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
1. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15 in the reply filed on 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/01/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/28/2023, 05/06/2024, 11/20/2024, 02/25/2025, 01/05/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
4. Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 07/01/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. Claims 16-19 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daub et al. (Pub. No. US 20210028416 A1) in view of Takabayashi et al. (Pub. No. US 20190237742 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Daub teaches a battery cell (1, Fig. 1, see [0028]) comprising: an electrode assembly (cell winding, see [0028]) including a positive electrode plate (cathode, see [0029]) and a negative electrode plate (anode, see [0029]); an exterior container (2, Fig. 2, see [0028]) that is provided with an opening (6, Fig. 2, see [0028] where the interior is labelled 6, but also points to the opening present in Fig. 2) that accommodates the electrode assembly (cell winding, see [0028]); a sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) that is provided with a terminal portion insertion hole (15, Fig. 2, see [0029]) and an electrolyte solution injection hole (11, Fig. 2, see [0029]) and that seals the opening (6, Fig. 2, see [0028]) of the exterior container (2, Fig. 2, see [0028], see Fig. 2 where 7 seals the opening of the case 3); a terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) that extends through the terminal portion insertion hole (15, Fig. 2, see [0029], see Fig. 3 where 12 of 9 extends through 15, see [0029] both 8 and 9 include a portion 12); a current collector (current collector, see [0029]) electrically connected (see [0029] where 12 is electrically connected to the electrodes via a current collector, therefore the current collector is in turn electrically connected to the electrodes) to the positive electrode plate (cathode, see [0029]) or the negative electrode plate (anode, see [0029]); and a resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) having a first portion (17, Fig. 2, see [0030]), a second portion (21, Fig. 2, see [0030]), the first portion (17, Fig. 2, see [0030]) being a portion that insulates the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) from each other (see Fig. 2 and 3 where a portion of 16 is between 8 and 9, see [0030] 17 is arranged between underside of terminal and cover plate) outside the exterior container (2, Fig. 2, see [0028], see Fig. 3 where the portion is outside the exterior container), the second portion (21, Fig. 2, see [0030]) being a portion that insulates the current collector (current collector, see [0029]) and the sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) from each other inside the exterior container (2, Fig. 2, see [0028], see Fig. 2 and [0030] where 21 covers an underside of 7, therefore it would prevent a current collector from contacting 7), and the first portion (17, Fig. 2, see [0030]) and the second portion (21, Fig. 2, see [0030]) of the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are molded to be integrated together (see [0030] where 16 is formed through injection molding, see Fig. 2 where 17 and 21 are integrated parts of 16), but fails to teach wherein the resin insulator includes a third portion, the third portion being a portion that has a tubular shape and that communicates with the electrolyte solution injection hole, wherein the third portion of the resin insulator includes a shielding portion that shields between at least a portion of the electrolyte solution injection hole and the electrode assembly, and wherein the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion are molded to be integrated together.
However, Takabayashi teaches wherein the resin insulator (60, Fig. 2A, see [0056]) includes a third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060]), the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060]) being a portion that has a tubular shape (tubular member, Fig. 2A, see [0060]) and that communicates with the electrolyte solution injection hole (21, Fig. 2A, see [0028], see Fig. 2A where 66 is formed below 21), wherein the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060]) of the resin insulator (60, Fig. 2A, see [0056]) includes a shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062]) that shields between at least a portion of the electrolyte solution injection hole (21, Fig. 2A, see [0028]) and the electrode assembly (12, Fig. 2A, see [0062] where 70 is below 21 and changes flow of electrolytic solution), and wherein, the second portion (64, Fig. 2A, see [0056], see [0057] where 64 is between 41 and lid 20), and the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060]) are molded to be integrated together (see Fig. 2A where 64 and 66 are integrated together into 60), wherein the shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062]) includes a strip-shaped portion (see Fig. 6 where 70 is a strip shaped portion) formed to extend across the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060], see Fig. 6 where 70 extends across 66) having the tubular shape (tubular member, Fig. 2A, see [0060]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Daub to add a tubular member 66 which communicates with the electrolyte injection hole and includes parallel protrusions 68 holding a covering member 70 having a strip shaped portion extending across the tubular member and is integrated with the flat area 21 of plastic layer 16 as taught by Takabayashi to reduce flow rate of injected electrolyte, disperse the electrolyte over a wider area, and prevent the electrode assembly from being damaged, delaminated, or flaked off (see [0070] of Takabayashi). Further Daub teaches that modifications can be made (see [0021] of Daub).
Therefore Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the first portion (17, Fig. 2, see [0030]), the second portion (21, Fig. 2, see [0030]), and the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060] of Takabayashi, see modifications above) of the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are molded to be integrated together (see [0030] where 16 is formed through injection molding, see Fig. 2 where 17 and 21 are integrated parts of 16, see modifications above where 66 and 21 of 16 are integrated together).
Regarding claim 2, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration).
Regarding claim 3, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein at least a portion of a contact surface (24, Fig. 3, see [0031] where 24 is on both 8/9 and 7) of the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) or the sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) with the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) has a rough surface (see [0031] where pores, undercuts, projections, or ducts are etched into areas 24 using laser structuring, it is the Examiner’s position this is a rough surface).
Regarding claim 4, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration), and at least a portion of a contact surface (24, Fig. 3, see [0031] where 24 is on both 8/9 and 7) of the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) or the sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) with the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) has a rough surface (see [0031] where pores, undercuts, projections, or ducts are etched into areas 24 using laser structuring, it is the Examiner’s position this is a rough surface).
Regarding claim 5, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062] of Takabayashi, see modifications above) includes a strip-shaped portion (see Fig. 6 where 70 is a strip shaped portion, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) formed to extend across the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060], see Fig. 6 where 70 extends across 66, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) having the tubular shape (tubular member, Fig. 2A, see [0060] of Takabayashi, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 8, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration), and the shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062] of Takabayashi, see modifications above) includes a strip-shaped portion (see Fig. 6 where 70 is a strip shaped portion, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) formed to extend across the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060], see Fig. 6 where 70 extends across 66, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) having the tubular shape (tubular member, Fig. 2A, see [0060] of Takabayashi, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 9, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration), at least a portion of a contact surface (24, Fig. 3, see [0031] where 24 is on both 8/9 and 7) of the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) or the sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) with the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) has a rough surface (see [0031] where pores, undercuts, projections, or ducts are etched into areas 24 using laser structuring, it is the Examiner’s position this is a rough surface), and the shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062] of Takabayashi, see modifications above) includes a strip-shaped portion (see Fig. 6 where 70 is a strip shaped portion, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) formed to extend across the third portion (66, Fig. 2A, see [0060], see Fig. 6 where 70 extends across 66, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) having the tubular shape (tubular member, Fig. 2A, see [0060] of Takabayashi, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 10, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062] of Takabayashi, see modifications above) includes a portion (see Fig. 6 where 70 is a strip shaped portion, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) formed to have a substantially polygonal shape (see Fig. 6 of Takabayashi where 70 has a rectangular shape which is a polygonal shape, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 11, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration), and the shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062] of Takabayashi, see modifications above) includes a portion (see Fig. 6 where 70 is a strip shaped portion, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) formed to have a substantially polygonal shape (see Fig. 6 of Takabayashi where 70 has a rectangular shape which is a polygonal shape, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 12, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration), at least a portion of a contact surface (24, Fig. 3, see [0031] where 24 is on both 8/9 and 7) of the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) or the sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) with the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) has a rough surface (see [0031] where pores, undercuts, projections, or ducts are etched into areas 24 using laser structuring, it is the Examiner’s position this is a rough surface), and the shielding portion (70, Fig. 2A, see [0062] of Takabayashi, see modifications above) includes a portion (see Fig. 6 where 70 is a strip shaped portion, see Takabayashi, see modifications above) formed to have a substantially polygonal shape (see Fig. 6 of Takabayashi where 70 has a rectangular shape which is a polygonal shape, see modifications above).
Regarding claim 13, Daub in view of Takabayashi fails to teach wherein the shielding portion is formed only on one side with respect to a center of the third portion having the tubular shape.
However, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches the same structure of the electrode assembly and teaches a shielding portion between a portion of the electrolyte solution injection hole and the electrode assembly. Further, it has been held that changes in shape cannot be the basis for patentability absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the shape of the shielding portion is a matter of choice and therefore the shielding portion formed only on one side with respect to a center of the third portion having the tubular shape is obvious over the shielding portion as taught by Daub in view of Takabayashi.
Regarding claim 14, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration), but fails to teach the shielding portion is formed only on one side with respect to a center of the third portion having the tubular shape.
However, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches the same structure of the electrode assembly and teaches a shielding portion between a portion of the electrolyte solution injection hole and the electrode assembly. Further, it has been held that changes in shape cannot be the basis for patentability absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the shape of the shielding portion is a matter of choice and therefore the shielding portion formed only on one side with respect to a center of the third portion having the tubular shape is obvious over the shielding portion as taught by Daub in view of Takabayashi.
Regarding claim 15, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches wherein the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) and the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) are integrated together by insert molding (see [0030] where 8/9 are connected to 7 via the plastic layer 16 through injection molding, therefore 8 and 9 are inserted into 16 during injection molding, see Fig. 3 showing the integration), at least a portion of a contact surface (24, Fig. 3, see [0031] where 24 is on both 8/9 and 7) of the terminal portion (8/9, see Figs. 2 and 3, see [0029]) or the sealing plate (7, Fig. 2, see [0029]) with the resin insulator (16, Fig. 2, see [0030]) has a rough surface (see [0031] where pores, undercuts, projections, or ducts are etched into areas 24 using laser structuring, it is the Examiner’s position this is a rough surface), but fails to teach the shielding portion is formed only on one side with respect to a center of the third portion having the tubular shape.
However, Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches the same structure of the electrode assembly and teaches a shielding portion between a portion of the electrolyte solution injection hole and the electrode assembly. Further, it has been held that changes in shape cannot be the basis for patentability absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the shape of the shielding portion is a matter of choice and therefore the shielding portion formed only on one side with respect to a center of the third portion having the tubular shape is obvious over the shielding portion as taught by Daub in view of Takabayashi.
7. Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daub et al. (Pub. No. US 20210028416 A1) in view of Takabayashi et al. (Pub. No. US 20190237742 A1) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Won et al. (Pub. No. US 20250118879 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Daub in view of Takabayashi fails to teach wherein a through hole is formed in the strip-shaped portion of the shielding portion.
However, Won teaches wherein a through hole (74, Fig. 6, see [0116]) is formed in the strip-shaped portion (strip-shaped portion, see Fig. 6 below) of the shielding portion (injector inlet structure, Fig. 6, see [0107]).
PNG
media_image1.png
356
340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Daub in view of Takabayashi to add a through-hole into the strip-shaped portion of the shielding portion as taught by Won to lower the momentum or kinetic energy of the electrolyte solution (see [0116] of Won). Further Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches that modifications can be made (see [0021] of Daub).
Regarding claim 7, Daub in view of Takabayashi fails to teach wherein the strip-shaped portion includes a first strip-shaped portion extending in a first direction and a second strip-shaped portion extending in a direction intersecting the first direction.
However, Won teaches wherein the shielding portion (injector inlet structure, Fig. 4 below, see [0107]) includes a strip-shaped portion (first and second strip shaped portion, see Fig. 4 below) includes a first strip-shaped portion (first strip shaped portion, see Fig. 4 below) extending in a first direction (1st direction, see Fig. 4 below) and a second strip-shaped portion (second strip shaped portion, see Fig. 4 below) extending in a direction (2nd direction, see Fig. 4 below) intersecting the first direction (1st direction, see Fig. 4 below where the 1st direction intersects the 2nd direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
350
436
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Daub in view of Takabayashi such that shielding portion as taught by Daub in view of Takabayashi is formed to include a first and second strip shaped portion wherein the first portion is intersecting the second portion as taught by Won as an art effective equivalent shape for a shielding structure to reduce the momentum and kinetic energy of the electrolyte injected (see [0111] of Won). Further, it has been held that changes in shape cannot be the basis for patentability absent persuasive evidence the particular configuration is significant. Further Daub in view of Takabayashi teaches that modifications can be made (see [0021] of Daub).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants argument that amended claims 16-19 should be examined along with claims 1-15. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the applicant has elected Group I claims 1-15 without traverse, and further inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process such as assembling the components in a different order.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS CALEB MARROQUIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at 571-270-7078. 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.
/DOUGLAS C MARROQUIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights