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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings received on 08/31/2023 were received and are acceptable.
Specification
The specifications received on 08/31/2023 was received and are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al (JP2006185713A, hereinafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki discloses “a battery case (Suzuki, [0003], battery case 2), comprising a body (Suzuki, [0026], …single aluminum laminate film…) wherein the case body is formed by a sheet-shaped plate being bent (Suzuki, [0026], …battery case 2 can be formed by folding a single…) and welded (Suzuki, [0026], …the welded area…), the plate has a first end and a second end; after the case body is bent, the first end is welded to the second end (Suzuki, [0026], …aluminum laminate film overlaps from above and below and is heat-sealed…), and a welding position at which the first end is welded to the second end is compressed to form an explosion-proof recess (Suzuki, [0019], …wrinkled portion 5 is formed by uneven portion 6a…)”
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki disclose “the explosion-proof recess extends to reach at least one of the first end and the second end (Suzuki, [0018], …left and right wrinkles 5 on the front side are formed from…to the front ends…)”
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki disclose “each of an outer side wall and an inner side wall of the case body defines the explosion-proof recess, the explosion-proof recess in the outer side wall is directly facing towards the explosion-proof recess in the inner side wall” (See Fig.1 wrinkled portion 5 the two walls that form the wrinkled portion).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki discloses “a battery, comprising a battery and a battery case (Suzuki, [0001]), wherein, the battery case comprises a case body (Suzuki, [0026], …single aluminum laminate film…), the case body is a one-piece (Suzuki, [0026], …battery case 2 can be formed by folding a single…) and integral structure defining a receiving space, the battery is received in the receiving space (Suzuki, Fig.3); a wall of the case body defines an explosion-proof recess configured to release a high pressure generated inside the case body (Suzuki, [0019], …wrinkled portion 5 is formed by uneven portion 6a…)”
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki discloses “each of an outer side wall and an inner side wall of the case body defines the explosion-proof recess, the explosion-proof recess in the outer side wall is directly facing towards the explosion-proof recess in the inner side wall” (See Fig.1 wrinkled portion 5 the two walls that form the wrinkled portion).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP2006185713A, hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Shimamura et al (JP2005116235A, hereinafter Shimamura).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki discloses “a weld seam is formed at the welding position of the first end and the second end” as the welding process is not two dimensional and will necessarily create a weld seam no matter how small, Suzuki does not disclose “a length of the explosion-proof recess extends in a length direction of the weld seam”. However, Shimamura discloses a gas release mechanism disposed on a heat-sealed portion of a laminated casing (Shimamura, [0007]) where said gas release mechanism can be formed along at least one entire side of the heat-sealed case (Shimamura, [0075]). Thus, allowing the direction in which gas is released in the event of an anomaly to be set in advance (Shimamura, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to extend the wrinkled portion of Suzuki along the entire side as described in Shimamura to allow the direction in which gas is released to be set in advance.
Regarding claim 3, Shimamura discloses “the length of the explosion-proof recess is equal to the length of the weld seam” (Shimamura, [0075]).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki disclose “the explosion-proof recess extends to reach at least one of the first end and the second end” (Suzuki, [0018], …left and right wrinkles 5 on the front side are formed from…to the front ends…).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki disclose “each of an outer side wall and an inner side wall of the case body defines the explosion-proof recess, the explosion-proof recess in the outer side wall is directly facing towards the explosion-proof recess in the inner side wall” (See Fig.1 wrinkled portion 5 the two walls that form the wrinkled portion).
Claim(s) 4/15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP2006185713A, hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Merrill et al (US20080148554A1, hereinafter Merrill).
Regarding claim 4/15, Suzuki does not disclose “a width of the explosion-proof recess is in a range of 0.3mm to 2mm”. However, Merrill discloses a pressure relief vent in the housing of a battery (Merrill, [0005]). Merrill further discloses that said pressure relief vent can have a width of at least 0.5mm (Merrill, [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the geometry described in the Merrill with the wrinkled portion of Suzuki to better protect the battery during instances of overpressure which might lead to explosion.
Claim(s) 9, 11, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP2006185713A, hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Ray et al (US20070275295A1, hereinafter Ray).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki does not disclose “a thickness d of a side wall of the case body is greater than a depth h of the explosion-proof recess, and 0.15 <= d <= 0.7 mm, 0.05 <= h <= 0.2 mm”. However, Ray discloses an enhanced pressure relief vent formed in a wall of a container of an electrochemical cell (Ray, [0008]). Ray further discloses a depth of the pressure relief vent of 5.8 mils or approximately 0.1473 mm and a thickness of the wall of 8.3 mils or approximately 0.2108 mm. Both of these fall within the given ranges of 0.15 <= d <= 0.7 mm and 0.05 <= h <= 0.2 mm (Ray, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the geometry described in the Ray with the wrinkled portion of Suzuki to better protect the battery during instances of overpressure which might lead to explosion.
Regarding claim 11/19, Suzuki does not disclose “the explosion-proof recess has a recess bottom and two recess side walls, the two recess side walls are opposite each other, the recess bottom is disposed between the two recess side walls, and angle between the recess bottom and each of the two recess side wall is in a rage of 100 degrees to 160 degrees”. However, Ray discloses a groove with sidewalls angled approximately 68 degrees relative to each other (Ray, [0037]). For a symmetrical cross-section the internal bottom to sidewall angle would be calculated as 90 degrees plus (68 degrees divided by 2) which would equal 124 degrees falling within the claimed range of 100 to 160 degrees.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the geometry of the Ray with the wrinkled portion of Suzuki to better optimize the battery.
And In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
Claim(s) 12-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP2006185713A, hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Shimamura et al (JP2005116235A, hereinafter Shimamura) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Yamada et al (US20140072841A1, hereinafter Yamada).
Regarding claim 12/20, neither Suzuki nor Shimamura disclose “a length of the case body is in a range of 100mm to 2500mm”. However, Yamada discloses a battery case with a safety valve (Yamada, abstract), where the battery case can have a length of 130mm (Yamada, [0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the geometry of the Yamada with the battery case of Suzuki to better optimize the battery.
And In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki discloses “an opening of the explosion-proof recess defined in the outer side wall and an opening of the explosion-proof recess defined in the inner side wall face opposite to each other; and an orthographic projection of a bottom of the explosion-proof recess defined in the outer side wall the explosion-proof recess defined in the inner side wall directly locates on a bottom of the explosion-proof recess defined in the inner side wall” (Suzuki, Fig.1 see wrinkled portion 5 with top side being the inner side wall and the bottom side being the outer side wall with the bottoms of each locate on each other)
Claim(s) 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP2006185713A, hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Shimamura et al (JP2005116235A, hereinafter Shimamura) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Ray et al (US20070275295A1, hereinafter Ray).
Regarding claim 10/18, Suzuki nor Shimamura do not disclose “a thickness d of a side wall of the case body is greater than a depth h of the explosion-proof recess, and 0.15 <= d <= 0.7 mm, 0.05 <= h <= 0.2 mm”. However, Ray discloses an enhanced pressure relief vent formed in a wall of a container of an electrochemical cell (Ray, [0008]). Ray further discloses a depth of the pressure relief vent of 5.8 mils or approximately 0.1473 mm and a thickness of the wall of 8.3 mils or approximately 0.2108 mm. Both of these fall within the given ranges of 0.15 <= d <= 0.7 mm and 0.05 <= h <= 0.2 mm (Ray, [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to use the geometry described in the Ray with the wrinkled portion of Suzuki to better protect the battery during instances of overpressure which might lead to explosion.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP2006185713A, hereinafter Suzuki) in view of Shimamura et al (JP2005116235A, hereinafter Shimamura) as applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Yamada et al (US20140072841A1, hereinafter Yamada) as applied to claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki discloses “an opening of the explosion-proof recess defined in the outer side wall and an opening of the explosion-proof recess defined in the inner side wall face opposite to each other; and an orthographic projection of a bottom of the explosion-proof recess defined in the outer side wall the explosion-proof recess defined in the inner side wall directly locates on a bottom of the explosion-proof recess defined in the inner side wall” (Suzuki, Fig.1 see wrinkled portion 5 with top side being the inner side wall and the bottom side being the outer side wall with the bottoms of each locate on each other).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at 5712728760. 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.
/JOSHUA P BISTANY-RIEBMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
