DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 2026-06-03, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 3, and 5 have been amended; Claim 2 has been canceled; Claims 12-14 have been added.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending and are examined herein. This is a Final Rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims are rejected because the limitation “adjacent to a [first or second] edge” is indefinite. The specification does not use the term “adjacent,” and does not define the metes and bounds of the term. While the term might be interpreted as a mere comparative to distinguish the relationships between two or more features, it lacks any objective boundary. Applicant has amended the claims to include “adjacent” in an apparent attempt to distinguish it from Kawasaki (US 2015/0064550) which teaches an off-center feature, which Applicant argues is not “adjacent.” While “adjacent an edge” might be clearly distinguishable from a dead-center feature, it is indefinite when the supposed novelty of the limitation hangs on the degree of adjacency. As it happens, Kawasaki nonetheless reads on the claim limitation, because the edges are not clearly specified, but the claims are nonetheless still indefinite. They have been interpreted broadly as “near” or as “off-center” or “closer to one side.” Claim 13 is also indefinite because they also use the term “adjacent to a[n] edge.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawasaki (US 2015/0064550 to Kawasaki et al.).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawasaki teaches:
a battery cell comprising an outer housing with a top and a bottom, and a cell body 4 mounted inside the outer housing, wherein a gap is present between an outer wall of the cell body and an inner wall of the outer housing (Fig. 5, ¶ 0022)
an upper cover 3 covering the top end, wherein the upper cover is provided with an electrolyte injection hole 21 and a degassing hole 22 both over the gap (Fig. 5, ¶ 0028)
PNG
media_image1.png
666
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and a “conduit” 3e in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, connected to the electrolyte injection hole 21 and a lower end that extends into the gap and toward the bottom end (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0053-0054)
PNG
media_image2.png
410
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein outlets of the electrolyte injection hole and the degassing hole are both “vertically aligned with the gap,” within the meaning of the term, because the outlets of the holes are directly over the gap such that fluids can enter and exit the holes going directly from the gap to the other side
The instant specification describes “alignment with the gap” as being configured “such that the electrolyte can directly enter the gap 20 through the electrolyte injection hole 31 during the electrolyte injection” (¶ 0079 of PGPUB US 2023/0395957). In Kawasaki, the electrolyte can directly enter the “gap,” defined as a space between an electrode body and a side wall of the housing, in a vertical direction, within the clear meaning of the claim limitations.
Regarding Claim 3, Kawasaki teaches:
wherein both holes are “adjacent,” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word, to front- and rear-facing “first” and “second” edges (i.e. long edges that are separated by a width of the top cover) opposite to each other (Figs.)
Regarding Claim 7, Kawasaki teaches:
an insulating sheet 9 mounted on the bottom end, forming a supporting plate within the broadest reasonable interpretation of that word (Fig. 3, ¶ 0029)
Regarding Claims 8-9, Kawasaki teaches:
sealing member 31 detachably mounted in the electrolyte injection hole and degassing hole (Fig. 6, ¶ 0035)
Regarding Claims 10-11, Kawasaki teaches:
a battery configured to supply electric energy (abstract, etc.)
Regarding Claim 13, Kawasaki teaches:
a battery cell comprising an outer housing with a top and a bottom, and a cell body 4 mounted inside the outer housing, wherein a gap is present between an outer wall of the cell body and an inner wall of the outer housing (Fig. 5, ¶ 0022)
an upper cover 3 covering the top end, wherein the upper cover is provided with an electrolyte injection hole 21 and a degassing hole 22 both over the gap (Fig. 5, ¶ 0028)
PNG
media_image1.png
666
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a “conduit” 3e in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, connected to the electrolyte injection hole 21 and a lower end that extends into the gap and toward the bottom end (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0053-0054)
PNG
media_image2.png
410
408
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein both holes are “adjacent,” within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word, to front- and rear-facing “first” and “second” edges (i.e. long edges that are separated by a width of the top cover) opposite to each other (Figs.)
Regarding Claim 14, Kawasaki teaches:
a battery cell comprising an outer housing with a top and a bottom, and a cell body 4 mounted inside the outer housing, wherein a gap is present between an outer wall of the cell body and an inner wall of the outer housing (Fig. 5, ¶ 0022)
an upper cover 3 covering the top end, wherein the upper cover is provided with an electrolyte injection hole 21 and a degassing hole 22 both over the gap (Fig. 5, ¶ 0028)
a straight “conduit” 3e in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, connected to the electrolyte injection hole 21 and a lower, straight end that extends into the gap and toward the bottom end (Fig. 6B, ¶ 0053-0054)
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 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US 2015/0064550 to Kawasaki et al.).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawasaki does not explicitly teach:
hole diameters
Kawasaki broadly teaches a prismatic cell with dimensions the same order of magnitude as the instant invention. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A. It would have been obvious to size the holes to standard injection tips and the like in the art, including within the instant range, absent evidence of unexpected results.
Regarding Claim 12, Kawasaki teaches:
wherein the gap comprises first and second gaps on two sides of the cell body (Fig. 5)
Kawasaki does not explicitly teach:
the outlets of the injection and degassing holes are vertically aligned with the two gaps on two sides of the cell body
Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to place the two outlets anywhere along the top of the cover, including the two sides, since any location serves the same purpose, absent a showing of unexpected results for the claimed combination, commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US 2015/0064550 to Kawasaki et al.) in view of Lee (US 2012/0135283 to Lee) and Zhou (US Patent No. 11,088,398 to Zhou et al.), with reference to Stocchiero (US Patent No. 5,498,488 to Stocchiero) for evidence of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 4, Kawasaki teaches:
the gap comprises gaps that extend on both sides (Fig. 5)
Kawasaki does not explicitly teach:
the cell body having first and second arc-shaped protrusions on one side, third and fourth arc-shaped protrusions on a second side, with the first and second gaps situated within the first and second protrusions, and the third and fourth protrusions, and the outer wall of the housing, with each hole aligned with a gap
PNG
media_image3.png
766
574
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lee, however, teaches a standard prismatic cell configuration having arc shaped protrusions at the middle sides of the cell body (Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to provide such cell bodies in the prismatic casing of Kawasaki, since they were conventional in the art for producing high-voltage cells (i.e. series-connected sub-cells). Zhou, meanwhile, from the same field of invention, regarding a secondary battery cell, teaches providing an injection hole 203 with a vertical conduit 404 into a gap 403 between the sidewall of a housing and a cell body (Fig. 4, columns 5 and 6), as well as an oppositely placed through hole 601 on the other end of the cell.
PNG
media_image4.png
948
438
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Stocchiero, meanwhile, also from the same field of invention, regarding an enclosed cell, teaches a vertical conduit extending down into a gap in the interior of the housing to carry injected electrolyte (Figs.).
Zhou and Stocchiero render obvious the placement of injection holes with conduits at an edge of a cell body, so that the conduit allows the electrolyte to flow into a gap between the cell body and the housing. Rearranging and/or duplicating parts has been found to be obvious. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CPPA 1950) and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, while rearrangement of known parts is obvious when the device operates in the same fashion towards the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.04, VI [R-6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the end pieces taught in Lee, with the motivation to secure the uncoated ends of the cell stack and attach a cell tab to be led out through the top of a prismatic housing, such as that taught in Kawasaki. It further would have been obvious to provide an injection hole vertically aligned with the gap at one end, and a degassing hole vertically aligned with the gap at the other end, since the prior art teaches separating such holes to opposite sides of the cell, and providing conduits down vertically into the gap to ensure even distribution and filling.
Regarding Claim 5, Kawasaki does not teach:
conduit distance
Zhou, however, teaches a conduit that extends into the cell. It would have been obvious to provide a conduit of arbitrary length down the side of the cells, since such conduits would serve the same purpose, and are constrained by well-understood engineering principles, like maximizing energy density, providing smooth flow, and the like. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and MPEP 2144 IV. A.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 2026-06-03 have been considered but do not place the application in condition for allowance. Claims 1-13 claims are rejected for indefiniteness under § 112. Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues that Kawasaki does not teach a “straight conduit” that “extends vertically into the gap” as now claimed. This is not found persuasive. Kawasaki teaches a “gap” within the meaning of the claim between the interior walls of the housing and the cell body that extends to the “gap” vertically above the cell body into which the straight conduit vertically descends. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “a gap is present between an outer wall of the cell body and an inner wall of the outer housing” reads on the gap in the annotated figures shown above.
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 Michael Dignan, whose telephone number is (571) 272-6425. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 10 AM and 6:30 PM. If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tiffany Legette, can be reached at (571)270-7078. Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule an in-person interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
/MICHAEL L DIGNAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights