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 .
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 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 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the first rivet" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0296272).
Regarding claim 12, Lee discloses a secondary battery 100 comprising: an electrode assembly 110, a case 140 holding the electrode assembly and having an opening at the top, a cap assembly 150 coupled to the case to close the opening, and terminals 120, 130 that include a protruding terminal part 122 (connection pin) that extends through the cap assembly to connect to a terminal plate at the top of the cap assembly (Paragraphs 0033, 0042, 0045 and Fig. 2).
As to claim 19, Lee teaches that the battery comprises collector plates 170 that are electrically connected to current collecting tabs of the electrode assembly and to the terminals 120, 130 (Paragraph 0041).
Lee teaches every limitation of claims 12 and 19 of the present invention and thus anticipates the claim.
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(s) 1, 4-11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0296272).
Regarding claim 1, the teachings of Lee have been discussed in paragraph 6 above. As to claim 4, Lee discloses that the terminal includes a terminal plate 156, a cap plate 151 coupled to the case, and a gasket that is inserted into terminal holes 151a to separate the cap plate from anything inserted into it (Paragraphs 0042, 0045 and Fig. 2). Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches that an insulation member 158 is placed between the terminal plate and the cap plate (Paragraph 0045 and Fig. 2). As to claim 6, Lee discloses that the battery comprises current collecting plates 170 that are connected to current collecting tabs 111, 112 (Paragraph 0040 and Fig. 2). Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches that the current collecting tabs are bent to surround opposite sides of the current collector plates (Paragraph 0063). As to claims 8, Lee shows in Fig. 2 that the current collecting tabs are bent so that there is a space between them where the terminal is located. Regarding claim 11, Lee shows in Fig. 3 that the terminal part 122 is inserted through the cap assembly so that the surface of the terminal part is exposed to the outside of the cap assembly. As to claim 20, teaches that a plurality of the battery cells can be connected to form a battery pack (Paragraph 0003).
Lee fails to specifically teach that the terminal comprises a rivet having an insertion hole into which the connection pin is inserted, that the rivet is inserted into the space between current collecting tabs, and that the rivet includes a guide groove.
Lee teaches that the terminal part 122 may penetrate the cap plate 151 and an upper portion may be riveted and fixed to the cap plate, such as by welding (Paragraphs 0042, 0050).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the terminal part of Lee could be inserted through a hole in a rivet that is placed in the cap plate because Lee teaches that the terminal part is riveted to the cap plate. Regarding claim 4, this would mean that the terminal part is coupled to the rivet. As to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the rivet would be inserted into the space between the current collecting tabs because the rivet would be in line with the terminal and cap plate hole which is in between the bent tabs. Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the rivet could include a guide groove because this is a well known characteristic of rivets that are coupled with objects being inserted into them.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0296272) in view of Byun (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0244309).
The teachings of Lee have been discussed in paragraphs 6 and 8 above.
Lee fails to disclose that the terminal plate and the rivet are formed of different materials, and that the rivet and terminal part are formed of the same material.
Byun discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 60 within a case 50, the case being closed by a cap assembly, and the cap assembly including rivets 11, 12, and rivet terminals 21, 22 (Paragraphs 0036, 0038, 0039). Byun shows in Fig. 2 that the rivets are part of the protruding terminal portion (connection pin) and thus are made of the same material. Byun teaches that the positive electrode rivet 11, the rivet terminals 21 and 22, and the bus bars 30 may be formed of similar metals, e.g., aluminum materials, and the negative electrode rivet 12 may be formed of a dissimilar metal, e.g., a copper material (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the terminal plate and rivet of Lee would be made of different materials because Byun teaches that the materials can be different, but similar so that welding is performed efficiently.
Claim(s) 13-15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0296272) in view of Zhou (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0074961).
The teachings of Lee have been discussed in paragraph 6 above. Lee teaches the arrangements of terminal part, terminal plate, cap plate, and insulating member, as recited in claims 14, 15, 17 and 18 of the present invention.
Lee fails to disclose that the case has two openings on opposite sides, wherein the openings are closed by first and second cap assemblies.
Regarding claim 13, Zhou discloses a power battery comprising a case 1, an electrode assembly 2 disposed in the case, a first cap assembly 3, and a second cap assembly 4 that are connected to openings of the case on opposing sides (Paragraph 0045 and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the cap assembly of Lee could be on a battery with terminals on opposing sides because Zhou teaches that these batteries are alternatives to batteries having both terminals on one side and shows that each terminal requires a cap assembly for connection of the terminals to the electrode assembly.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0296272) in view of Zhou (U.S. Patent Publication 2021/0074961) as applied to claims 13-15, 17 and 18 above, and further in view of Byun (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0244309).
The teachings of Lee and Zhou have been discussed in paragraph 10 above. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the materials of the first and second terminal parts of Lee and Zhou would be different since one represents the positive terminal and the other the negative terminal.
Lee and Zhou fail to disclose that the terminal part and rivet are made of the same material.
Byun discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly 60 within a case 50, the case being closed by a cap assembly, and the cap assembly including rivets 11, 12, and rivet terminals 21, 22 (Paragraphs 0036, 0038, 0039). Byun shows in Fig. 2 that the rivets are part of the protruding terminal portion (connection pin) and thus are made of the same material. Byun teaches that the positive electrode rivet 11, the rivet terminals 21 and 22, and the bus bars 30 may be formed of similar metals, e.g., aluminum materials, and the negative electrode rivet 12 may be formed of a dissimilar metal, e.g., a copper material (Paragraph 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that the terminal plate and rivet of Lee would be made of different materials because Byun teaches that the materials can be different, but similar so that welding is performed efficiently.
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 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-15 of copending Application No. 19/378359 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 19/378359 teaches a battery cell comprising: an electrode assembly; a case having an accommodation space formed therein to accommodate the electrode assembly; and a cap assembly coupled to the case to cover one open side of the case, wherein the cap assembly comprises: a cap plate including a first hole; a cylindrical terminal portion including an insertion hole and inserted into the first hole to be connected to the electrode assembly; wherein the current collector plate incudes a connection pin, and the insertion hole and the connection pin are welded to each other (claims 9 and 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 19/192349 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 19/192349 teaches a battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly including a first electrode, a second electrode and a separator; a case accommodating the electrode assembly and electrically connected to the first electrode; a cap plate connected to the case; a terminal member provided on the cap plate; and a pin member disposed on a core of the electrode assembly and electrically connected to the second electrode and the terminal member (claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 and 20 of copending Application No. 19/062026 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 19/062026 teaches a battery cell, comprising: a cell case including a sidewall forming an accommodation space therein and a top plate having a through-hole formed therein; an electrode terminal coupled to the through-hole and having a coupling groove formed in a bottom portion; an electrode assembly disposed in the accommodation space of the cell case; and a first current collector electrically connecting the electrode terminal to the electrode assembly, wherein the first current collector includes a connection terminal having a protrusion inserted and coupled to the coupling groove, wherein the protrusion is coupled to the electrode terminal by welding performed on an outer side of the cell case in a state of being inserted and coupled to the coupling groove, wherein the electrode terminal is rivet-coupled to the through-hole of the cell case (claims 1 and 8).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/970906 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/970906 teaches a battery cell comprising: a case with one side open and an accommodation space formed inside; an electrode assembly comprising a plurality of first electrodes electrically connected to a first electrode tab and a plurality of second electrodes electrically connected to a second electrode tab, which are alternately stacked, and disposed in the accommodation space; a current collector comprising a first electrode plate electrically connected to the first electrode tab and a second electrode plate electrically connected to the second electrode tab, and disposed in the accommodation space; and a cap assembly coupled to the one side of the case to seal the accommodation space and exposing at least a part of the first electrode plate and at least a part of the second electrode plate, wherein the first electrode tab is coupled to the electrode assembly so as to be disposed on a predetermined surface facing the current collector among a plurality of surfaces of the electrode assembly, and the second electrode tab is coupled to the electrode assembly so as to be spaced apart from the first electrode tab by a predetermined distance and disposed on the predetermined surface of the electrode assembly, wherein the current collector comprises protrusions that are inserted into electrode terminals on the cap assembly (claims 1, 10 and 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/462062 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Application No. 18/462062 teaches a battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly including a plurality of pole plates that are separated from one another and include positive pole plates coupled to a positive terminal of the battery cell and negative pole plates coupled to a negative terminal of the battery cell; one or more protective assemblies disposed on at least one side of the electrode assembly; and a case structured to provide an internal space to accommodate the electrode assembly, wherein at least one of the one or more protective assemblies comprises: a protective frame including an insulating material to electrically isolate the electrode assembly from the case; and a connection unit coupled to the protective frame and electrically connected to the electrode assembly, wherein a connection member electrically connects the current collecting member to the terminal, and wherein the terminal comprises a rivet having an insertion hole into which the connection member is inserted (claims 1, 3 and78).
Claims 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12191507. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12191507 teaches a battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly in which a plurality of electrode plates are stacked; a case having an internal space in which the electrode assembly is accommodated; a cap assembly coupled to the case and having a terminal portion disposed thereon; and a protective assembly disposed between the electrode assembly and the cap assembly and protecting the electrode assembly, wherein the protective assembly includes: a current collecting member electrically connected with the electrode assembly, and disposed between the cap assembly and the electrode assembly; a connection member disposed to electrically connect the current collecting member and the terminal portion; and a protective frame includes an insulating material and supports the current collecting member and the connection member, wherein the connection member protrudes toward the cap assembly, wherein the electrode assembly further includes an uncoated portion not coated with an active material and contact with the current collecting member, and wherein a portion of the uncoated portion is cut to form an avoidance portion for avoiding interference with the connection member.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY L RAYMOND whose telephone number is (571)272-6545. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 am-6 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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
BRITTANY L. RAYMOND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1722
/BRITTANY L RAYMOND/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights