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 1 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.
Regarding claim 1, in lines 11-13 “wherein a light absorptivity of a laser used in the welding step is higher in at least part of an area in which an opening periphery part of the case main body and the sealing plate face each other than at an other portion” is unclear because it is unclear what is meant by “an other portion” as required by the claim limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hamaoka et al. (US 20200067044 A1, “Hamaoka”).
Regarding claim 1, Hamaoka discloses a manufacturing method of a power storage device (see [0171] “method for manufacturing a power storage device”) comprising: a preparing step of preparing a bottomed case main body whose one side surface is opened (see FIG. 2 describes “frame body 50” & describes an opening), a sealing plate that seals the opening (see FIG. 5 describes “base member 70” & see [0136] “base member 70 is connected to the opening 5a”), and an electrode body that includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode (see FIG. 2 describes “negative electrode 38” & “positive electrode 36” & “resin portions 52”); an assembling step of housing the electrode body inside the case main body (see [0121] “first resin portion 52 configuring an inner wall of the frame body 50, is provided over an end surface of the electrode plate 34 on the edge portion 34a from one surface (a surface on which the positive electrode 36 is formed) of the electrode plate 34 of each of the bipolar electrodes 32”), attaching the sealing plate to the opening of the case main body, and assembling the power storage device (see [0136] “base member 70 is connected to the opening 50a”; see [0220] “the power storage device 10A illustrated in FIG. 1, is manufactured”) and a welding step of radiating laser light to a boundary between the case main body and the sealing plate from a side of an outer surface of the sealing plate, and performing laser welding on the case main body and the sealing plate (see [0145] describes “laser welding” & “the laser welding, the cover member 90 is formed of a laser transmissive resin, the base member 70 is formed of a laser absorbing resin, and a laser is emitted from the cover member 90 side, and thus, a boundary portion of the base member 70 with respect to the cover member 90, can be melted, and the base member 70 can be joined to the cover member 90”), wherein a light absorptivity of a laser used in the welding step is higher in at least part of an area in which an opening periphery part of the case main body and the sealing plate face each other than at an other portion (see [0062] “One of the pressing member and the base member, positioned outside in the region when seen from the direction orthogonal to the pressing direction of the pressing member, may have a first transmissivity with respect to a wavelength of a laser for welding the pressing member and the base member to each other, and one of the pressing member and the base member, positioned inside in the region when seen from the direction orthogonal to the pressing direction of the pressing member, may have a second transmissivity less than the first transmissivity, with respect to the wavelength”; see [0306] “In a case where the cover member 490 and the base member 70 are formed of the same resin, a pigment absorbing the laser is added to the cover member 490, and the pigment is not added to the base member 70, and thus, it is possible to obtain the first transmissivity and the second transmissivity described above.”).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaoka et al. (US 20200067044 A1, “Hamaoka”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Komatsuki et al. (US 20110027645 A1, “Komatsuki”).
Regarding claim 2, Hamaoka discloses the manufacturing method of claim 1 and further discloses welding & radiating the laser light to a predetermined portion of the boundary between the case main body and the sealing plate from the side of the outer surface of the sealing plate and welding entire circumferences of the case main body and the sealing plate, (see [0040] “first base member and the second base member are joined to each other by heat (for example, hot plate welding), it is possible to prevent the opening of the joint portion from being blocked.”). Hamaoka does not explicitly disclose a temporary welding step nor a light absorptivity of the laser light used in the temporary welding step is higher at the portion temporarily welded in the temporary welding step in the area in which the opening periphery part and the opening plate face each other than at the other portion.
Komatsuki teaches temporary welding (see [0052] “The resin film (first sealing film or temporary sealing film) 54 is stacked on and welded to the top face of the film 52 and is shaped as a circle having substantially the same outer diameter as that of the welding base 45”; “The inner space of the through-hole 41 (i.e. the inner space of the case 12) is sealed (preliminary sealing) by the resin film 56, and is further sealed (final sealing) more tightly (greater sealing performance in terms of preventing intrusion of moisture, and durability of that performance) by the final sealing member 18.”). Komatsuki teaches varying laser transmittance (see [0023] “In terms of laser transmission weldability, the laser transmittance of the entire sealing film in the thickness direction ranges preferably from about 70 to 95%. An excessively high laser transmittance (laser transmissivity) results in lower absorption efficiency (utilization efficiency) of the laser beam. An excessively low transmittance hampers stack welding. The above laser transmittance can be adjusted by setting the addition amount of laser absorbing material in accordance with the thickness and characteristics (laser transmissivity and so forth) of each resin layer”). Komatsuki teaches (see abstract) “cell assembly (20) in the temporarily sealed state is subjected to initial charge and then a hole is opened through the film (54) so as to form a gas discharge passage for communication between inside and outside of the case (12), thereby discharging an excessive gas from the case (12) outside.”.
Hamaoka and Komatsuki are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely cell manufacturing methods (see Komatsuki title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate temporary welding, as suggested by Komatsuki (see [0052]) into the manufacturing method of Hamaoka because doing so allows for excessive gas to be discharged from the case to the outside, as suggested by Komatsuki (see abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate varying laser transmissivity as suggested by Komatsuki (see [0023]) into the manufacturing method of Hamaoka because doing so allows for an improved absorption efficiency of the laser beam, as suggested by Komatsuki (see [0023]) and further doing so improves the weld (see [0023]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaoka et al. (US 20200067044 A1, “Hamaoka”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 20220393250 A1, “Tsukamoto”).
Regarding claim 3, Hamaoka discloses the manufacturing method of claim 1 and further discloses wherein at least part of the area in which the opening periphery part and the sealing plate face each other & has pigment (see [0062] "One of the pressing member and the base member, positioned outside in the region when seen from the direction orthogonal to the pressing direction of the pressing member, may have a first transmissivity with respect to a wavelength of a laser for welding the pressing member and the base member to each other, and one of the pressing member and the base member, positioned inside in the region when seen from the direction orthogonal to the pressing direction of the pressing member, may have a second transmissivity less than the first transmissivity, with respect to the wavelength”; see [0306] “In a case where the cover member 490 and the base member 70 are formed of the same resin, a pigment absorbing the laser is added to the cover member 490, and the pigment is not added to the base member 70, and thus, it is possible to obtain the first transmissivity and the second transmissivity described above”). Hamaoka discloses surface treatment (see [0063] “irradiated with the laser”). Hamaoka does not explicitly disclose subjected to surface treatment to black such that the light absorptivity for light whose wavelength is 300 nm to 1100 nm is high.
Tsukamoto teaches “irradiated with laser light with a wavelength of 1.06 µm” (see [0053]) which lies within the claimed range.
Hamaoka and Tsukamoto are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely method for producing (see Tsukamoto title).
Tsukamoto teaches a range of 1.06 µm, which lies within the claimed range of 300 nm to 1100 nm (equivalent to 0.3 µm to 1.1 µm). MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Regarding claim 4, Hamaoka discloses a power storage device (see [0114] “power storage device”; see FIG. 1) comprising: a bottomed case main body whose one side surface is opened (see FIG. 2 describes “frame body 50” & describes opening); a sealing plate that is welded to an opening periphery part of the case main body (see FIG. 5 describes “base member 70” & see [0136] “base member 70 is connected to the opening 50a”); and an electrode body that is housed inside the case main body (see FIG. 2 describes “negative electrode 38” & “positive electrode 36” & “resin portions 52”), wherein the power storage device includes a part that is black and describes wavelength is higher in at least part of an area in which the opening periphery part of the case main body and the sealing plate face each other than at an other portion (see [0062] “pigment absorbing the laser is added to the cover member 490” & “may have a second transmissivity less than the first transmissivity”). Hamaoka discloses surface treatment (see [0063] “irradiated with the laser”). Hamaoka does not explicitly disclose wavelength is 300 nm to 1100nm.
Tsukamoto teaches “irradiated with laser light with a wavelength of 1.06 µm” (see [0053]) which lies within the claimed range.
Hamaoka and Tsukamoto are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely method for producing (see Tsukamoto title).
Tsukamoto teaches a range of 1.06 µm, which lies within the claimed range of 300 nm to 1100 nm (equivalent to 0.3 µm to 1.1 µm). MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaoka et al. (US 20200067044 A1, “Hamaoka”) in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 20220393250 A1, “Tsukamoto”) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Komatsuki et al. (US 20110027645 A1, “Komatsuki”).
Regarding claim 5, Hamaoka discloses the power storage device of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the light absorptivity of the surface treatment part for the light whose wavelength is 300 nm to 1100 nm is 60% or more.
Komatsuki teaches varying laser transmittance (see [0023] “In terms of laser transmission weldability, the laser transmittance of the entire sealing film in the thickness direction ranges preferably from about 70 to 95%. An excessively high laser transmittance (laser transmissivity) results in lower absorption efficiency (utilization efficiency) of the laser beam. An excessively low transmittance hampers stack welding. The above laser transmittance can be adjusted by setting the addition amount of laser absorbing material in accordance with the thickness and characteristics (laser transmissivity and so forth) of each resin layer”).
Komatsuki teaches a range of 70 to 95%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 60% or more. MPEP 2144.05 I states that '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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)'.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate varying laser transmissivity as suggested by Komatsuki (see [0023]) into the manufacturing method of Hamaoka because doing so allows for an improved absorption efficiency of the laser beam, as suggested by Komatsuki (see [0023]) and further doing so improves the welding (see [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Hamaoka discloses the power storage device of claim 4 and further discloses a pigment absorbing layer (see [0306] “a pigment absorbing the laser is added to the cover member 490,”), and surface treatment (see [0063] “irradiated with the laser”). Hamaoka does not explicitly disclose a black colored layer that contains a black colorant.
Komatsuki teaches a black colorant (see [0022] “The laser absorbing material that can be used is not particularly limited, and may be one, two or more types of laser absorbing material suitably selected from among, for instance, known pigment-based absorbing materials, dye-based absorbing materials and the like that are employed in the field of laser transmission welding. Carbon powders such as carbon black are an example of a preferably used laser absorbing material.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate carbon powders as suggested by Komatsuki (see [0022]) into the power storage device of Hamaoka because doing so uses a “preferably used laser absorbing material”, as suggested by Komatsuki (see [0022]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamaoka et al. (US 20200067044 A1, “Hamaoka”) in view of Tsukamoto et al. (US 20220393250 A1, “Tsukamoto”) as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Shimura et al. (US 20220052402 A1, “Shimura”) and Kim et al. (US 20160204392 A1, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 6, Hamaoka discloses the power storage device of claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the case main body and the sealing plate are made of aluminum, and the surface treatment part is formed with an anodic coating.
Shimura teaches in [0018] “battery case 10 is typically made of a metal such as aluminum”.
Hamaoka and Shimura are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely method for manufacturing batteries (see Shimura [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a battery case made of aluminum as suggested by Shimura (see [0018]) into the power storage device of Hamaoka because doing so would be using a typical material for the battery case as suggested by Shimura (see [0018]).
Kim teaches anodic coating (see [0030] “The insulative material is not specifically restricted so long as the insulative material is coated on the outer surface of the prismatic can to insulate the outer surface of the prismatic can from the outside. For example, the coating of the prismatic can with the insulative material may be achieved by anodizing an aluminum oxide on the outer surface of the prismatic can, by spraying the insulative material to the outer surface of the prismatic can, or by spreading an insulative thin film label to the outer surface of the prismatic can.”).
Hamaoka and Kim are analogous to the current invention because they are related to the same field of endeavor, namely method of manufacturing battery (see Kim title).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate anodizing on the surface of the can as suggested by Kim (see [0030]) into the power storage device of Hamaoka because doing so provides an insulative material to insulate the can from the outside, as suggested by Kim (see [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH APPLEGATE whose telephone number is (571)270-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/S.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JAMES M ERWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 06/22/2026
Prosecution Insights