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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: t. Although it appears that said terms are used interchangeably, “the use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted” (see MPEP 608.01 (o)). It appears that appropriate correction should be made to consistently recite a “transition area 15” in which is more frequently recited in the disclosure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 34 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n)(F). Accordingly, the claim has not been further treated on the merits.
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 31-33 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.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the transition portion (15)" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the transition area (15)" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the wall portion (20)" in Lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (JP Pat. No. 2013073804 A) (Cited in the IDS).
[AltContent: textbox (Nakagawa et al. (Fig. 2))]
PNG
media_image1.png
889
643
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prior art figures are annotated to identify the features of the claimed invention in which are necessarily present.
Regarding Claim 15, Nakagawa et al. teaches a cylindrical can for a cylindrical secondary cell, said cylindrical can extending along a longitudinal axis (LA) ([0002], [0054], annotated Fig. 2), wherein the cylindrical can (11) comprises:
an opening at a proximal end of the cylindrical can for jellyroll insertion ([0051]), and a
top portion comprising a cylindrical proximal zone (opening 16), a cylindrical distal zone (body portion 17) and an intermediate zone (inclined surfaces 28a, 28b) arranged and extending between the cylindrical proximal zone and the cylindrical distal zone ([0053], annotated Fig. 2),
wherein:
each one of the cylindrical proximal zone (16) and the cylindrical distal zone (17) has an inner circumference and an outer circumference, respectively (said zones are cylindrical and inherently possess a circumference),
a first distance (D1), from the inner circumference of the cylindrical proximal zone (16) to the longitudinal axis (LA as shown in annotated Fig. 2) in a transverse direction, is greater than a second distance (D2), from the inner circumference of the cylindrical distal zone (17) to the longitudinal axis (LA) in said transverse direction ([0032]), and wherein
the intermediate zone (28a, 28b) has an inner circumference and an outer circumference tapering between the respective inner and outer circumferences of the proximal zone (16) and the distal zone (17) ([0008] teaches that a boundary portion (intermediate portion: 28a, 28b) connecting the opening portion 16 and the body portion becomes tapered, see Fig. 2; said zone is cylindrical and necessarily possesses an inner circumference (from inner walls 28a) and outer circumference (from outer walls 28b)).
Regarding Claim 16, Nakagawa et al. teaches that the cylindrical can has an inner diameter (D1, D2) in which can be defined by the inner circumference as two times the distance (r1, r2) between the inner circumference and the longitudinal axis (LA) in the transverse direction, wherein the inner diameter (D1) of the cylindrical can at the cylindrical proximal zone (16) is defined as two times the first distance (r1), and wherein the inner diameter (D2) of the cylindrical can at the cylindrical distal zone (17) is defined as two times the second distance (r2). A skilled artisan understands that a diameter can be defined as two times a radius; such limitations do not add any structural detail but rather provide an alternative method of defining the diameter in terms of a radius. "Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure" (see MPEP 2111.04). As such, Fig. 2 of Nakagawa is annotated to show a longitudinal axis, first distance (r1), and second distance (r2) as claimed in which are necessarily present.
Regarding Claim 17, as shown in annotated Fig. 2, the intermediate zone (28a, 28b) is inclined at an angle (in which can be defined as α) with respect to the longitudinal axis (LA).
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 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP Pat. No. 2013073804 A) (Cited in the IDS) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20100119935 A1).
Regarding Claims 18-20, Nakagawa et al. does not teach wherein alpha ranges between 1° and 4° as required by Claim 18, between 2° and 3.5° as required by Claim 19, nor between 2.3° and 3.5° as required by Claim 20.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. teaches analogous art of a cylindrical battery can structure and is reasonable pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor (i.e., improving the mechanical strength of a crimp seal, [0030]) wherein the can comprises an intermediate zone ([0030] teaches a crimping region between a proximal zone and distal zone of a top portion of a battery can) in which is inclined at an angle of preferably 1 to 5 degrees; said configuration is preferable in consideration of the mechanical strength of the container and the elastic force and durability of the gasket to not induce deformation of the cap assembly.
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 cylindrical can of Nakagawa et al. wherein the intermediate zone is inclined at an angle alpha of 1° to 5°, overlapping the claimed ranges of 1° to 4° of Claim 18, 2° to 3.5° of Claim 19, and 2.3° to 3.5° of Claim 20. "In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)" (see MPEP 2144.05.I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification described to provide the cylindrical with improved mechanical strength as described above.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP Pat. No. 2013073804 A) (Cited in the IDS) in view of Okutani et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200013994 A1).
Regarding Claims 21-24, Nakagawa et al. teaches wherein the inner diameter of the cylindrical distal zone (17) of the top portion is smaller than an inner diameter of the cylindrical proximal zone (16) (Claim 1). It is well known in the field of endeavor for battery cells and cylindrical cans thereof to vary in size based on the size of the electrode assembly and materials used.
Nakagawa et al. does not teach wherein the cylindrical proximal zone of the top portion has an inner diameter between 20.75 and 20.90 as required by Claim 21 nor between 20.80 and 20.85 mm as required by Claim 22; and does not teach wherein the cylindrical distal zone of the top portion has an inner diameter of between 20.50 and 20.65 mm, preferably between 20.55 and 20.60 mm as required by Claim 23 nor between 20.50 and 20.65 mm as required by Claim 24.
In the same field of endeavor, Okutani et al. teaches analogous art of a battery can comprising an inner diameter in which is not a critical element and can typically range from 18 mm to 22 mm ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylindrical can of Nakagawa et al. to comprise an inner diameter of 18 mm to 22 m, overlapping the claimed ranges (i.e., cylindrical proximal zone of 20.75 to 20.90 mm and 20.80 to 20.85 mm; and cylindrical distal zone of 20.50 to 20.65 mm and 20.55 to 20.60 mm). In view of Nakagawa et al.’s teaching of the inner diameter of the distal zone being smaller than the inner diameter of the proximal zone, it would have been an obvious design choice to adjust the dimensional relationship accordingly.
1A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (MPEP 2144.04(IV)).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide suitable dimensions of a cylindrical can in consideration of the size of the electrode assembly and materials thereof. A skilled artisan may adjust the dimensions to provide the desirable functions of improving dimensional variation and suppressing manufacturing costs as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Claims 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP Pat. No. 2013073804 A) (Cited in the IDS).
Regarding Claims 25-28, Nakagawa et al. teaches a cylindrical proximal zone (16) extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (LA) from the opening as required by Claims 25-27, and a cylindrical distal zone (17) extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis (LA) from the opening of the cylindrical can as required by Claim 28 (see annotated Fig. 2).
Nakagawa et al. is silent to the dimensions in which the cylindrical proximal zone and cylindrical distal zone extend from the opening. Specifically, Nakagawa et al. does not teach wherein the cylindrical proximal zone extends a distance of 0 to 3.2 mm as required by Claim 25, 0 to 2.2 mm as required by Claim 26, and 0 to 2.7 mm as required by Claim 27; and does not teach wherein the cylindrical distal zone extends a distance of 4.2 to 5.2 mm and 6.3 to 7.3 as required by Claim 28.
However, said claim limitations merely recite relative dimensions, wherein changes in size or proportions are recognized as within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art. 1See reference to MPEP 2144.04(IV) above. A skilled artisan may adjust the dimensions of the cylindrical proximal zone and cylindrical distal zone based on the size of the electrode assembly and provide the desirable functions of improving dimensional variation and suppressing manufacturing costs as disclosed by Nakagawa et al. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 29, Nakagawa et al. teaches wherein the cylindrical proximal zone (16) and the cylindrical distal zone (17) have the same thickness ([0040], Sample No. 7-8), wherein the thickness is defined as the cross-sectional distance between the outer circumference and the inner circumference of the respective zone (16, 17) of the top portion (see thickness T1 and T2 as described in [0040]).
Nakagawa et al. does not teach wherein the intermediate zone has the same thickness as the cylindrical proximal zone and the cylindrical distal zone.
However, said claim limitations merely recite a change in size or dimensional relationship, wherein changes in size/dimensions are recognized as within the capabilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art. 1See reference to MPEP 2144.04(IV) above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the dimensions of the cylindrical can wherein the intermediate zone has the same thickness as the cylindrical proximal zone and the cylindrical distal zone to reduce the use of materials and costs while increasing the simplicity of the manufacturing process. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Claims 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP Pat. No. 2013073804 A) (Cited in the IDS) in view of Iwamoto (JPH Pat. No. 1083800 A) (Cited in the IDS).
Regarding Claim 30, Nakagawa et al. does not teach the cylindrical can comprising a wall portion (20) and a transition area (15), wherein the transition area (15) is arranged between the cylindrical distal zone (12) of the top portion (10) and the wall portion (20), wherein the wall portion (20) has a smaller thickness than the cylindrical distal zone (12) of the top portion (10), and wherein the transition area (15) has a thickness which increases gradually from the wall portion (20) towards the top portion (10).
[AltContent: textbox (Iwamoto (Fig. 18))]
PNG
media_image2.png
625
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Iwamoto teaches analogous art of a cylindrical can ([0002]) comprising a wall portion and a transition area, wherein the transition area is arranged between the cylindrical distal zone of the top portion and the wall portion, wherein the wall portion has a smaller thickness (t1) than the cylindrical distal zone (t3) of the top portion (see annotated Fig. 18). Iwamoto provides a battery can with reduced weight, increased capacity and extended service life ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylindrical can of Nakagawa et al. wherein the cylindrical can comprises a wall portion and a transition area, wherein the transition area is arranged between the cylindrical distal zone of the top portion and the wall portion, wherein the wall portion has a smaller thickness than the cylindrical distal zone of the top portion as taught by Iwamoto. As Iwamoto teaches that the thickness (t2) of the transition area is greater than the thickness (t1) of the wall portion, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect a gradual increase from the smaller thickness to the larger thickness in a direction towards the top portion to provide improved mechanical stability and heat dissipation. Abrupt changes in thickness can result in an excess use of materials, increased weight, and increased costs, and may also cause localized stress. Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)." One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a battery can that has reduced weight and correspondingly increased capacity and extended service life as described above.
Regarding Claim 31, Nakagawa et al. does not teach wherein the wall portion and the transition area each have an inner circumference and an outer circumference, wherein the inner circumference of the wall portion and the transition portion is the same and extends perpendicularly from the longitudinal axis (LA) in a transverse direction, and wherein the outer circumference of the cylindrical can tapers towards the wall portion at the transition area.
Iwamoto further teaches wherein the wall portion and the transition area each have an inner circumference and an outer circumference (can be defined as a circumference between inner surfaces of the can) extending perpendicularly from a longitudinal axis in a transverse direction, and wherein the outer circumference (can be defined as a circumference between outer surfaces of the can) of the cylindrical can tapers towards the wall portion at the transition area (see annotated Fig. 18). Iwamoto provides a battery can with reduced weight, increased capacity and extended service life ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylindrical can of Nakagawa et al. wherein the wall portion and the transition area each have an inner circumference and an outer circumference extending perpendicularly from a longitudinal axis in a transverse direction, and wherein the outer circumference of the cylindrical can tapers towards the wall portion at the transition area as taught by Iwamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a battery can that has reduced weight and correspondingly increased capacity and extended service life as described above.
Although Nakagawa and Iwamoto do not teach wherein the inner circumference of the wall portion and the transition portion are the same, said configuration involves merely changing the dimensional relationship between the wall portion and the transition portion 1(see MPEP 2144.04(IV)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the dimensions to arrive at the claimed invention in consideration of the size of the electrode assembly and materials thereof, and to simplify the manufacturing process. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Regarding Claim 32, Nakagawa et al. teaches wherein the cylindrical proximal zone (16) faces the opening of the cylindrical can.
Nakagawa et al. does not teach wherein the cylindrical distal zone faces the transition area.
Iwamoto teaches a cylindrical comprising a cylindrical distal zone in which faces a transition area (see annotated Fig. 18). Iwamoto provides a battery can with reduced weight, increased capacity, and extended service life ([0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylindrical can of Nakagawa et al. wherein the cylindrical distal zone faces a transition area as taught by Iwamoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to provide a battery can that has reduced weight and correspondingly increased capacity and extended service life as described above.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (JP Pat. No. 2013073804 A) (Cited in the IDS) in view of Iwamoto (JPH Pat. No. 1083800 A) (Cited in the IDS), and further in view of Okutani et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200013994 A1).
Regarding Claim 33, Nakagawa et al. teaches wherein the cylindrical can further comprises a bottom portion at a distal end (bottom portion 18) of the cylindrical can ([0026], see annotated Fig. 2).
Nakagawa et al. does not teach wherein a wall portion extends between the top portion and the bottom portion (18), wherein the bottom portion (30) has a thickness of 0.3 mm.
Iwamoto teaches a wall portion extending between a top portion and a bottom portion, wherein the bottom portion has a thickness ([0002], Fig. 18). Iwamoto provides a battery can with reduced weight, increased capacity, and extended service life ([0006]).
Okutani et al. teaches a bottom portion (bottom section 130) of a battery can ([0037]) comprising a thickness between 0.3 mm and 0.5 mm ([0026]). Okutani et al. teaches that the thickness is determined by the material of the which the battery can is made and the size of the battery ([0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the cylindrical can of Nakagawa et al. wherein the wall portion extends between the top portion and the bottom portion as taught by Iwamoto, wherein the bottom portion has a thickness of 0.3 mm (as claimed) to 0.5 mm as taught by Okutani et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification as related to Iwamoto to provide a battery can that has reduced weight and correspondingly increased capacity and extended service life as described above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification as related to Okutani et al. to provide a suitable thickness of a bottom portion of a battery can in consideration of material and battery size as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights