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 1-14 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 claims 1 and 11, “a lower plastic” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
In claim 2, “a groove is formed in adjacent two of the hot-melt regions” is grammatically unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
In claims 9 and 10, “the chamfered spacer” lacks sufficient antecedent basis because claim 8 recites “chamfered spacers” (plural) while claims 9 and 10 are singular.
In claim 13, “a plurality of the battery cells” lacks sufficient antecedent basis because claim 11 recites “a battery cell” in singular form while claim 13 is in plural form. Please use consistent language.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (“Guo”, US 2023/0100444 A1), as evidenced by Lejosne et al. (“Lejosne”, US 2020/0083515 A).
Regarding claims 1-14, Guo discloses a battery (title) comprising a housing ([0006]), a core assembly ([0007]), a separator ([0008]), and a top cover assembly ([0009]). Guo teaches an insulating sheet comprises a circumferentially covering area which covers the peripheral surface of the body portion, and the separator is integrally formed with the insulating sheet and serves as a bottom covering area of the insulating sheet, and the bottom covering area covers the bottom end surface of the body portion ([0011]). Guo teaches an opening of the accommodating cavity of the housing is closed by a top cover assembly, and the top cover assembly is provided to be spaced apart from the insulating sheet to prevent the insulating sheet from interfering with the top cover assembly during welding the top cover assembly and housing which may result in curling of the insulating sheet, which in turn leads to deformation of the insulating sheet ([0030]).
Guo teaches the top cover assembly comprises a top cover plate and a lower plastic member connected to a lower surface of the top cover plate facing towards the jelly-roll ([0132]). Guo teaches that in order to achieve a comprehensive protection for the jelly-roll, the insulating sheet is covering the outer peripheral surface of each connection boss at the same time ([0132]). Considering that the connection boss is also made of plastic material, in order to achieve a stable connection between the insulating sheet and the lower plastic member, each connection boss has a first hot melting connection position, and the insulating sheet also has a second hot melting connection position, where the insulating sheet and the plurality of connection bosses are hot melted for connection in the hot melting connection area, thereby achieving a stable connection between the insulating sheet and the top cover assembly, then achieving a comprehensive protection for the jelly-roll ([0132]). See Fig. 14: insulating sheet 22; second hot melting connection position 2213.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
258
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further regarding claims 2-5, Guo depicts in Fig. 14 a groove on lower plastic member 42 next to connection boss 421. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the shape, size, and location of the groove would be a matter of design choice so long as the connection is made between the corresponding parts.
Further regarding claims 6 and 7, Guo depicts in Figs. 9a-9f multiple embodiments, including an embodiment that would read on the I-shaped insulation patch of claim 6 and the overlap region of claim 7. Guo also discusses partial overlap and teaches overlapping connections may further strengthen the structural strength of the connection portion ([0099]-[0102]).
As to claims 8-10, Guo does not teach chamfered spacers with specific shapes or angles. However, Guo teaches corners of the bottom surface of the housing can be designed as rounded corners during processing the housing ([0059]) to protect from large pressure and protecting from electrical failure of the battery and even danger ([0059]). Changing the shape of a corner is considered an obvious matter in order to accommodate the shape of the internal components or to provide additional protection.
Further regarding claims 11-14, Guo teaches the battery having a core assembly, separator, and top cover assembly as well as the insulating sheet (abstract). Guo does not go into detail about a pole on the top cover member connected to a tab of the electrode assembly or a switching member. However, pole and switching members are well known and conventional in the art. For example, Lejosne teaches switching members provide variable voltage or a regulated voltage ([0076]) as well as a cover supporting current poles ([0025]). It is also well known that devices can use batteries as a power source.
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