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 01/22/2024 and 05/27/2025. 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 § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2023/0048125 to Su et al.
With respect to claim 1, Su et al. teach a battery cell, comprising: an end cap 23, having a first face facing away from the inside of the battery cell 20, the end cap 23 being provided with a recess 2321 recessed relative to the first face, and an arc striking portion 236 or 2343 being arranged between a bottom wall of the recess 2321 and the first face, wherein: the arc striking portion 236 is a slope, the arc striking portion 236 or 2343 has a first end and a second end opposite to each other, the first end is connected to the bottom wall of the recess 2321, the second end is connected to the first face 2351, and the thickness of the first end (near the bottom portion) is less than that of the second end (near the upper portion); and a welding portion 26, the welding portion 26 being configured to connect the end cap 23 to a tab 221 of the battery cell 20, a central portion of the welding portion 26 being located on the bottom wall of the recess 2321, and an end portion of the welding portion 26 being located on the arc striking portion 2343 (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 2, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the end cap 23 has a smaller thickness at the bottom wall 233 of the recess 2321 than at the arc striking portion 236 or 2343 and at the first face 235 in a thickness direction (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 3, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein an angle of inclination of the slope of the arc striking portion 2343 relative to the bottom wall 233 of the recess 2321 is about 45 degrees (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 10, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the first end (near the bottom portion) and the bottom wall 233 of the recess 2321 are in a smooth transition (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 11, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the side of the arc striking portion 236 or 2343 facing away from the inside of the battery cell 20 is planar (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 13, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the recess 2321 is one of a plurality of recesses 2321 arranged at intervals in a circumferential direction of the end cap 23 (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 14, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the plurality of recesses 2321 have a common surrounding center (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 15, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the battery cell comprises a plurality of annular recesses 2321 when the arc striking portions 2343 are arranged on two sides of the recess 2321, the plurality of annular recesses 2321 being arranged at intervals in a radial direction of the end cap 23 (Su et al.: Sections [0099]-[0141]; Figs. 5-10).
With respect to claim 16, Su et al. teach a battery, comprising the battery cell (Su et al.: Sections [0002]-[0003]; Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 17, Su et al. teach a power consuming device, comprising the battery, the battery being configured to supply electric energy (Su et al.: Sections [0002]-[0003]; Fig. 1).
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 4-9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2023/0048125 to Su et al.
With respect to claim 4, Su et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein the height of the slope is greater than or equal to 0.4 mm in a thickness direction of the end cap.
However, changes in size and shape proportion of a known element have been held to be obvious since both the specification and the claims do not show the criticality of the limitation, “the height of the slope is greater than or equal to 0.4 mm in a thickness direction of the end cap.” 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 5, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein two ends of the recess 2321 are provided with the arc striking portions 2343, a starting end of the welding portion 26 is located on the arc striking portion 2343 at one end of the recess 2321 (Su et al.: Sections [0002]-[0003]; Fig. 1).
Su et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein an ending end of the welding portion 26 is located on the arc striking portion 2343 at the other end of the recess 2321.
However, the particular rearrangement of the location of the welding portion was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). With the motivation of having a means such the rearrangement could be modified due to the needs of the customer.
With respect to claim 6, Su et al. teach the battery cell, wherein the second end of the arc striking portion 2343 is provided with a bulged portion 2342 (Su et al.: Sections [0002]-[0003]; Fig. 1).
Su et al. do not specifically teach the bulged portion protrudes from the first face.
However, changes in size and shape proportion of a known element have been held to be obvious since both the specification and the claims do not show the criticality of the limitation, “the bulged portion protrudes from the first face.” 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).
Su et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein at least one of a starting end and an ending end of the welding portion 26 is located on the bulged portion 2342.
However, the particular rearrangement of the location of the welding portion was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). With the motivation of having a means such the rearrangement could be modified due to the needs of the customer.
With respect to claim 7, Su et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein the bulged portion is a part of the second end of the arc striking portion extending towards and above the first face.
However, changes in size and shape proportion of a known element have been held to be obvious since both the specification and the claims do not show the criticality of the limitation, “the bulged portion is a part of the second end of the arc striking portion extending towards and above the first face.” 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 8, Su et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein the bulged portion is farther away from the tab than the first face in a thickness direction of the end cap.
However, changes in size and shape proportion of a known element have been held to be obvious since both the specification and the claims do not show the criticality of the limitation, “the bulged portion is farther away from the tab than the first face in a thickness direction of the end cap.” 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 9, Su et al do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein an extension of the welding portion on the bulged portion is greater than 2 mm.
However, changes in size and shape proportion of a known element have been held to be obvious since both the specification and the claims do not show the criticality of the limitation, “an extension of the welding portion on the bulged portion is greater than 2 mm.” 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 12, Su et al. do not specifically teach the battery cell, wherein the recess 2321 is arc-shaped.
However, changes in shape proportion of a known element have been held to be obvious since both the specification and the claims do not show the criticality of the limitation, “the recess 2321 is arc-shaped.” 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).
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 6/27/2026
Prosecution Insights