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
Newly submitted claim 11 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. The exclusive characteristics are explained below.
Species A is the species shown in Fig. 8, before the first modification, where there is no groove on the inside surface of the top surface of the battery.
Species B is the species shown in Fig. 14 following the first modification, where there is a groove on the inside surface of the top surface of the battery.
Species A has been elected by original presentation because the claim language of “maximum width portion” (Claim 8, Line 4) only appears in the specification when describing the embodiment in Fig. 8, which is Species A.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention of species A, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 11 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the arguments over the Kim reference, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection which was necessitated by the amendments to claim 1 and its dependents.
Regarding the arguments over the Suzuki reference, the applicant alleges that Suzuki does not rectify the deficiencies of Kim without providing further analysis, therefore this argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the argument over the Yamauchi reference, wherein the applicant argues that there would have been no reason to extend the blind rivet to overlap into the valleys formed by the electrode bodies in the height direction, this is not persuasive. While Yamauchi does not provide reason to extend the blind rivet to overlap in the height direction with the vertexes of the electrode bodies, this is not what is claimed in the independent claim, nor is it in any of the dependent claims, even in their amended form.
The independent claim recites “in a height direction, the protruding portion is disposed in the valley portion”, but neglects to define what constitutes the valley portion in a height direction. The examiner is interpreting this include the interpretation that this is the region between the upward facing vertexes of the electrode bodies which is higher than the point where the first curved sections of two adjacent electrode bodies meet.
The applicant has merely claimed that the sealing portion must overlap in the first direction, which is perpendicular to the height direction (see instant claim 1, lines 9-10).
Examples of this definition of location of the sealing member in the dependent claims are as follows:
Claim 9, lines 4-5;
Claim 11, “inside” on line 4 is never specified to mean in the height direction and is therefore broader than the meaning which is being argued;
Claim 12 lines 2-3.
Furthermore, in the new rejections presented below, there is sufficient motivation to place the blind rivet inside the valley portion in a height direction because this is what enables the widest portion to flare out and seal the cell. This will be explained below.
For these reasons, this argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001020328-A (Y) in view of US-20130309534-A1 (S).
Regarding claim 1, Y teaches a battery (entirety of Fig. 1), comprising: a plurality of wound electrode bodies (1) arranged in a first direction, each of the plurality of wound electrode bodies including a positive electrode (1a) and a negative electrode (1b), and including a pair of curved portions (see Fig. 7); a battery case [0030] with a hexahedron shape housing the plurality of wound electrode bodies, the battery case including a bottom surface (side of case facing opposite to 5), a first surface with a rectangular shape (5) facing the bottom surface in a height direction of the battery case perpendicular to the first direction, a pair of first side walls (4) facing each other and extending from the bottom surface, and a pair of second side walls (4) facing each other and extending from the bottom surface; and an insulating member (7, made of foam resin “insulating filler” [0021]) directly fixed to the first surface (it makes direct contact and is welded to seal the battery [0018]), wherein the plurality of wound electrode bodies is disposed in the battery case in such a manner that in each of the plurality of wound electrode bodies, a first curved portion of the pair of curved portions (the one facing 5) faces the first surface, and a second curved portion of the pair of curved portions faces the bottom surface (the opposite curved portion), and wherein a part of the insulating member (labeled A in annotated Fig. 1 below) is disposed in a valley portion (labeled B in annotated Fig. 1 below) surrounded by a surface linking the vertexes of the first curved portions of adjacent wound electrode bodies of the plurality of wound electrode bodies and curved surfaces of the first curved portions of the adjacent wound electrode bodies along the first direction (see annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
897
1049
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Y teaches electrolyte is filled in the case [0004] but provides no structure for doing so.
S teaches an electrolyte filling hole (10) for a battery having an odd number of wound electrode bodies (2, See Fig. 11), which is offset from the center in a longitudinal direction of the battery casing [0044]. S teaches the electrolyte filling hole is positioned in the space between the electrode coils (see Figs. 10-11). S teaches the electrolyte filling hole is sealed with a plug (11), a plug body meets the requirements of “sealing member”. S teaches that the benefit of this design is a reduced electrolyte filling time [0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to include the electrode filling hole of S in the battery of Y in order to achieve the benefit of improved filling time. It would have been obvious to do because doing so would amount to no more than the combination of two separate elements which function the same together as they do apart with a reasonable chance of success. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have sought a solution for filling the battery of Y as no specific structure is provided and S provides a specific structure for performing this function with stated benefits.
This location and structure of the electrolyte filling hole teaches the following claim limitations:
“an electrolytic solution injection hole formed on the first surface of the battery case; a sealing member for sealing the electrolytic solution injection hole;
and the electrolytic solution injection hole is formed in a position that does not overlap with vertexes of the first curved portions of the plurality of wound electrode bodies
And in the height direction, a part of the sealing member is disposed in the valley portion.”
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Y and S.
Regarding claim 2, Y teaches the insulating member includes a protruding portion (labeled A in annotated Fig. 1 above) protruding toward the valley portion, and in the height direction, the protruding portion is disposed in the valley portion (see annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Y teaches a terminal (3) disposed on the first surface, and a current collecting member (2) electrically coupling the terminal to the positive electrode or the negative electrode, wherein in the height direction of the battery case, the insulating member is sandwiched between the current collecting member and the first surface (see Fig. 1 and compare to Fig. 6, the current collecting member is in the flat parts of the electrode bodies, which are below the insulating member, and the first surface 5 is above the insulating member. This means they sandwich the insulating member).
Regarding claim 4, Y teaches the insulating member includes a plurality of protruding portions (labeled A in annotated Fig. 1 above) protruding toward the valley portion, and a protruding portion formation region (shown in gray dotted box in annotated Fig. 1 below). The protrusion forming region does not face the part of the current collector that extends between the protrusion forming region and the terminal, so it can be said that the protruding portion are formed in a region that does not face the current collecting member in a middle side in a longitudinal direction of the first surface.
PNG
media_image2.png
897
1049
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Y teaches the protruding portion formation region includes a plurality of further curved surfaces at a surface side facing the wound electrode body, the plurality of further curved surfaces is formed between the plurality of protruding portions, and the plurality of further curved surfaces each has a shape corresponding to a respective bending surface of the plurality of wound electrode bodies (see Fig. 1, where the insulating member 7 has curving portions that slot into the curving portions of the electrode bodies).
Regarding claim 6, Y and S must teach that a lower end portion of the insulating member is disposed closer to the bottom surface than a lower end portion of the sealing member, because the sealing member of S is not taught to protrude further than the thickness of the case wall at the top of the battery cell (see Fig. 4 of S). In the implementation of the electrolyte filling hole of S this will be maintained so the lowest part of the insulating member is lower than the lowest part of the sealing member.
Regarding claim 7, S teaches a number of the plurality of wound electrode bodies disposed in the battery case is an odd number (see Fig. 11). In the implementation of this design in the battery of Y, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the battery contain an odd number of electrode bodies in order to maintain the position of the electrolyte filling hole in S and achieve the benefit of faster electrolyte fill times. Doing so would place the electrolyte filling hole offset from a centerline of the battery cell, so Y and S render claim 7 unpatentable.
Claims 8-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP-2001020328-A (Y), US-20130309534-A1 (S), in further view of US-20110072648-A1, YAMAUCHI.
Regarding claim 8, The teachings of Y and S are explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Y nor S teach that the sealing member protrudes along the height direction into an inside of the battery case.
YAMAUCHI teaches a sealing member (16) for an electrolyte pour hole (15) comprising a washer (18) on the outside of the sealing plate (12) blind rivet which has a maximum width portion on the inside side of the sealing plate (See Fig. 1F). YAMAUCHI teaches the benefit of this arrangement of washer and blind rivet is preventing damage of the electrolyte pour hole during airtightness testing [0007] and easier detection of electrolyte leakage [0011].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use the sealing method and structure of YAMAUCHI to replace the sealing member of S in the combination of Y and S to gain the benefits of easier detection of electrolyte leakage and preventing damage of the electrolyte pour hole during airtightness testing. It would have been obvious because it would amount to no more than combining known methods in the art to achieve a predictable benefit.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Y, S, and Yamauchi teach the sealing member includes a lower end portion protruding, along the height direction, into the battery case. When the electrolyte filling hole is positioned directly above where the electrode bodies meet, as it is shown in S (Fig. 11), because the filling hole has a width, it must overlap the two adjacent electrode bodies in the first direction when viewed from above.
Regarding claim 10, Yamauchi teaches the sealing member flares once it passes the sealing plate 12 (see Fig. 1F of Yamauchi), but it does not overlap a region in the height direction which is bounded by the electrode body. In the implementation of the sealing member of Yamauchi in the battery of Y and S, this would not change so that a length of the protruding portion of the insulating member, along the height direction, would be longer than a length of the sealing member inside the battery case.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Y, S, and Yamauchi teach the sealing member includes a lower end portion protruding, along the height direction, into the battery case. When the electrolyte filling hole is positioned directly above where the electrode bodies meet, as it is shown in S (Fig. 11), because the filling hole has a width, it must overlap the two adjacent electrode bodies in the first direction when viewed from above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is (571)272-6917. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M..
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
/LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights