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 .
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 .
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 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "two ends of the storage portion" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180241012-A1 (U) in view of US-20240213585-A1 (I).
Regarding claim 1, U teaches a battery pack [0005] comprising: a secondary battery having a cylindrical shape (entirety of Fig. 11D); a first case (11, specifically the circumferential surface 11S) having a cylindrical shape with an axis, the first case having a storage portion ([0026] “substantially hollow”) in which a first end (side by 11c) in a direction of the axis is closed and a second end (end towards 12) in the direction of the axis is opened (before 12 is inserted and the top is crimped this would be open),
the storage portion accommodating the secondary battery (20, “electrode body”. In the instant, the structure of the secondary battery is not defined other than it has cylindrical shape [0012] and a positive and negative electrode [0018]. The electrode body is cylindrical and has a positive (21) and negative electrode (22) so it meets the structural requirements of the secondary battery of the instant.);
and a second case (14) that closes an opening of the storage portion and is joined to the first case (see crimping in Fig. 1), the storage portion having a groove (see Fig. 11D, “GROOVE”) that extends in the direction of the axis on an outer peripheral surface.
U teaches the groove preferably forms an angle with the central axis of the battery of less than 3° in order to maintain ease of manufacture [0048]. This means that the groove must have a bottom surface that slopes towards the center of the battery along the axial direction in order to form this angle.
U does not specify a direction in which the groove slopes.
However, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to have the bottom surface of the groove have a maximum distance from the center of the battery in the direction of the first end of the battery and a minimum distance from the center of the battery in the direction of the second end of the battery. It would have been obvious because doing so would amount to no more than electing one of a finite number of orientations, that being one of two options for which end is the furthest from the center and which is the closest. This meets the requirements of the bottom surface of the groove of the instant, and this angle between the central axis and the groove corresponds to the second angle of the instant.
U does not teach an inner peripheral surface of the storage portion being a tapered surface that has an inclination in which a diameter of the inner peripheral surface of the storage portion increases from the first end toward the second end in the direction of the axis.
I teaches a can for a battery (1) with an opening inner radius (r1) that is greater than an inner radius away from the opening (r2). I teaches the benefit of this is that it enables the safe insertion of the electrode body without damaging it [0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the opening end of the battery can of U to have a greater inner radius than the end away from the opening because I teaches doing so would enable safe insertion of the electrode body.
U teaches that the thickness of the can wall outside of the groove may vary based on measurement position [0047]. U teaches the ratio of the thickness in the groove (D1) to the thickness of the thickness of the can wall outside of the groove (D2) is significant because when it is too thin the wall part ruptures too easily and when it is too thick the contents may explode out when dropped in fire in an overcharged state [0046].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to optimize this ratio of D1/D2, as well as the inner radius of the opening and inner radius away from the opening in order to achieve a beneficial balance of groove strength and safety of insertion of the electrode body.
Through this routine optimization of this ratio of D1/D2 in order to achieve the proper strength at the groove, as well as to achieve an internal radius at the opening that is greater than that at away from the opening, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at dimensions for the case of the battery cell where the case thickness decreases towards the opening in a sloping manner. This would be possible without undue experimentation because U teaches motivation to optimize wall thickness around the groove and I teaches motivation for forming the wall thickness to be thinner near the opening. Furthermore, in the optimization of these values, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at an arrangement where the angle formed by the inner wall of the case and the central axis, which corresponds to the first angle of the instant claim 1, is less than the angle between the bottom surface of the groove and the central axis which corresponds to the second angle of the instant claim 1.
Therefore claim 1 is unpatentable over the teachings of U and I.
Regarding claim 4, the routine optimization of the angle formed by the inner wall of the case and the central axis and the angle between the bottom surface of the groove and the central axis is described in the rejection of the instant claim 1. These angles correspond to the first and second angles of the instant claim 1, respectively. In the process of the routine optimization of these values in order to achieve the optimal ease of insertion of the electrode assembly and groove strength, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at a ratio of the second angle to the first angle which falls in the range of the instant claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, U teaches the bottom surface of the groove is a curved surface [0041].
Regarding claim 8, U teaches the groove has a constant width along the axis on the outer peripheral of the storage portion [0044-45].
Regarding claim 9, U teaches the ratio of W/D, where W is the width of the groove at the outer portion and D is the outer diameter of the battery is preferably less than 8%. This completely encompasses the claimed range of the instant claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, U teaches the groove the groove is located inward of two ends of the storage portion in the direction of the axis (see Fig. 11D).
Regarding claim 11, U teaches in the embodiment in Fig. 11D that the slot is spaced from the two ends of the storage portion.
U does not teach the slot’s length is 0.32 to 0.42 times the length of the storage portion.
U teaches in a separate embodiment in Fig. 13C a slot with a length that is 40% of the total length of the storage portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form a slot in the same position as that of Fig. 11D to have the same length as that of the embodiment in Fig. 13C because doing so would amount to no more than combining elements of different embodiments.
Regarding claim 12, U teaches in the embodiment in Fig. 11D that the slot’s second end is 5% of the total length of the storage portion from the second end of the storage portion.
U does not teach the slot’s second end is 19-29% of the total length of the storage portion from the end of the storage portion.
U teaches in embodiment 13A a slot which is 20% of the length of the total length of the storage portion from the second end of the storage portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to form the slot of the embodiment in Fig. 11D to have a second end of the slot which is the same distance from the second end of the storage portion as the slot of the embodiment in Fig. 13A because doing so would amount to no more than combining elements from different embodiments.
Regarding claim 13, the optimization of the inner diameter of the battery casing in order to simultaneously achieve an easy insertion of the electrode body and groove strength was described in the rejection of claim 1. Through this process of optimization, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at an inner radius that would provide a thickness falling within the claimed range of ratios of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, U teaches there may be more than groove (see Fig 10C). U teaches two grooves may be as much as 120° offset from each other [0038]. U teaches the grooves are preferably evenly spaced [0038]. U teaches three or more grooves may be included [0038]. Therefore, in any embodiment where an even number of grooves is included, two grooves will be opposite of each other in order to maintain even spacing. The claim language of claim 14 uses “includes” which is an open-ended term, meaning more than two grooves may be included. Therefore, claim 14 is unpatentable.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180241012-A1 (U), US-20240213585-A1 (I) and in further view of US-20130330580-A1 (Y)
Regarding claim 2, U teaches the ratio of D1 to D2 is preferably 10% to 80%. U teaches the battery may have a diameter of 18 mm [0044].
U is silent to a specific inner diameter of the case, as well as to the thickness of the walls.
Y teaches a cleavage groove (23) for a battery (1). Y teaches a relationship between the thickness of the cleavage groove and the internal pressure at which it bursts (see Fig. 9). Y teaches it is desirable to optimize for a thickness where the cleavage groove bursts at the proper internal pressure while still having fall resilience [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to change the thickness of the cleavage groove of U in order to optimize for a desirable internal pressure at which the groove bursts while also avoiding damage from falling. It would have been obvious to do because Y teaches a relationship between the thickness of the cleavage groove and the internal pressure at which it bursts and a benefit to electing a thickness where the groove bursts under internal pressure but not due to dropping the battery.
In the process of routine optimization of the thickness of the cleavage groove of U, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at a ratio of the thickness of the groove on the end closest to the opening to the outer diameter of the battery cell that falls within the claimed range of the instant claim 2 without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 3, through the optimization described in the rejection of claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at a ratio of thickness at the end of the groove nearest to the sealed end of the cell to the outer diameter of the cell which falls in the claimed range of the instant claim 3.
Claims 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180241012-A1 (U), US-20240213585-A1 (I) and in further view of US-20140072841-A1 (Yamada).
Regarding claim 6, U teaches the bottom surface of the groove is curved [0041].
U is silent to the curvature of the bottom surface of the groove.
Yamada teaches a scoring groove (5a, 5b) for a battery which is designed to have a small variation in valve opening pressure [0044]. Yamada teaches a relationship between the variation in opening pressure and the curvature of the scoring groove [0070]. Yamada teaches it is beneficial to have a low variation in opening pressure [0011].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant to optimize the curvature of the cleavage groove of U in order to achieve a low variance in opening pressure because Yamada teaches both a relationship between curvature of a scoring groove and a motivation to have a low variance in opening pressure. In the process of doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at a curvature that falls within the claimed value of the instant claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, a curved profile for a groove like that which is taught by both U and Yamada would have a width that increases from the bottom of the groove to the top of the groove. This means the groove has a shape whose width increases from an inner side toward an outer side in the radial direction of the storage portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights