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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claim 1. Claims 1-5 are pending and considered in the present Office action.
The rejections of the claims are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new ground of rejection is necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Mishina et al. (US 5800939), hereinafter Mishina.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Mishina suggests a power storage cell comprising: a cell case; and an electrode assembly, wherein the cell case houses the electrode assembly, the cell case includes a top wall, a peripheral wall, and a bottom wall, the top wall faces the bottom wall, the peripheral wall connects the top wall and the bottom wall, the top wall is provided with an electrode terminal (206, Fig. 2A-2C), a current path that electrically connects the electrode terminal and the electrode assembly is formed in the cell case, and the current path includes a fuse portion (i.e., disconnection point between 206 and 207), the power storage cell further comprising at least one of a thermal expansion member (205, coordinated with one electrode) and a thermal contraction member (205, coordinated with the other electrode), wherein the thermal expansion member is disposed between the top wall (204, see Fig. 2A-2C) and the electrode assembly, the thermal expansion member is configured to expand into contact with the electrode assembly (see Fig. 2C) and the thermal expansion member is configured to move the electrode assembly relative to the cell case (i.e., expansion/contraction of the thermal expansion member moves the assembly relative to the case), and the thermal contraction member is disposed between the electrode assembly and at least one of the peripheral wall (Figs 2A-2C), and supports the electrode assembly (i.e., against the wall of the case), wherein the thermal expansion member is spaced from the current path (see Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 2, Mishina suggests the power storage cell is configured such that at least one of expansion of the thermal expansion member and contraction of the thermal contraction member increases a distance between the top wall and the electrode assembly (see Fig. 2B-2C).
Regarding Claim 3, Mishina suggests the electrode assembly is suspended from the top wall (Fig. 2B).
Regarding Claim 4, Mishina suggests the electrode assembly includes an electrode tab, and the electrode tab is provided with the fuse portion (fuse portion is interpreted as the area that breaks in Fig. 2B).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitami (US 6,372,380) in view of Tatebayashi et al. (US 2005/0221173), hereinafter Kitami and Tatebayashi.
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Kitami suggests a power storage cell (1) comprising: a cell case (2); and an electrode assembly (4, Fig. 2), wherein the cell case houses the electrode assembly (Fig. 2), the cell case includes a top wall (12), a peripheral wall (i.e., cylindrical part of case 2), and a bottom wall (6), the top wall faces the bottom wall (Fig. 2), the peripheral wall connects the top wall and the bottom wall, the top wall is provided with an electrode terminal (12 serves as external connector terminal), a current path (11) that electrically connects the electrode terminal and the electrode assembly is formed in the cell case, the power storage cell further comprising a thermal expansion member (8, 9, 10, 13; the metal used is e.g., aluminum which has a thermal expansion coefficient, hence a thermal expansion member), wherein the thermal expansion member is disposed between the top wall and the electrode assembly (4, see Fig. 2), the thermal expansion member configured to expand into contact with and move the electrode assembly relative to the cell case (e.g., elasticity enables contact with and movement of the assembly relative to the case), wherein the thermal expansion member is spaced from the current path (parts of 11 are spaced above 8, 9, 10, 13, see Fig. 2). Further, Kitami suggests a thermal contraction member (3) disposed between the electrode assembly and the bottom wall and supports the electrode assembly (Fig. 2). See e.g., col 5-6.
Kitami does not state the current path includes a fuse portion. However, Tatebayashi presents a current stopping mechanism which permits the physical interruption of current through a fuse portion (9) in the current path, thereby improving the safety of the battery, [0062]. The current path (e.g., 4a) includes a brittle fuse portion (9) which enables a thermal expansion member (i.e., leaf spring/shape memory alloy 10, whose shape is determined based on temperature, [0088-0089, 0156]) to apply sufficient shearing stress to the current path and fuse portion (9) and ensures the current between the assembly and terminal is broken, see e.g., [0150-0154] and Figs. 7-8. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art the current path includes a brittle fuse portion to ensure the current between the assembly and terminal are cut by the thermal expansion member, thereby ensuring safety of the battery.
Regarding Claim 2, Kitami suggests the power storage cell is configured such that at least one of expansion of the thermal expansion member and contraction of the thermal contraction member increases the distance between the top wall and the electrode assembly, i.e., elasticity and spring action (of 8, 13) enables the distance change between the top wall and the electrode assembly.
Regarding Claim 3, Kitami suggests the electrode assembly (4) is suspended from the top wall, see Fig. 2.
Regarding Claim 4, Kitami as modified by Tatebayashi suggests the electrode assembly (4) includes an electrode tab (11) provided with the fuse portion (e.g., fuse portion 9 of Tatebayashi) to ensure current is cut, thereby ensuring safety, see rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA KOROVINA whose telephone number is (571)272-9835. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 6 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 5712721481. 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.
/ANNA KOROVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights