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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0111085, filed on 08/24/2023.
Specification
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 110 ([0043]), 120 ([0044]), and 300 ([0029]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because figure 1 is explicitly referenced and the disclosure following does not refer to elements in figure 1 ([0029], [0035], [0041-46]). Furthermore, [0036] and [0037] refer to figures 3 and 4 respectively but are not explicitly stated to be the figures being described. Additionally there are references to 110, 120, and 300 that are not present in the figures. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a region wider” while the parent claim recited “a region”. Both refer to the same region as they contain the same elements, but the recitation in claim 8 reintroduces it as a new region. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation in claim 8 will be interpreted as “the region wider” instead of “a region wider” for the purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Seong (US2016/0172639 A1) in view of Kwak (US 2015/0017520A1).
Regarding claim 1 Seong discloses: a secondary battery ([0007]), a case having a prismatic shape ([0006], FIGS. 1-7 disclose prismatic batteries); an electrode assembly in the case ([0009]); and a cap assembly including a cap plate coupled to one end of the case ([0007], FIG. 1), wherein the case includes a coupling portion provided in a shape concave ([0015], [0061], FIG. 3A) from an inner surface toward an outer side along an upper region of at least some surfaces thereof ([0015]), and the coupling portion includes an inclined surface ([0038], [0044-45], FIG 3A element 126), a connection surface ([0038], FIG 3A element 125), and a stepped portion ([0038], [0044-45], FIG. 3A element 125). In FIG. 3A, element 125 has a bottom portion that connects at a 90° angle to the inner wall (i.e. the coupling side of element 120) corresponding to the stepped portion of the instant application, a flat portion parallel to the long side of the outer wall (i.e. opposite the coupling side of element 120) corresponding to the connection portion of the instant application, and an upper portion element 126 that corresponds to the inclined portion of the instant application. In FIG. 3A, element 126 is shown outside the coupling groove. However, element 126’s function is in concert with element 125, as element 126 enables easier insertion of the cap plate into element 125. Thus, element 126 satisfies an inclined surface of the coupling portion. Furthermore, Seong discloses “Meanwhile, referring to FIG. 3A, the coupling protrusion 145 and the coupling groove 125 have planar surfaces. But, aspects of the present invention are not limited thereto. In some case, referring to FIG.3B, a coupling protrusion 145" of a cap plate 140' and a coupling groove 125 of a case 120' may be formed to have rounded surfaces.” ([0045]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the inclined portion does not read on the concave shape, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to apply the following concerning the teachings of Kwak (see below) to the coupling of Seong and in doing so select a concave geometry for the inclined surface.
Kwak discloses using inclined surfaces with varying angles to prevent over-insertion of the cap plate ([0076], FIG.4). Seong and Kwak are analogous art because they are both in the field of battery cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling of Seong with the teaching of Kwak of using inclined surfaces with varying angles to prevent over-insertion of the cap plate during insertion to create a coupling with an alternate, concave design that prevents over-insertion of the cap plate.
Regarding claim 2, Seong discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the inclined surface is inclined downward from an upper end of the case ([0044-45], FIG. 3A element 125). Additionally, Seong discloses “Meanwhile, referring to FIG. 3A, the coupling protrusion 145 and the coupling groove 125 have planar surfaces. But, aspects of the present invention are not limited thereto. In some case, referring to FIG.3B, a coupling protrusion 145" of a cap plate 140' and a coupling groove 125 of a case 120' may be formed to have rounded surfaces.” ([0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found in a prior section of this Office action.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (US 2016/0172639 A1) in view of Kwak (US 2015/0017520A1).
Regarding claim 3, Seong discloses all the limitations of claim 2. Seong does not disclose the angle range of the inclined portion. However, Seong discloses “Meanwhile, referring to FIG. 3A, the coupling protrusion 145 and the coupling groove 125 have planar surfaces. But, aspects of the present invention are not limited thereto. In some case, referring to FIG.3B, a coupling protrusion 145" of a cap plate 140' and a coupling groove 125 of a case 120' may be formed to have rounded surfaces.” ([0045]). Furthermore, Kwak discloses using inclined surfaces to prevent over-insertion of the cap plate ([0076], FIG.4) and to safely seat the cap plate onto the coupling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coupling of Seong, with the teaching of Kwak of using inclined surfaces to prevent over-insertion of the cap plate during insertion, by to determining an optimal angle range of the inclined surface as a part of routine experimentation to optimize the fit of the coupling and thereby create a coupling that prevents over-insertion of the cap plate. One of ordinary skill in the art would optimize the angle range to be 72.7° to 79.2°.
Regarding claim 4, Seong modified by Kwak discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and Seong further discloses: wherein the connection surface extends downward from the inclined surface and is connected to the stepped portion ([0044-45], FIG. 3A element 125). Seong discloses FIG. 3A element 125 which has a flat wall parallel to the outer wall of element 120 (i.e. opposite the coupling side) that connects to the stepped portion of element 125 and connects to the upper portion of element 125 which corresponds to the inclined portion of the instant application. Thus, Seong inherently discloses a connection portion.
Regarding claim 5, Seong modified by Kwak discloses all the limitations of claim 4 and Seong further discloses: wherein the stepped portion has an angle of 90° with respect to the connection surface ([0044-45], FIG. 3A element 125). Seong discloses FIG. 3A element 125 which has a stepped portion where the bottom portion of element 125 meets the inner wall at a 90⁰ angle. Thus, Seong inherently discloses a stepped portion.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (US2016/0172639 A1) in view of No (KR20000073090A, translation attached).
Regarding claim 6, Seong discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Seong does not disclose: wherein a coating layer is on a surface of the coupling portion. However, No discloses a coating layer is on a surface of the coupling portion ([0019], [0028]). No does not explicitly disclose a coating layer, however, No discloses using adhesive to more strongly couple the upper and lower portions of the battery can. Thus, No inherently discloses a coating layer on a surface of the coupling portion.
KSR Rationale D (MPEP § 2141) states that it is obvious to perform “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. In the instant case, the coupling device of Seong and the technique of applying coating to coupling portions of No are both known in the art. Both Seong and No are analogous art to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of battery cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the coupling device of Seong by using the technique of applying a coating to the coupling portion of No to yield the predictable result of having a more stable coupled battery case.
Regarding claim 7, Seong modified by No discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Seong does not disclose: wherein the coating layer is in a region covering the inclined surface, the connection surface, and the stepped portion.
However, No discloses the coating layer is in a region covering the connection surface, and the stepped portion ([0028]). No does not disclose covering the inclined portion, however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the coupling device of Seong by using the technique of applying a coating to the coupling portion of No to apply the coating to the entire coupling portion to yield the predictable result of having a more strongly coupled battery case.
Regarding claim 8, Seong modified by No discloses all the limitations of claim 7. Seong does not disclose: wherein the coating layer is in a region wider than the inclined surface, the connection surface, and the stepped portion. However, No discloses the coating layer is in a region wider than the coupling portion ([0028]). No does not explicitly state a region wider than the inclined surface, the connection surface, and the stepped portion, however, No discloses applying an adhesive to both ends of the coupling portion. Thus, No inherently discloses a region wider than the inclined surface, the connection surface, and the stepped portion as it explicitly states coating both mating parts of the coupling. Furthermore, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the coupling device of Seong by using the technique of applying a coating to the coupling portion of No to apply the coating to an area wider than the inclined surface, the connection surface, and the stepped portion to yield the predictable result of having a more strongly coupled battery case. In addition, the instant application discloses in FIGS. 3 and 4 the coated coupling portion element 240 having the corresponding coupling element 310. The corresponding coupling element 310 would also be coated when it is coupled to coupling element 240. Thus, the instant application inherently covers a region wider than the inclined surface, the connection surface, and the stepped portion.
Regarding claim 9, Seong modified by No discloses all the limitations of claim 8. Seong does not disclose: wherein the cap plate is coupled to the coupling portion by press fitting. However, No discloses wherein the cap plate is coupled to the coupling portion by fitting ([0028]). Therefore, it would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple the coupling device of Seong by using a fitting technique as disclosed by No with the predictable outcome of joining the two pieces together.
Conclusion
***
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD BILAL MIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7321. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am - 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, Basia Ridley can be reached at (571) 272-1453. 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.
/MOHAMMAD B MIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1725 /CHRISTOPHER P DOMONE/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725
September 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights