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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B in the reply filed on 5/8/26 is acknowledged.
Applicant has clarified that all claims are directed to Species B so no claims are withdrawn.
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 15 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.
Claim 15 claims a “drawing force” and lists units of “kg/mm”. The claim is indefinite because of two main reasons. The first is that “drawing force” is not sufficiently defined by the claim language, nor the specification. The term is not commonly used in the art with respect to a bonding body and edge banding, and no special definition is provided in the disclosure, making it indefinite claim language.
The second reason is that the units “kg/mm” are not units of force. This renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine which values of force fall in the claimed range.
In order to enable examination of claim 15, the examiner is interpreting the relationship between drawing force and hardness [0026] to mean that if the hardness of the first bonding body is within the disclosed range of greater than 20 A, the drawing force must also fall in the claimed range of claim 15.
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.
Claims 1-6, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180138470-A1 (P), in view of US-20130065109-A1 (A).
Regarding claim 1, P teaches a battery (see Fig. 1), comprising: a battery cell body (30, “electrode assembly”) and a packaging housing ([0035], “pouch type exterior member”), the packaging housing having an edge banding (see annotated Fig. 6 below) and a cavity (10) for accommodating the battery cell body, and the edge banding having a cross section cut along a thickness direction of the edge banding (Fig. 6 is a cross section taken along that direction), wherein the edge banding extends upwards along a side surface of the battery cell body (see annotated Fig. 6 below), a side surface, close to the battery cell body, of the edge banding is an inner side surface , a side surface, away from the battery cell body, of the edge banding is an outer side surface.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, the cross
P does not teach the cross section is provided with a first bonding body that wraps the inner side surface of the first bonding body and a part of the outer side surface, with the lower part of the first bonding body on the inside of the edge banding is higher than the lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface.
A teaches a battery (1) comprising a battery body (11) with elastic resin portions (13) that enclose the battery body (see Embodiment 2, Fig. 12, which is a cross section cut along a thickness direction). A teaches the resin portion has a cut portion (21) which brings the benefit of creating an outlet where gases can be released in the case of overpressure inside the cell [0074]. The elastic resin portions serve as a means for sealing the outer cover members (111) and is therefore a bonding body because it bonds the two outer cover members together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to add the resin portion of A to the end of the edge banding of P in order to achieve the benefit of creating an overpressure release opening. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found this obvious to do because it would amount to no more than combining to prior art elements which would perform the same function together as they do separately in order to achieve the taught benefit of creating a pressure release path.
In the process of doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to place the cut portion on the inner surface of the edge banding because doing so would amount to no more than electing one of two orientations.
This combined structure would then therefore fulfill all of the structural limitations claimed by the instant claim 1, rendering it unpatentable.
Regarding claim 2, P teaches a second bonding body (150) is provided between the inner side surface of the edge banding and the side surface of the battery cell body (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, in the process of combining P and A, since the two bonding bodies cannot occupy the same space, the lower end of the first bonding body on the inner surface must be higher than a top end of the second bonding body.
Regarding claim 4, in the process of combining P and A, since the two bonding bodies cannot occupy the same space, the lower end of the first bonding body on the inner surface must be higher than a top end of the second bonding body. The lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface must be higher than the lower edge of the first bonding body on the inner side surface so the lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface must be higher than the top end of the second bonding body.
Regarding claim 5, in the process of combining P and A, since the two bonding bodies cannot occupy the same space, the lower end of the first bonding body on the inner surface must be higher than a top end of the second bonding body. The lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface must be higher than the lower edge of the first bonding body on the inner side surface so the lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface must be higher than the top end of the second bonding body.
Regarding claim 6, A teaches the second bonding body is fixed using heat fusion [0045], meaning it is formed by means of heating.
Regarding claim 11, P teaches the width (shown in Fig. 7) of the sealing part is less than or equal to the thickness of the battery (shown in Fig. 7, relation is listed in p2/l21). The width of the sealing part corresponds to the height of the edge banding of the instant. The thickness of the battery corresponds to the height of the battery of the instant. P teaches the benefit of this relationship is it improves energy density (p3/l56-p4/l4).
In order to maintain this benefit in the combination of P and A, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to form the first bonding body with a width in the height direction that ensures that the combined height of the first bonding body and the edge banding is still lower than the height of the cell body. In doing so, the combination of P and A would teach all of the structural requirements of claim 11 of the instant.
Regarding claim 13, P teaches an angle between a lower edge of a side, away from the battery cell body, of the first bonding body and the edge banding is theta (see annotated Fig. 13 below), and a numerical range of the angle theta is 0 < theta < 90° (see annotate Fig. 13 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
331
497
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, P and A teach the packaging housing further has a top seal, the top seal is configured to wrap a top surface of the battery cell body, a height of a top end of the first bonding body is greater than a height of a top end of the top seal, and the first bonding body covers a partial region of the top seal (see annotated P Fig. 6 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
387
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, A teaches the first bonding body is formed from elastic resin which may be formed from polyamide resin [0052] which is injection molded by pouring the resin into an opening (22) [0070]. This constitutes it being cured by means of heating.
Furthermore, in the case where it is not cured by heating, the limitation “a binder cured by means of heating” is claimed using product by process. Since the final product of A meets all of the claimed structure (i.e. it is a substance that binds the edge banding, which constitutes a binder) of claim 17, it still renders the limitation unpatentable even if the binder is formed through a different process.
A teaches the binder is square shaped (see Fig. 12.). The reference is only required to teach one of the listed shapes for the first bonding body of the instant because the list only states possibilities, of which one must be chosen when constructing the invention of the instant.
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over the combination of P and A.
Regarding claim 18, P teaches the battery is a lithium battery [0038].
Claims 7-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180138470-A1 (P), in view of US-20130065109-A1 (A), and in further view of WO-2018049561-A1 (G).
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of P and A are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Both P and A are silent to if a height difference between a top end of the first bonding body and the lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface is H1, and a numerical range of H1 is H1 > 0.05 mm.
All heights specified for G are taken from p8/l29-41 (Test Sample #1).
G teaches a battery in packaging film (1,2) with edge banding (4) that is sealed by a main colloid (5, see Fig. 5) and a fixing colloid (6, see Fig. 6) which is disposed on the main colloid (p8/l13-18). The colloids of G also wrap around the edge banding in a similar manner to the first bonding body of A (see Figs 5-6). G teaches an example where the fixing colloid has an interior height (h5) of 1 mm (p8/l29-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to adopt the dimensions of the colloid of G when forming the first bonding body of the combination of P and A. It would have been obvious to do so because it would amount to no more than selecting dimensions known in the art of sealing edge banding for pouch type batteries in the application of an invention where no dimensions were specified.
While G does teach the inside of the main colloid is the longer side, the combination of P and A teach the outside of the first bonding body is the longer side, so these dimensions would be applied to ensure the outside of the first bonding body is still the long side. This would mean that the height of the outside of the first bonding body of P and A would be set to the height of the inside of the fixing colloid of G.
While the height of the fixing colloid is not measured from the top of the fixing colloid, but rather from the top of the edge banding, the height from the top to the bottom of the fixing colloid must be larger than 1 mm. still. In other words, the outside edge of the first bonding body would have a height of more than 1 mm. if it was measured from top to bottom. Therefore, the combination of P, A, and G would teach all of the claimed structural requirements of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, G teaches in the example, the main colloid has an outside height (h2) of 0.6 mm. (p8/l29-41). G does not explicitly teach the height of the fixing colloid on the outside, nor does G teach the height of the fixing colloid above the edge banding, but those heights must be greater than the measured heights of the main colloid because the fixing colloid is disposed over the first colloid (p8/l14-17).
When forming the first bonding body of P and A with the dimensions of the colloids of G, similar to the above, the inside height of the first bonding body P and A will be set to the outside height of the fixing colloid of G in order to place the shorter side on the inside of the edge banding. While the height of the fixing colloid above the edge banding is not specified by G, it must be greater than 0.6 mm. because the fixing colloid is applied on top of the main colloid. Therefore, the inside height of the first bonding body is still greater than 0.05 mm and less than the outside height of the combination of P, A, and G. Therefore, the combination of P, A and G teaches all of the claimed requirements of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, G teaches the distance between the inner edge of the fixing colloid and the inner edge of the edge banding (h4) is 0.1 mm. (p8/l29-41).
While G does teach the inside of the fixing colloid is the longer side, the combination of P and A teach the outside of the first bonding body is the longer side, so these dimensions would be applied to ensure the outside of the first bonding body is still the long side. This would mean that the distance between the outer edge of the first bonding body and the outer edge of the edge banding is 0.1 mm. because the inside of the fixing colloid of G would become the outside of the combination of P, A and G. 0.1 mm. is greater than 0 and less than 0.3 mm.
Therefore, the combination of P, A and G teaches all of the claimed requirements of claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, G teaches the distance between the outer edge of the main colloid and the outer edge of the edge banding (h3) is 0.05 mm. (p8/l29-41). G does not explicitly teach the corresponding distance for the fixing colloid, but it must be greater than h3 because the fixing colloid is formed over the main colloid (p8/l14-17). At the same time, it would be reasonable to say it isn’t significantly larger than 0.05 mm. as evidenced by the lack of a measurement of the fixing colloid.
When forming the first bonding body of P and A in the dimensions of G, as stated above in the rejection of claim 9, the dimensions of the outside of the fixing colloid are to become the inside dimensions of the first bonding member of P and A. This means that the first bonding member of P, A and G will have a distance between the inside edge of the first bonding member and the inside edge of the edge banding that is 0.05 mm.
0.05 mm. is less than 0.3 and greater than 0 mm., so the combination of P, A, and G teaches all of the requirements of claim 10 of the instant.
Regarding claim 12, G teaches the height of the main colloid (h1) is 0.20 mm. measured from the top of the edge banding. While G does not teach a height of the fixing colloid, it must have a height greater than that of the main colloid because it is disposed on the main colloid (p8/l14-17). At the same time, the height of the fixing colloid must not be significantly greater than that of the main colloid because G teaches the maximum height of the main colloid must not exceed the height of the battery cell (p7/l44-50) in order to achieve the benefit of ensure the thickness of the battery is minimized. If the fixing colloid were to exceed that height it would mean that it would have increased the thickness of the battery, so it must not in order to avoid nullifying the benefit of G. The height of the cell body of G is 3.3 mm. This sets a maximum height of the fixing colloid of 0.3 mm.
Therefore, when the first bonding body of P and A is formed with the dimensions of the fixing colloid of G, the difference in height between the maximum height of the first bonding body and the height of the edge banding must be less than 0.3 mm., which encompasses the range of the instant claim 12. This means that the combination of P, A and G teaches all of the claimed structural requirements of the instant claim 12.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20180138470-A1 (P), in view of US-20130065109-A1 (A), and in further view of US-20220384874-A1 (R), with reference to COi Rubber Products, Durometer* Conversion Chart (Year: 2017).
Claim 15 is being examined under the following interpretation in view of the 112(b) rejection as explained above. The examiner is interpreting the language “The greater the drawing force between the first bonding body and the edge banding in the direction perpendicular to the edge banding, the greater the hardness of the first bonding body” to be evidence that the properties of hardness and drawing force have a direct correlation.
Regarding claim 15, the teachings of the combination of P and A are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
P and A are silent to a drawing force perpendicular to the edge banding between the first bonding body and the edge banding.
R teaches a heat dissipating adhesive layer with a shore D hardness of 67 for use in a battery module with pouch-type battery cells [0086]. R teaches the benefit of the heat dissipating adhesive layer is that it allows the Y-cap to be controlled [0101].
While shore D hardness and shore A hardness cannot be directly related, by relative comparison using the COi Rubber Durometer Conversion Chart, it can be shown that a material with a Shore D of 67 is equivalent to a Shore A of over 100, which clearly falls in the disclosed range of the instant (greater than 20 A, instant [0023]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention would have found it obvious to use the heat dissipating adhesive layer of R as the first bonding body of P and A in order to achieve the benefit of allowing control of the Y-cap of the battery cell. It would have been obvious to do because doing so would amount to no more than selecting a known material for a binder in the field of batteries to achieve a known benefit of allowing the control of heat dissipation.
The shore hardness of the heat dissipating adhesive layer of R falls within the disclosed range of the first bonding body of the instant, which is greater than 20 A. As stated above, the hardness and drawing force have a direct relationship. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that, because the hardness falls within the disclosed range of the instant, the drawing force of the adhesive layer of R must also fall within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.01 kg/mm.
Therefore, claim 15 is unpatentable over the combination of P, A, and R.
Regarding claim 16, the hardness of the heat dissipating adhesive of R was measured to be 67 using Shore D hardness [0086], which falls within the claimed range of greater than 20 A as explained in the rejection of claim 15. Therefore, claim 16 is unpatentable over the combination of P, A, and R.
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/354,854. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, see the table showing the comparison.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Claim 1
Reference Claims 1 and 2
A battery, comprising: a battery cell body and a packaging housing, the packaging housing having an edge banding and a cavity for accommodating the battery cell body, and the edge banding having a cross section cut along a thickness direction of the edge banding, wherein the edge banding extends upwards along a side surface of the battery cell body, a side surface, close to the battery cell body, of the edge banding is an inner side surface, a side surface, away from the battery cell body, of the edge banding is an outer side surface, the cross section is provided with a first bonding body, the first bonding body wraps the cross section, a part of the inner side surface of the edge banding, and a part of the outer side surface of the edge banding,
Claim 1: A battery, comprising a battery cell body and a packaging housing, wherein a cavity for accommodating the battery cell body is provided inside the packaging housing, an edge of the packaging housing has an edge banding, and the edge banding has a cross section cut along a thickness direction of the edge banding; the edge banding extends upwardly along a side surface of the battery cell body, a side surface, close to the battery cell body, of the edge banding is an inner side surface, a side surface, away from the battery cell body, of the edge banding is an outer side surface, a first bonding body is disposed on the cross section, and the first bonding body wraps the cross section, a part of the inner side surface, and a part of the outer side surface;
and a lower edge of the first bonding body on the inner side surface is higher than a lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface.
Claim 2: The battery according to claim 1, wherein a lower edge of the first bonding body on the outer side surface is higher than a lower edge of the first bonding body on the inner side surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 210092147 U, used in rejection in related application US 18/354,854.
US-20230361397-A1, Figs. 1-3 are applicable as prior art to the instant due to the shared filing date of the reference and the instant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights