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.
Claims 16 and 31 are 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.
In claim 16, the range of “30 to 80, or 50 to 70” is definite as it recites a broad limitation followed by a narrower limitation.
In claim 31, “the distal zone”, “the intermediate zone”, “the proximal zone”, “the beading zone”, and “the crimp zone” all lack sufficient antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakashita et al. (“Sakashita”, US 2009/0068557 A1).
Regarding claims 12-31, Sakashita discloses a battery can and a method of manufacturing the same (title).
Sakashita, in discussing Background Art, teaches that in order to ensure the strength of the opening portion end that serves as a sealing portion and to obtain a battery can having a large internal volume, a thick portion is formed at the opening portion side of the battery can, and a thin portion is formed at the bottom side ([0004]).
Sakashita teaches a bottomed cylindrical battery can 1 (depicted in Fig. 1) includes a cylindrical side portion 2, a bottom 3 and an opening portion 4 ([0026]). The cylindrical side portion 2 includes a first side portion 2a formed at the side of the bottom 3, a second side portion 2b formed at the side of the opening 4, and a junction 2c formed between the first side portion 2a and the second side portion 2b and having a thickness that increases gradually from the side of the first side portion 2a to the side of the second side portion 2b, wherein the thickness T1 of the first side portion 2a and the thickness T2 of the second side portion 2b satisfy a relational expression (1): T1<T2 ([0026]).
Sakashita does not expressly teach the claimed slope values, transition area lengths, thickness change, and beading zone. Sakashita teaches the battery can 1 obtained in the above-described manner had a cylindrical shape with an outer diameter of 18mm and a height of 65mm ([0052]). The inner diameter of the cylindrical side portion 2 (the first side portion 2a, the second side portion 2b and the junction 2c) was 17.76mm. The thickness of the bottom 3 of the battery can 1 was about 0.3mm. The thickness T1 of the first side portion 2a was 0.12mm. The thickness T2 of the second side portion 2b was 0.2mm. The length of the first side portion 2a in the length direction of the base can was 54.7mm. The length L3 of the second side portion 2b in the length direction of the base can was 6mm. The length L1 of the junction 2c in the length direction of the base can was 4mm ([0052]).
Sakashita also teaches in the case of using Battery cans B and C in which the value of L1/(T2-T1) was 50 to 100, in the battery production process described above, the annular groove having a predetermined shape was properly formed without causing damage to the electrode assembly ([0063]). However, in the case of Battery can A in which the length L1 of the junction extending from the first side portion side to the second side portion side was short, during the groove forming process of the junction to form the annular groove in the battery can, a stress occurred between the first side portion and the junction, so the annular groove having a predetermined shape was difficult to form in the battery can. In the case of Battery can D in which the length L1 of the junction extending from the first portion side to the second side portion side was long, in the formation of the annular aperture in the battery can, because the junction extend to the housing portion for the electrode assembly, the junction pressed the electrode assembly, which caused damage to the electrode assembly.
In view of these teachings, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the slope as well as the lengths and thicknesses of each dimension to provide strength to the opening portion ([0004]) and to prevent damage to the can or electrode assembly ([0063]). Tables 2 and 3 of Sakashita provides examples of varying the dimensions and thickness ratios to obtain optimal cans.
As to claim 29, Sakashita teaches the thickness of the bottom 3 of the battery can 1 was about 0.3 mm ([0052]).
As to claim 31, the process of sealing by crimping is well known. For example, Sakashita teaches when sealing the opening portion with a sealing member after the electrode assembly is housed into the battery can 1, the groove forming process is performed to form an annular groove in the junction 2c located between the first side portion 2a and the second side portion 2b of the cylindrical side portion 2 of the battery can 1 ([0030]). Then, the opening portion of the battery is sealed by crimping the upper portion of the annular groove in the battery can onto the sealing member with an insulating gasket interposed therebetween ([0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL H. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2548. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
DANIEL H. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/DANIEL H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights