior Office Action relying on only Liu in view of Maeda and Suzuki. However, the arguments are directed to limitations introduced by the amended claims that were not present in the claims at the time of the prior Office Action. Accordingly, a new ground of rejection relying on Liu in view of Maeda, Suzuki, Shimizu, and Hara (see citations below) is made in light of the claim amendments filed on 07/15/2026.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 212485418 U, citations from machine translation enclosed in the prior Office action) in view of Maeda (WO 2017018079 A1, citations from machine translation enclosed in the prior Office action), Suzuki et al. (US 20050271938 A1, as cited in the prior Office action), Shimizu et al. (US 20220102789 A1), and Hara et al. (US 4804593 A).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches a secondary battery (page 4, line 45: a rechargeable lithium ion battery) comprising:
an outer package member (Fig. 1; page 4, lines 21-22 and 26-27; housing 1 welded to body 31) having a through hole (Fig. 1; page 4, line 32; first through hole 311 inside the outer package member, housing 1-welded to-body 31)
a battery device contained inside the outer package member (Fig. 1; page 4, line 22; battery core 2);
an electrode terminal disposed on an outer side of the outer package member and covering the through hole (Fig. 1; lines 40-44; cover 33 that can be used as a terminal, exposed to the outside of the electronic device; as illustrated in Fig. 1, second convex portion 331 of terminal 33 is covering the through hole 311);
and an insulating member disposed between the electrode terminal and the outer package member and not covering the through hole (Fig. 1; page 5, lines 16-17; second insulating layer 5; disposed between terminal 33 and body 31 portion of outer package member and not covering through hole 311 completely),
wherein the outer package member includes a container part (Fig. 1; page 4, line 24; receiving cavity 13 within housing 1) having an opening (page 4, line 25; opening in surrounding wall 12 as a part of housing 1) and containing the battery device inside (a battery core 2 is inside the receiving cavity 13 as illustrated in Fig. 1),
and a cover part (Fig. 1, page 4, line 26, sealing plate assembly 3 including a body 31) having the through hole (Fig. 1, through hole 311 in sealing plate assembly 3) and closing the opening (page 4, lines 26-27),
the container part and the cover part are joined to each other (page 4, lines 26-27, the sealing plate assembly 3 includes a body 31 that is welded to the housing 1 and as illustrated in Fig. 1),
the insulating member has a temperature of deflection under load of greater than or equal to 60 degrees centigrade and less than or equal to 150 degrees centigrade
Regarding this limitation, Liu discloses insulating layers 4 and 5, wherein insulating layer 4 is formed of polypropylene (PP) having a melting point of approximately 165 °C (page 5, lines 20-21, lines 30-32), and insulating layer 5 is formed of polyimide film (page 5, lines 53-54, lines 58-59). Although insulating layer 5 was previously mapped to the claimed insulating member, it would have been obvious to substitute the polypropylene material of layer 4 for layer 5, since polypropylene is a known insulating material with predictable thermal and mechanical properties, and such substitution represents the use of a known material for its known properties, yielding predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.07). Liu discloses polypropylene having a melting point of approximately 165°C and softening around 155°C, which is slightly above the claimed upper limit of 150 °C. Accordingly, Liu does not explicitly teach the claim limitation wherein the insulating member has a temperature of deflection under load of greater than or equal to 60 degrees centigrade and less than or equal to 150 degrees centigrade.
However, Maeda explicitly teaches this limitation. Specifically, Maeda discloses an insulating gasket formed of polypropylene having a heat distortion temperature preferably in the range of 90°C to 150°C (page 6, second-to-last paragraph). Maeda further teaches that when the heat distortion temperature falls within this range, deformation and cracking of the insulating gasket can be effectively controlled. In particular, excessively high thermal deformation temperatures increase bending elastic modulus and lead to cracking, while excessively low temperatures reduce high-temperature resistance and hermeticity (page 6, second-to-last paragraph). Further Liu, and Maeda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu in view of Maeda by selecting polypropylene having a temperature of deflection under load of greater than or equal to 90 degrees centigrade and less than or equal to 150 degrees centigrade as taught by Maeda, in order to control deformation and cracking while maintaining adequate thermal resistance (page 6, second-to-last paragraph). Such temperature range obviates the claimed temperature range per MPEP 2144.05 I.
the cover part has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the container part (page 5, lines 53-55 – see below explanation).
Regarding this limitation, Liu discloses reducing the thickness of the sealing plate 3 (cover) to improve space utilization and increase specific capacity (page 5, lines 53–55). Liu thus teaches that the thickness of the cover affects battery capacity, thereby identifying the thickness of the cover as a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thickness of the cover and container parts, including selecting relative thicknesses such that the cover part has a thickness smaller than that of the container part, in order to improve battery capacity and space utilization (page 5, lines 53–55). Optimizing a result-effective variable to achieve a desired performance (increased capacity) involves only routine optimization and would have led to a workable or optimal range, including the claimed relationship between the cover and container thicknesses. See MPEP 2144.05(II), see also In re Aller, 220 F.2d (CCPA 1955). In addition, adjusting relative dimensions such as thickness constitutes a change in size or proportion, which is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A); see also In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459; In re Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338. Accordingly, the claimed limitation would have been obvious as a matter of routine optimization.
Although Liu does not explicitly illustrate in its figures that cover part has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the container part, Suzuki appears to show in Fig. 3 an acceptable embodiment of a cover part 7 that has a thickness smaller than a thickness of a container part 11, and teaches in [0046] that a thickness including that of the container part must be sufficiently large in order to dissipate heat.
Therefore, Suzuki – similarly to Liu – also teaches that container thickness is a result-effective variable, which affects the resultant heat dissipating ability thereof. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to optimize the container thickness of modified Liu to be sufficiently large in order to optimally dissipate heat (see MPEP 2144.05 II), arriving at a structure similar to that taught by Suzuki Fig. 3 such that the cover part had a thickness smaller than a thickness of the container part. Liu and Suzuki are in the same field of battery cell housings.
Regarding the following limitations, Liu, as modified by Maeda, and Suzuki, does not teach:
the electrode terminal is thermally welded to the cover part via the insulating member,
the insulating member has a ring shape and has an opening at a position corresponding to the through hole
a fixation strength between the electrode terminal and the cover part via the insulating member is lower than a joining strength between the container part and the cover part.
However, Shimizu teaches a battery sealing structure similar to that of Liu, including a battery can 100, and a sealing member 300 including a terminal portion 310, an insulating gasket 320, and a lid portion 330 (Figs. 4, 5; [0087-0088]). Shimizu teaches that the lid portion 330 includes a through hole, the terminal portion 310 closes the through hole, and the terminal portion 310 is electrically insulated from the lid portion 330 by the gasket 320 disposed therebetween ([0092, 0094]). Shimizu further teaches that the gasket 320 includes an outer ring portion 321 covering an upper surface of a circumferential edge portion 311 of the terminal portion 310, an inner ring portion 322 covering a lower surface thereof, and a relay ring portion 323 connecting the outer and inner ring portions ([0092]). Thus, Shimizu teaches an annular insulating gasket disposed between the terminal portion and lid portion to improve the insulation ([0092]).
Further, modified Liu, and Shimizu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insulating-member of modified Liu in view of Shimizu such that the insulating member has a ring shape and has an opening at a position corresponding to the through hole to improve the insulation ([0092]).
In addition, Hara teaches a similar sealed-cell structure including an outer metal canister 1, a metal lid 2 closing the canister, an insulating resin packing 3, and a negative terminal 5 extending through a center bore of the packing (Hara Fig. 3). Hara teaches that the metal lid 2 is fused over its entire circumference to the outer canister 1 by laser welding or the like, and that the insulating packing 3 is provided between the metal lid 2 and negative terminal 5 (Hara col. 4, lines 1-10). Hara further expressly teaches rigid junctions achieved by thermal fusion between the metal lid 2 and insulating packing 3 and between the insulating packing 3 and negative terminal 5 to provide excellent sealing (Hara, col. 4, lines 23-28). Accordingly, Hara teaches thermally fixing an electrode terminal to a metal cover through an intervening insulating member, corresponding to the claimed electrode terminal thermally welded to the cover part via the insulating member.
Hara further teaches forming the insulating packing by positioning the metal lid 2 and negative terminal 5 in dies and injecting molten resin therebetween, whereby the resin adheres tightly to the metal lid and negative terminal and is thermally fused to both metal elements simultaneously with formation of the packing (Hara, col. 4, lines 29-48). Hara explains that such manufacture improves productivity and reduces manufacturing cost (Hara, col. 4, lines 45-48). Thus, Hara provides motivation to employ thermal fusion at the terminal/insulating-member/cover interface as a known technique for obtaining a sealed connection while facilitating manufacture.
Hara additionally teaches that the insulating resin packing may be made of a resin having polar groups, including modified polypropylene and modified polyethylene (col. 4, lines 1-10).
Hara further teaches that the thermally fused insulating packing can provide a safety-valve function (Hara, col. 2, lines 26-38, and 55-64). In particular, when the internal pressure exceeds a predetermined value, the packing deforms or breaks to release gas from inside the cell. Hara teaches that the operating pressure of this safety-valve mechanism can be controlled by varying the dimensions and material of the packing and by varying the adhesion characteristics between the packing and the metal elements (Hara, col. 3, lines 15-25). Hara specifically evaluates changes in adhesion thickness between packing 3 and the metal elements, i.e., metal lid 2 and negative terminal 5, and demonstrates that the operating pressure changes with the adhesion thickness (col 8; lines 18-30).
Further, modified Liu, and Hara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the terminal/insulating-member/cover arrangement of Liu in view of Hara such that an insulating member made of polypropylene or polyethylene, is disposed between the electrode terminal and cover part, and to thermally fuse the electrode terminal to the cover part through the insulating member as taught by Hara to provide a rigid sealed junction and to simplify manufacture and improve productivity (col. 4, lines 45-48) as well as to implement such as a safety valve mechanism with excellent operability to improve safety (col. 2, lines 10-64).
It further would have been obvious to configure the fixation strength between the electrode terminal and the cover part via the insulating member to be lower than the joining strength between the container part and the cover part. Liu teaches welding cover to the housing/container (Liu, as cited above), and Hara similarly teaches laser welding or the like between metal lid 2 and outer canister 1, while separately providing the thermally fused resin-mediated fixation between metal lid 2, insulating packing 3, and negative terminal 5 (Hara col. 4, lines 1-28). Hara expressly teaches that such resin acts as a safety valve mechanism (Hara col. 2, lines 27-38) and teaches toward controlling the pressure at which the latter junction releases by selecting the packing material, dimensions, adhesion thickness, and adhesive strength, including selecting modified polypropylene having relatively lower material and adhesive strength when a lower safety-valve operating pressure is desired (Hara, col. 8, lines 52, Tables 8 and 9 and accompanying discussion).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the material, dimensions, and adhesion characteristics of the insulating member such that its fixation strength is lower than the joining strength of the welded container-to-cover connection, thereby causing pressure-induced release to occur at the intended pressure-relief interface rather than at the structural weld joining the cover to the container. Such a configuration would predictably permit controlled release of excessive internal pressure while maintaining the structural connection between the container and cover.
Thereby, all limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Liu further teaches a limitation wherein the insulating member has a thickness smaller than the thickness of the cover part (page 5, lines 53-55; Fig. 1: comparing thickness of insulating member 5 and cover plate 31). While examiner notes that drawings are not necessarily to scale, insulating member 5 appears to have a thickness smaller than that of cover part 31, which satisfies claim 2 (Fig. 1). Additionally, the reference teaches that the thickness of the insulating film 5 can be made very thin to improve the specific capacity (page 5, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 3, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Liu further teaches a limitation wherein the insulating member has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the electrode terminal (page 5, lines 53-55; Fig. 1: comparing thickness of insulating member 5 and electrode terminal 33). While examiner notes that drawings are not necessarily to scale, insulating member 5 appears to have a thickness smaller than that of electrode terminal 33, which satisfies claim 3 (Fig. 1). Additionally, the reference teaches that the thickness of the insulating film 5 can be made very thin to improve the specific capacity (page 5, lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 4, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hara further teaches a limitation wherein the electrode terminal has a thickness greater than the thickness of the cover part.
Specifically, as illustrated in Fig. 3 of Hara, negative terminal 5 has a thickness greater than a thickness of metal lid 2. While examiner notes that drawings are not necessarily to scale, electrode terminal 5 appears to have a thickness greater than a thickness of a cover part 2, which satisfies claim 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify modified Liu in view of Hara by providing an electrode terminal having a thickness greater than that of the cover part. Adjusting relative dimensions such as thickness constitutes a change in size or proportion, which is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious absent a showing of unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Regarding claim 8, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Liu further discloses a limitation wherein:
the battery device includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Fig. 1, page 7, lines 42-43, battery cell 2 including positive and negative electrodes in the electronic device),
the positive electrode includes a positive electrode current collector (Fig. 1; page. 4, lines 54-58; page 5, lines 1-3; positive electrode ear/lug 21),
the negative electrode includes a negative electrode current collector (Fig. 1; page. 4, lines 54-58; page 5, lines 1-3; negative electrode ear/lug 22),
and one of the positive electrode current collector or the negative electrode current collector is coupled to the outer package member (Fig. 1; page. 4, lines 54-58; page 5, lines 1-3, negative electrode ear/lug 22 is connected to the body 31 which is a part of outer package member, as discussed with respect to claim 1).
Regarding claim 9, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shimizu further teaches a limitation wherein one of the outer package member or the electrode terminal includes aluminum, an aluminum alloy, or both.
Specifically, Shimizu discloses that the battery can 100 may be formed of aluminum, or an aluminum alloy ([0136]), and that lid portion 330 may be formed of the same material as battery can 100 ([0136]). Shimizu further teaches that lid portion 330 is bonded to battery can 100 by welding and may function, together with battery can 100, as a terminal having a polarity opposite terminal portion 310, which is electrically insulated from lid portion 330 by gasket 320 ([0083, 0094-0095]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the outer package member of modified Liu from aluminum or an aluminum alloy as taught by Shimizu to provide a material suitable for both the welded battery enclosure and its electrical-terminal function ([0083, 0095]). The selection of a known material suitable for its intended purpose is obvious per MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Liu further discloses a limitation wherein:
the battery device includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode (Fig. 1, page 7, lines 42-43, battery cell 2 including positive and negative electrodes in the electronic device),
one of the positive electrode or the negative electrode is electrically coupled to the electrode terminal (Fig. 1; page. 4, lines 54-58; page 5, positive electrode ear 21 (positive current collector) is connected to the electrode lead plate 32 (electrode terminal), thus the positive electrode is electrically coupled to the electrode terminal 32 via positive current collector 21)
and another of the positive electrode or the negative electrode is electrically coupled to the outer package member (Fig. 1; page. 4, lines 54-58; page 5, the negative electrode ear 22 (negative current collector) is connected to the body 31 (a part of outer package member), thus the negative electrode is electrically coupled to the outer package member 31 via negative current collector 22) .
Regarding claim 13, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Liu further teaches a limitation wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery (page 4, line 45: a rechargeable lithium ion battery).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as modified by Maeda, Suzuki, Shimizu, and Hara, as applied to claim 1 above and further as evidenced by Knovel Material Properties (Table 4.6. Effect of Orientation on Typical Polypropylene, PP Properties. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpPPPPAR02/id:kt012QOHR4/plastics-packaging-properties/table-4-6-effect-orientation>, attached to prior Office action).
Regarding claim 5, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Modified Liu further teaches a limitation wherein the insulating member has a melting point of greater than or equal to 130 degrees centigrade and less than or equal to 250 degrees centigrade.
Specifically, as discussed with respect to claim 1, Liu in view of Maeda, uses polypropylene (PP) as the insulating layer (page 6, second-to-last paragraph), and PP exhibits a melting points of 160-175 °C , as evidenced by Knovel (from Knovel Table 4.6). Maeda further teaches that when polypropylene is used, deformation and cracking of the insulating gasket can be effectively controlled (page 6, second-to-last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Liu further in view of Maeda by selecting polypropylene as the insulating member having a melting point of 160-175 °C as taught by Maeda and evidenced by Knovel, in order to control deformation and cracking while maintaining adequate thermal resistance (page 6, second-to-last paragraph)
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as modified by Maeda, Suzuki, Shimizu, and Hara, as applied to claim 1 above, and further as evidenced by Knovel Material Properties (Table 1.32. Thermal Conductivity of Metals (Part 1). Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpCRCMSE0B/id:kt00XRE3C4/crc-materials-science/table-1-32-thermal-conductivity>, attached to prior Office action; and Table 6.18. Polypropylene, PP Foams: Examples of Properties. Retrieved from <https://app.knovel.com/hotlink/itble/rcid:kpTTCE001D/id:kt00XRGWX5/thermoplastics-thermoplastic/table-6-18-polypropylene>, attached to prior Office action).
Regarding claim 6, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shimizu further teaches a limitation wherein the cover part has a thermal conductivity higher than a thermal conductivity of the insulating member.
Shimizu teaches the lid portion 330 is formed of aluminum ([0136]), and the gasket 310 formed of a polymer material such as polypropylene ([0137]). Hara, as applied to modify Liu above, agrees in its teaching toward a lid made of metal (Hara col. 4, line 1) and toward the resin sealing between the terminal and lid that can also be made of polypropylene (Hara col. 4, lines 4-7). It is well understood in the art that aluminum, as a metal, has a significantly higher thermal conductivity than polymer materials such as polypropylene. Specifically, as evidenced by Knovel Materials Property at room temperature, thermal conductivity of S is 236-237 W/m. K (from Knovel Table 1.32) and the thermal conductivity of polypropylene is 0.034-0.042 W/m.K (from Knovel Table 6.18). Thus, Shimizu teaches a structure in which the cover plate has a higher thermal conductivity than the insulating member, as required by the claim. Shimizu further teaches that lid is electrically conductive and can function as an electrode ([0095]), while polymer materials of gasket provide electrical insulation ([0094]), reinforcing the functional distinction between these components. Liu also agrees that the conductive sealing cover is insulated (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that one of ordinary skill in the art would provide the cover part to be made of metal such as aluminum with higher thermal conductivity than the insulating member made of exemplary polypropylene, as taught toward by Shimizu, to also expectedly provide high electrical conductivity at cover plate and insulation at gasket/insulating member (Shimizu [0094-0095, 0136-0137]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Shimizu further teaches a limitation wherein the electrode terminal has a thermal conductivity higher than a thermal conductivity of the insulating member.
Specifically, Shimizu teaches the positive electrode is formed of a metal foil such as stainless steel foil, an aluminum foil, and the negative electrode is formed of copper and stainless steel ([0140, 0142]), thereby suggesting that a terminal may be formed from metals which has good conductivity. Shimizu further teaches that the gasket 310 is formed of a polymer material such as polypropylene ([0137]) to provide electrical insulation ([0094]). Hara, as applied to modify Liu above, agrees in its toward the resin sealing between the terminal and lid also being made of polypropylene (Hara col. 4, lines 4-7). It is well understood in the art that aluminum, stainless steel, and copper, as metals, have significantly higher thermal conductivity than polymer materials such as polypropylene. Specifically, as evidenced by Knovel Materials Property at room temperature, thermal conductivity of Aluminum is 236-237 W/m. K (from Knovel Table 1.32) and the thermal conductivity of polypropylene is 0.034 - 0.042 W/m.K (from Knovel Table 6.18). Thus, Shimizu teaches a structure in which the electrode terminal has a higher thermal conductivity than the insulating member, as required by the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that one of ordinary skill in the art would provide the electrode terminal being made of a metal with higher thermal conductivity than an insulating member, as taught by Shimizu, to provide high conductivity, at electrode terminal (Shimizu [0140, 0142]) and good insulation at insulating member (Shimizu [0094, 0137]). Such substitution represents the use of a known suitable material for its known properties, yielding predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B) and MPEP 2144.07).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as modified by Maeda, Suzuki, Shimizu, and Hara as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Urushihara (US 20180205044 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Modified Liu further fails to teach a limitation wherein the cover part includes a recessed part, at the recessed part, the cover part is so bent as to be partly recessed toward an inside of the container part, and the electrode terminal is disposed inside the recessed part.
However, Urushihara discloses this limitation wherein a cover part (Fig. 5, [0032, 0034], sealing plate 20), includes a recessed part (Fig. 5, [0032, 0034], recessed portion 25a), at the recessed part, the cover part is so bent as to be partly recessed toward an inside of the container part (as illustrated in Figs. 2 and 5), and the electrode terminal (Fig. 5, [0034], terminal 30) is disposed inside the recessed part (the portion 32 of terminal 30 is disposed inside/through the recessed portion as shown in Figs. 4, 5). Specifically, Urushihara teaches a cover part (Fig. 5, sealing plate 20) that includes a recessed portion (recessed portion 25a). At this recessed portion, the cover part is bent so as to be recessed toward the inside of the container (Figs. 2 and 5). Urushihara further discloses that an electrode terminal (Fig. 5, [0034], terminal 30) is disposed within the recessed portion, with a portion 32 (portion 32 of terminal 30) extending through and positioned within the recessed portion (Figs. 4 and 5). Urushihara further teaches that such a configuration provides more secure interlocking and prevents rotation of the electrode terminal, thereby reducing the likelihood of leakage and improving sealing performance ([0011]). Further modified Liu, and Urushihara are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify modified Liu in view of Urushihara such that the cover part includes a recessed portion, wherein the cover part is bent inward and the electrode terminal is disposed within the recessed portion, in order to achieve more secure interlocking, prevent rotation of the electrode terminal, and improve sealing ([0011]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, as modified by Maeda, Suzuki, Shimizu, and Hara, as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Takami et al. (US 20200303765 A1).
Regarding claim 12, modified Liu teaches all claim limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Modified Liu further discloses a limitation wherein the battery device includes a positive electrode (page 7, lines 42-43: positive and negative electrodes in the electronic device). Modified Liu, however, fails to disclose a limitation wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material having an olivine crystal structure.
However, Takami explicitly discloses the limitation wherein the positive electrode includes a positive electrode active material having an olivine crystal structure ([0032, 0043]): a positive electrode active material includes a lithium cobalt phosphate with an olivine structure). Takami further teaches that such olivine-structured materials are suitable positive electrode active materials and provide high voltage performance in secondary batteries ([0043]).
Further, modified Liu, and Takami are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same field of secondary battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that one of ordinary skill in the art would incorporate such olivine-structured materials into Liu’s positive electrode in order to achieve high voltage performance ([0043]).
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 Lili Rassouli whose telephone number is (571)272-9760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM-4:00 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, Matthew T Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/LILI RASSOULI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/JESSIE WALLS-MURRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
