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 statements (IDS) were submitted on 12/29/2023, 01/17/2025, 09/11/2025 and 12/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2014/0147704 to Roh.
With respect to claim 1, Roh teaches a battery 100, comprising a housing 130 and 120 which is conductive and a battery core 110, wherein the housing comprises a top shell 120 and a bottom cover 130, the top shell 120 comprises a top cover and an annular side wall connected to the top cover, the top shell 120 is covered on the bottom cover 130 to collaboratively define an accommodating cavity, and the battery core 110 is located in the accommodating cavity; a first conductive member 114 is disposed within the accommodating cavity, and an insulating adhesive layer 146 is disposed between the first conductive member 114 and the bottom cover 130, and the insulating adhesive layer 146 connects the first conductive member 114 and the bottom cover 130; a through hole is disposed on the bottom cover 130, and the first conductive member 114 covers the through hole; the annular side wall 120 is welded with the bottom cover 130 at an edge on a side close to the bottom cover 130 to form a welding mark (not shown); and the first electrode tab of the battery core 110 is electrically connected with the first conductive member 114, and the second electrode tab of the battery core 110 is electrically connected with the housing 130 (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
Roh does not specifically teach there is a first spacing between the welding mark and the insulating adhesive layer 146, a width of the first spacing is more than 3 times of a width of the welding mark.
However, a ratio of a width of the first spacing and a width of the welding mark is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a width of the first spacing is more than 3 times of a width of the welding mark, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 3, Roh does not specifically teach the battery, wherein a ratio of a coverage area of the first conductive member on the bottom cover to an area of the bottom cover is 0.4 to 0.99.
However, a ratio of a coverage area of the first conductive member on the bottom cover to an area of the bottom cover is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a ratio of a coverage area of the first conductive member on the bottom cover to an area of the bottom cover is 0.4 to 0.99, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 4, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the battery core 110 comprises at least two electrode sheets 111 and 112 with opposite polarities, the battery core 110 has a stacking region, the at least two electrode sheets 111 and 112 located in the stacking region are stacked with each other; an isolation membrane 113 is disposed between two electrode sheets 111 and 112 with opposite polarities (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
Roh does not specifically teach the electrode sheets and located in the stacking region are parallel to at least one of a surface of the bottom cover and a top surface of the top shell.
However, the particular rearrangement of the electrode sheets with respect to the orientation of the bottom cover and the top shell was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
With respect to claim 5, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the first conductive member 114 and 140 comprises a first connection plate 140 and a first bending plate 114 which are connected with each other, the first connection plate 140 is attached to the bottom cover 130, the first bending plate is located between the battery core 110 and the annular side wall 120, and the first electrode tab is coupled to (welded on) the first bending plate (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 6, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the first connection plate 140 has a bump on a side far from the accommodating cavity, and the bump penetrates through the through hole (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 7, Roh teaches the battery, wherein there is a first gap between an outer periphery edge of the bump and a hole wall of the through hole; and the insulating adhesive layer has an overflow portion 145 located in the first gap.
Roh does not specifically teach a width of the first gap ranges from 0.1 mm to 2 mm.
However, a width of the first gap is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a width of the first gap ranges from 0.1 mm to 2 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 8, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the first gap is filled with a sealing insulator 145 (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 9, Roh does not specifically teach the battery, wherein there is a second spacing between the first bending plate and the annular side wall, and the second spacing ranges from 0.2 mm to 3 mm.
However, the second spacing is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the second spacing ranges from 0.2 mm to 3 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 10, Roh teaches the battery, wherein a first insulating layer 150 is disposed between the first bending plate 114 and the battery core 110 (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 11, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the second electrode tab is welded to the bottom cover 130, which is welded to the annular side wall (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 12, Roh does not specifically teach the battery, wherein a distance between the first electrode tab and the annular side wall is greater than a distance between the second electrode tab and the annular side wall.
However, the distance between the first electrode tab and the annular side wall is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a distance between the first electrode tab and the annular side wall is greater than a distance between the second electrode tab and the annular side wall, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 13, Roh teaches the battery, wherein a second conductive member 115 is disposed within the accommodating cavity, and at least part of the second conductive member 115 is located between the second electrode tab and the housing 130, and electrically connects the second electrode tab and the housing 130; and the second conductive member 115 and the first conductive member 114 are insulated from each other (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 14, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the second conductive member 115 comprises a second connection plate (the connecting portion between the end of the second conductive member 115 and the bottom cover 130) and a second plate (the main body) which are connected with each other, the second connection plate 115 is attached to the bottom cover 130, the second plate (the main body) is located between the battery core 110 and the annular side wall 120, and the second electrode tab is welded on the second plate (the main body).
Roh does not specifically teach the second plate (the main body) is a second bending plate, however, changes in shape of a known element have been held to be obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 15, Roh does not specifically teach the battery, wherein a height difference between the first connection plate and the second connection plate is less than 0.3 mm; there is a second gap between the first connection plate and the second connection plate; and a width of the second gap ranges from 0.5 mm to 5 mm.
However, a height difference between the first connection plate and the second connection plate and a width of the second gap are result effective variables. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have a height difference between the first connection plate and the second connection plate is less than 0.3 mm; there is a second gap between the first connection plate and the second connection plate; and a width of the second gap ranges from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 16, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the first electrode tab and the second electrode tab are located at a same end of the battery core 110; and the first bending plate 114 and the second bending plate 115 are located at a same end of the battery core 110 (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 17, Roh teaches the battery, further comprising a third insulating layer 150 which is located between the battery core 110 and the first conductive member 114, and between the battery core 110 and the second conductive member 115 (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
With respect to claim 18, Roh teaches the battery, wherein there is a third spacing between an end of the first electrode tab and an end of the second electrode tab (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
Roh does not specifically teach the third spacing is greater than or equal to 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm.
However, a third spacing between an end of the first electrode tab and an end of the second electrode tab is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the third spacing is greater than or equal to 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm; there is a second gap between the first connection plate and the second connection plate; and a width of the second gap ranges from 0.5 mm to 5 mm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 19, Roh does not teach the battery, wherein an area of the first connection plate is larger than an area of the second connection plate, and a ratio of the area of the first connection plate to the area of the second connection plate ranges from 1 to 9.9.
However, an area of the first connection plate is larger than an area of the second connection plate, and a ratio of the area of the first connection plate to the area of the second connection plate is a result effective variable. It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have an area of the first connection plate is larger than an area of the second connection plate, and a ratio of the area of the first connection plate to the area of the second connection plate ranges from 1 to 9.9, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 2 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2014/0147704 to Roh in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0111094 to Katayama et al.
With respect to claim 2, Roh does not specifically teach the battery, wherein the annular side wall 120 has a flange at the edge on the side close to the bottom cover, and the flange is welded with the bottom cover to form the welding mark, and the welding mark is disposed around an outer periphery of the annular side wall; and/or, the width of the welding mark is greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 1 mm.
Katayama et al. teach a battery, wherein the annular side wall 12 has a flange at the edge on the side close to the bottom cover 13, and the flange is welded with the bottom cover 13 to form the welding mark (not shown), and the welding mark is disposed around an outer periphery of the annular side wall 12 (Katayama et al.: Section [0033]; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Roh with the teaching above from Katayama et al. with the motivation of having a means such the flange is common way for welding two components together.
With respect to claim 20, Roh teaches the battery, wherein the annular side wall 120 is provided with a reinforcing sheet 161 and 162, and the reinforcing sheet 161 and the second electrode tab are located on opposite sides of the annular side wall 120 (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3).
Roh dose not specifically teach the annular side wall comprises a liquid injection port 132, and the liquid injection port 132 links an outside of the housing 130 to the accommodating cavity; a sealing sheet is disposed on the liquid injection port, and the sealing sheet seals the liquid injection port.
However, Roh further teaches the bottom cover 130 comprises a liquid injection port, and the liquid injection port links an outside of the housing 130 to the accommodating cavity; a sealing sheet 132 is disposed on the liquid injection port, and the sealing sheet 132 seals the liquid injection port (Roh: Sections [0034]-[0048]; Figs.1-3). The particular rearrangement of the liquid injection port was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Roh does not specifically teach a pressure relief groove is disposed on the top cover, and the pressure relief groove is disposed close to the first electrode tab or the second electrode tab.
However, Katayama et al. teach the battery comprising a pressure relief groove B is disposed on the top cover 12, and the pressure relief groove B is disposed close to the first electrode tab or the second electrode tab (Katayama et al.: Section [0067]; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have modified Roh with the teaching above from Katayama et al. with the motivation of having a means such the pressure relief groove B would improve the safety of the battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (571) 270-7078. 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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights