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 .
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.
Claims 6-13 are 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 6 recites the limitations "the first boss portion and the second boss portion” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. In particular, claim 6 depends from claim 5 which in turn depends from claim 2, and neither of claims 2 nor 5 require a boss portion and a second boss portion. For examination purposes, and to ensure broadest patent protection while maintaining a definite claim scope, the instant claim is considered to have depended from claim 3.
Claim 7 is similarly rejected as set forth above due to dependency from claim 6.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the first boss portion and the second boss portion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. In particular, claim 8 depends from claim 2 which does not require a boss portion and a second boss portion. For examination purposes, and to ensure broadest patent protection while maintaining a definite claim scope, the instant claim is considered to have depended from claim 3.
Claims 9-13 are similarly rejected as set forth above due to dependency from claim 8.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein: the first rising portion is formed by part of a peripheral wall of a cylindrical body with the first boss portion as a bottom surface, and the second rising portion is formed by a remaining part of the peripheral wall of the cylindrical body.” However, it is unclear as to how the second rising portion, which is constituted by the second snap-fit body relative to the second boss portion, can be formed by a remaining part of the peripheral wall of the cylindrical body from which the first rising portion is formed. That is, claim 9 is a further dependent of claim 2 branch which requires the first and second snap-fit bodies to be arranged at opposite ends of a battery cell body. A review of the instant specification discloses that, after snap-fitting the first and second snap-fit bodies, the first rising portion, the first boss portion, the second rising portion and the second boss portions form a cylindrical body together [PgPublication – ¶0119-120; Fig. 8]. Thus, for examination purposes, and in light of the instant specification, the instant claim is interpreted to have recited: --wherein: the first rising portion is formed by part of a peripheral wall of the first boss portion, and the second rising portion is formed by part of a peripheral wall of the second boss portion, such that, in a state in which the first snap-fit body of one of the any two adjacent battery cells is snap-fit to the second snap-fit body of the other one of the any two adjacent battery cells, the first rising portion, the first boss portion, the second rising portion and the second boss portions form a cylindrical body together.--
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) 1-3, 5-6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerhard (DE494929C; foreign copy and machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Gerhard discloses a battery (dry cell battery [pars. 0001,0005-7; Figs. 1-6]), comprising:
two or more battery cells (several elements including upper and lower elements 1 and 2) arranged in a first direction (e.g., connected in series);
wherein:
one of a cathode and an anode of each of the battery cells (one of electrodes 3a and 4b) is configured with a first interlocking body, the other one of the cathode and the anode (the other of electrodes 3a and 4b) of each of the battery cells is configured with a second interlocking body; and
the first interlocking body of one of any two adjacent battery cells is interlocked to the second interlocking body of the other one of the any two adjacent battery cells, and movement of the battery cells connected by interlocking the first interlocking body to the second interlocking body in the first direction is limited.
Gerhard further discloses several examples in which that the first and second interlocking bodies are interlocked together including, for example, by snap-fit configuration (e.g., push button 6 engaging socket 7, or spring-loaded slotted sleeve 5 into which head of electrode 4a engages) [pars. 0010,0014; Figs. 2,6] which anticipates the claimed invention, wherein the first and second interlocking bodies are snap-fit bodies which interlock in a snap-fit manner to interlock any two adjacent cells such that movement of the battery cells connected by snap-fitting the first snap-fit body to the second snap-fit body in the first direction is limited.
Regarding Claim 2, Gerhard discloses wherein: each of the battery cells has a battery cell body, and the cathode and the anode arranged at opposite ends of the battery cell body, respectively [Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 3, Gerhard discloses wherein: the cathode and the anode are each configured with a boss portion (either of electrode 3a or socket 7/sleeve 5) arranged on the battery cell body, the first snap-fit body and the second snap-fit body are integrally connected to the corresponding boss portions, respectively, the boss portion connected to the first snap-fit body is a first boss portion, and the boss portion connected to the second snap-fit body is a second boss portion [Figs. 2,6] {The push button 6 as snap-fit body is formed on electrode 3a which is considered a boss portion, and inner features of socket 7 as snap-fit body formed in the socket body 7 which is considered a boss portion [Fig. 2], or the head of electrode 3a as the snap-fit body formed on the pole which is considered a boss portion, and springs of sleeve 5 as snap-fit body formed on the sleeve body which is considered a boss portion [Fig. 6]}.
Regarding Claim 5, Gerhard discloses wherein the first snap-fit body is formed into a shape of a protruding strip with a cross section formed in a widening manner as the first snap-fit body extends away from the battery cell body (e.g., push button 6 widens as it protrudes away, or sleeve 5 widens as it protrudes away); and the second snap-fit body is formed into a shape of a groove capable of being snap-fit to the first snap-fit body in a manner of surface contact (e.g., inner features of socket 7 inherently form a shape of groove for receiving the push button in snap-fit manner, or the electrode 3a below its head portion includes a circumferential groove for receiving the spring-loaded sleeve 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Gerhard discloses wherein: in a state in which the first snap-fit body of one of the any two adjacent battery cells is snap-fit to the second snap-fit body of the other one of the any two adjacent battery cells, the first boss portion and the second boss portion are maintained in surface contact with each other in a state in which the first snap-fit body is snap-fit to the second snap-fit body [Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 15, Gerhard discloses a power consuming device (flashlight) comprising the battery according to claim 1 [par. 0001].
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.
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) 4 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kiba (JP2012252924A; foreign copy and machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 4, Gerhard fails to disclose wherein the boss portion, the first snap-fit body, and the second snap-fit body are made of at least any one of aluminum metal, copper metal, nickel plated aluminum metal, silver plated aluminum metal, nickel plated copper metal, and silver plated copper metal. However, Kiba, from the same field of endeavor, teaches forming terminals of a battery from aluminum or copper as well-known metals having large linear expansion coefficients in order to prevent deformation effects due to temperature change during operation of a battery and prevent change in contact resistance between the batteries, rendering aluminum or copper as suitable materials for forming a battery to batter connection via terminals [Kiba – par. 0031]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the battery of Gerhard wherein the boss portion, the first snap-fit body, and the second snap-fit body are made of at least any one of aluminum metal and copper metal in order to ensure low contact resistance and dimensional stability during battery operation as a standard design choice for battery electrodes and interconnects to ensure conductivity and predictable thermal expansion behavior.
Regarding Claim 8, Gerhard discloses an assembled battery where adjacent cells are connected via interlocking electrodes having “protruding bodies” (comprised by electrodes 3a,4b) which may be in form of push buttons, clamps, bulk head, bayonet, etc.. While Gerhard teaches the general concept of creating a mechanical interlock between the electrodes of adjacent batteries to prevent separation and ensure reliable contact at any tilt, it does not explicitly disclose the specific geometry of the instant claim, wherein:
- the first snap-fit body is formed to have:
a first rising portion arranged in a rising manner relative to the first boss portion, one end of the first rising portion being integrally connected to the first boss portion; and
a first bent portion arranged at the other end of the first rising portion in a bent manner relative to the first rising portion, a first accommodation space into which the second snap-fit body is inserted being formed between the first bent portion and the first boss portion; and
- the second snap-fit body is formed to have:
a second rising portion arranged in a rising manner relative to the second boss portion, one end of the second rising portion being integrally connected to the second boss portion; and
a second bent portion arranged at the other end of the second rising portion in a bent manner relative to the second rising portion, a second accommodation space into which the first snap-fit body is to be inserted being formed between the second bent portion and the second boss portion.
However, Kiba, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a convex terminal 4 with a protrusion 7 formed around it’s periphery, shaped to fit into a concave terminal 5 in order to create a terminal-to-terminal engagement which is difficult to separate [Kiba – par. 0027; Fig. 3a]. Kiba further teaches adding minute convex parts to the outer surface of the convex terminal and minute concave parts to the concave terminal to increase contact area and engagement security (not shown) [Kiba – par. 0028]. This renders obvious modifying both mating surfaces of the electrodes to include active interlocking features. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have applied Kiba’s dual-surface modification teachings to have modified the anode and cathode electrodes of Gerhard, wherein: (i) the first snap-fit body is formed to have a first rising portion arranged in a rising manner relative to the first boss portion, one end of the first rising portion being integrally connected to the first boss portion, and a first bent portion arranged at the other end of the first rising portion in a bent manner relative to the first rising portion, a first accommodation space into which the second snap-fit body is inserted being formed between the first bent portion and the first boss portion; and (ii) the second snap-fit body is formed to have a second rising portion arranged in a rising manner relative to the second boss portion, one end of the second rising portion being integrally connected to the second boss portion, and a second bent portion arranged at the other end of the second rising portion in a bent manner relative to the second rising portion, a second accommodation space into which the first snap-fit body is to be inserted being formed between the second bent portion and the second boss portion, in order to create a reciprocal engagement resulting in a mutual interlock in order to provide a secure connection resistant to separation, with the added benefit of increased contact surface area [MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)].
Regarding Claim 9, as established in the rejection of claim 8, modified Gerhard discloses wherein: the first rising portion is formed by part of a peripheral wall of the first boss portion, and the second rising portion is formed by part of a peripheral wall of the second boss portion, such that, in a state in which the first snap-fit body of one of the any two adjacent battery cells is snap-fit to the second snap-fit body of the other one of the any two adjacent battery cells, the first rising portion, the first boss portion, the second rising portion and the second boss portions form a cylindrical body together.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Gerhard discloses wherein: the first bent portion and the second bent portion each have a shape of a plate having a uniform thickness [Kiba – Fig. 3a].
Regarding Claim 11, modified Gerhard fails to explicitly teach wherein: the first bent portion is formed as a plate of which a thickness gradually reduces as the first bent portion extends away from the first rising portion; and the second bent portion is formed as a plate of which a thickness gradually reduces as the second bent portion extends away from the second rising portion. However, Kiba teaches that terminal cross-sections may be varied (e.g., trapezoidal) depending on desired performance characteristics, establishing that modifying terminal geometry is within the scope of ordinary skill. In the context of snap-fit connections such as those disclosed in Gerhard and the protrusion-based interlock configuration disclosed by Kiba, implementing tapered or progressively thinning sections on bent portions is a well-known design-consideration to provide controlled flexibility during assembly, improve stress distribution away from the root connection, and prevent fracture during snap engagement. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the bent portions of the combined Gerhard/Kiba structure to incorporate gradually reduced thickness as a matter of routine engineering optimization to balance strength, spring action, and manufacturability as predictable variations of the cross-sectional shape teachings already disclosed in Kiba [MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)].
Regarding Claim 12, modified Gerhard discloses wherein: in a state in which the first snap-fit body of one of the any two adjacent battery cells is snap-fit to the second snap-fit body of the other one of the any two adjacent battery cells, the first bent portion is inserted in the second accommodation space, and the second bent portion is inserted in the first accommodation space; and the first boss portion and the second bent portion are maintained in surface contact with each other, and the second boss portion and the first bent portion are maintained in surface contact with each other [Kiba – pars. 0027-28; Fig. 3a].
Claim(s) 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard, as applied to claims 6 and 1, respectively, and further in view of Pyzza (US2014037762A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Gerhard fails to disclose wherein a welding portion formed by welding is arranged at a seam between the first boss portion and the second boss portion. However, Pyzza, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery where adjacent first and second projecting electrodes of adjacent energy storage devices are directly bonded in series via a weld bond 210 [Pyzza – pars. 0063,0065,0066,0103]. Pyzza teaches that it is conventional practice in battery module assembly to add a circumferential or perimetric weld at the seam/interface between adjacent cell electrodes after mechanical alignment to permanently secure the connection and ensure low electrical resistance. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to have further modified the battery of Gerhard, wherein a welding portion formed by welding is arranged at a seam between the first boss portion and the second boss portion in order to permanently secure the connection and ensure low electrical resistance between adjacent cell electrodes after mechanical alignment thereof as a well-known practice in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Gerhard discloses a method for manufacturing the battery according to claim 1, comprising: arranging the two or more battery cells in the first direction (axially next to each other), and snap-fitting the first snap-fit body of the one of the any two adjacent battery cells to the second snap-fit body of the other one of the any two adjacent battery cells (i.e., mechanically interlocking the respective electrodes via complementary structures [Figs. 2,6]); but fails to explicitly disclose welding a seam at a periphery of a snap-fit structure along the periphery of the snap-fit structure formed by snap-fitting the first snap-fit body to the second snap-fit body. However, Pyzza, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery where adjacent first and second projecting electrodes of adjacent energy storage devices are directly bonded in series via a weld bond 210 [Pyzza – pars. 0063,0065,0066,0103]. Pyzza teaches that it is conventional practice in battery module assembly to add a circumferential or perimetric weld at the seam/interface between adjacent cell electrodes after mechanical alignment to permanently secure the connection and ensure low electrical resistance. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to have modified the method of Gerhard to have further included the step of welding a seam at a periphery of a snap-fit structure along the periphery of the snap-fit structure formed by snap-fitting the first snap-fit body to the second snap-fit body in order to permanently secure the connection and ensure low electrical resistance between adjacent cell electrodes after mechanical alignment thereof as a well-known practice in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard and Kiba, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Pyzza (US20140377623A1).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Gerhard fail to disclose wherein welding portions formed by welding are arranged at a seam between the first boss portion and the second snap-fit body and at a seam between the second boss portion and the first snap-fit body. However, Pyzza, from the same field of endeavor, teaches a battery where adjacent first and second projecting electrodes of adjacent energy storage devices are directly bonded in series via a weld bond 210 [Pyzza – pars. 0063,0065,0066,0103]. Pyzza teaches that it is conventional practice in battery module assembly to add a circumferential or perimetric weld at the seam/interface between adjacent cell electrodes after mechanical alignment to permanently secure the connection and ensure low electrical resistance. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art to have further modified the battery of Gerhard, wherein welding portions formed by welding are arranged at a seam between the first boss portion and the second snap-fit body and at a seam between the second boss portion and the first snap-fit body in order to permanently secure the connection and ensure low electrical resistance between adjacent cell electrodes after mechanical alignment thereof as a well-known practice in the art.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerhard, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fei (CN201340879Y).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Gerhard fails to disclose wherein two ends of the battery cell body in the first direction are each provided with an explosion-proof valve openable under an action of a pressure of gas inside the battery cell, and the adjacent explosion-proof valves are arranged staggered from each other in location. However, Fei, from the same field of endeavor, discloses a cylindrical battery cell with first and second explosion-proof valves 6,7 located on opposite terminals in a staggered arrangement relative to one another which improve overall safety of the battery cells [Fei – pars. ; Fig. 1]. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled artisan to have further modified the battery of Gerhard, wherein two ends of the battery cell body in the first direction are each provided with an explosion-proof valve openable under an action of a pressure of gas inside the battery cell, and the adjacent explosion-proof valves are arranged staggered from each other in location as a well-known design principle in the art to prevent the simultaneous rupture of multiple cells or blockage of gas vent paths by the adjacent cells in order to provide a predictable safety benefit of ensuring effective gas release as an obvious design choice for enhancing battery safety.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAROON S SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-0302. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6.
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, JONATHAN LEONG can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
HAROON S. SHEIKH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights