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 Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 and objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 16, “case ;” should read “case;” with the extra space between “case” and the semicolon should be taken out.
In claim 3, line 3, “cm3” should read “cm3” where “3” is superscript.
In claim 4, line 3, “cm3” should read “cm3” where “3” is superscript.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5 – 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 2 of copending Application No. 18420764 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the co-pending application recites an electrode body including a positive electrode and a negative electrode; an electrolytic solution; and a battery case configured to accommodate the electrode body and the electrolytic solution. The battery case comprises an outer case including a bottom part being a plate- shaped, a side wall extending upward from long sides of the bottom part, an upper surface opening surrounded by top ends of the side walls and a sealing plate configured to seal the upper surface opening and provided with an electrolytic solution liquid injection hole.
The reference application also recites the manufacturing method of the secondary battery comprising of: a battery case assembling step for sealing the upper surface opening by the sealing plate under a state where the electrode body is arranged inside the outer case; a step for injecting a gas via the electrolytic solution liquid injection hole to an inside of the battery case having been assembled; a liquid injecting step for injecting the electrolytic solution via the electrolytic solution liquid injection hole to the inside of the battery case; and a sealing step for sealing the electrolytic solution liquid injection hole of the battery case into which the electrolytic solution is injected.
With respect to claim 5, the reference application recites a secondary battery case having an outer case that includes a bottom part with a long rectangular plate-shaped member and a pair of first side walls extending upward from long sides of the bottom part, a pair of second side walls extending upward from short sides of the bottom part.
With respect to claim 6, claim 2 of the reference application recites a secondary battery case where each of the first side walls has a height being equal to or more than 5 cm, and has a width being equal to or more than 20 cm.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (U.S. Patent No. 20220149497A1) in view of Shi, et al. (CN Patent No. 115842225A).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami teaches a manufacturing method of a secondary battery comprising an electrode body including a positive electrode (item 21 – figure 2) and a negative electrode (item 22 – figure 2), an electrolytic solution (item T – figure 21(b)), and a battery case (item 40 – figure 40) with configured to accommodate the electrode body and the electrolytic solution (figure 1-2 and 21(b), 0062-0065, 0069-0070, 0105, 0108, 0190-0192, 0234). Kawakami also teaches the battery case comprising of an outer case including a rectangular bottom plate shape, a side wall extending upward from an outer peripheral edge of the bottom part, and an upper surface opening surrounded by a top end of the side wall (figure 1, 0062, 0067, 0070). The sealing plate (item 50 – figure 1) configured to seal the upper surface opening and provided with an electrolytic solution liquid injection hole (figure 1, 0071, 0075). Additionally, Kawakami discloses a secondary battery manufacturing method with a battery case assembling step (item S7 – figure 5) for sealing the upper surface opening by the sealing plate under a state where the electrode body is arranged inside the outer case(figure 5, 0096, 0224); a liquid injecting step (item S11 – figure 7) for injecting the electrolytic solution via the electrolytic solution liquid injection hole to the inside of the battery case (figure 7, 0108, 0157, 0234); and a sealing step (item S12 – figure 7) for sealing the electrolytic solution liquid injection hole of the battery case into which the electrolytic solution is injected (figure 7, 0110, 0112, 0158, 0160)
However, Kawakami does not teach injecting a gas via the electrolytic solution liquid injection hole to an inside of the battery case during the manufacturing process.
Shi, et al. teaches an electrolyte injection apparatus that injects a gas (item 10 – figure 4) inside of the battery cell before injecting the electrolyte (item 12 – figure 4) into the battery cell for electrolyte injection efficiency improvement (Figure 4, page 6 0070-0074).
Kawakami and Shi, et al. are in the corresponding field of battery manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the secondary battery of Kawakami with an injection of gas into the battery cell taught by Shi, et al. to suppress a reduction in the manufacture efficiency.
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Kawakami also teaches that said side wall comprises a pair of first side walls extending upward from long sides of the bottom part and comprises a pair of second side walls extending upward from short side of the bottom part (Figure 1, 0062, 0070).
Regarding claim 7, examiner notes that Shi, et al. teaches a drying step for drying the electrode body inside the battery case is performed after the battery case assembling step is performed and before the liquid injecting step is started (page 2 0024-0025).
PNG
media_image1.png
986
997
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 from Kawakami
Claim(s) 2 – 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (U.S. Patent No. 20220149497A1) in view of Shi, et al. (CN Patent No. 115842225A) and further in view of Arikawa (JP Patent No. JP2018170210A).
Regarding claim 2 – 4, Kawakami and Shi, et al., render obvious the features of claim 1 but do not teach the increase in capacity nor the battery dimensions.
Arikawa teaches an increase in capacity of the battery cell to reduce the electrolyte injection time. Arikawa teaches expanding the internal volume wherein the side surface of the battery expands outwardly (paragraph 0012). While not specific to the expansion being as 100%, because the expansion can be controlled, so that the side surfaces deform outwardly and because the purpose of the expansion is to ensure manufacturing efficiency (see paragraph 0023), the examiner contends that the expansion being at 100% is optimizable and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to claim 4, Arikawa further renders obvious the increase in void volume of 40 cm3 or more – see paragraph 0032 wherein Arikawa teaches a void volume of 25 cm3 or more which encompasses the claimed range.
With respect to claim 6, Arikawa teaches a typical battery with dimensions as follows: 11 cm x 10 cm x 2 cm. Examiner contends per the teachings in the Arikawa, this sizing is not limited and thus, having a battery with the dimensions as recited is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (U.S. Patent No. 20220149497A1) in view of Shi, et al. (CN Patent No. 115842225A) and further in view of Fujishima (JP Patent No. 2022178063A).
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami and Shi, et al. render obvious the features as noted above but do not teach or render obvious the decompressing pressure. Kawakami in view of Shi, et al. teaches the method, wherein the battery internal volume is expanded and then, electrolyte solution is injected. Fujishima teaches at the liquid injecting step a decompress processing is performed to make the pressure inside the battery case equal to or less than -50kPa (page 6, paragraph 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the secondary battery of Kawakami as modified by Shi, et al., further modified to include the decompression step taught by Fujishima to improve the electrolyte injection during battery manufacture.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sakashita, et al. (U.S Patent No. 20120328917A1) teaches a method to produce a secondary battery, which has a rectangle-shape in plan view, comprising of an outer case with a bottom part, side parts, a top plate, and an electrode body filled with an electrolyte housed inside case for use as a storage battery for an electrical vehicle, a storage battery for power storage, or the like (paragraph 0044 – 0046). Specifically, Sakashita, et al. further teaches the secondary battery dimensions 320 mm x 150 mm x 40 mm (paragraph 0081) which meet claim 6 dimensions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN MITCHELL FRAZIER whose telephone number is (571)270-5955. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/K.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights