DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-11 are pending and are examined herein. This is the first action on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 refers to a variable “a,” but this is not clearly marked and can produce confusion with the common article “a”. The variable should be capitalized, or marked by quotation marks, or a new symbol should be chosen. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 3 is 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 3 requires that the injection hole and the degassing hole are each “provided on an end of the upper cover.” Reference to “an end of the upper cover” appears to be a relative term without clear metes and bounds. The instant drawings, for example, show space between the holes and the edge of the top cover. While the holes are closer to the end edges than the absolute middle line, it is not clear what does and does not qualify as an “end of the upper cover.” Do two holes placed at roughly one quarter and three quarters the length of the cover qualify? Why or why not? The claim has been interpreted broadly as a structural relation in which the two holes are disposed in a line along the cover, such that one hole is closer to one end, and the other hole is closer to the other end.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 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 and both are in communication with the gap (Fig. 5, ¶ 0028)
PNG
media_image1.png
700
624
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
Regarding Claim 2, Kawasaki teaches:
both the injection hole and the degassing hole provided “in alignment with the gap” insofar as they are in fluid communication with the gap
Regarding Claim 3, Kawasaki teaches:
wherein one hole 21 is closer to one end and the other hole 22 is closer to the other end of the top cover
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.)
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 6 is 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.
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) in view of Yang (CN 214043803 to Yang, the Office to provided machine English translation).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawasaki teaches:
gaps 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). Yang, meanwhile, from the same field of invention, regarding a prismatic cell with an injection hole, teaches providing a conduit that extends to the sides of the housing to improve electrolyte injection flow (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to provide such a conduit in the holes of Kawasaki, with the motivation of improving electrolyte flow down the side(s) of the housing, as described in Yang.
PNG
media_image4.png
292
720
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The Office has interpreted the requirement for “alignment” as one of fluid communication. Insofar as the holes are not aligned in a plan-, overhead-view of the cell with the gaps, it would have been obvious to place the injection and degassing holes at a variety of spots along the top cover, including the ends. See e.g. US Patent No. 10,003,061 for evidence of ordinary skill in the art in this regard. 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].
Regarding Claim 5, Kawasaki does not teach:
conduit distance
Yang, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent No. 9,960,406
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