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 Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “in at least one of the pair of first side walls of the battery case here” in line 16. It is unclear if the word “here” is a typo and is not meant to be included, or if it is meant to be the word “herein”. As currently written, it is unclear what is being required by the limitation.
Claim 2 recites “each of positions facing vertex parts…” in line 2. For improved clarity and readability, the examiner suggests amending the limitation to read “each position facing vertex parts…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seto et al. (US 2015/0129332 A1).
In Regards to Claim 1:
Seto discloses a battery pack (100) comprising: a wound electrode body (electrode assembly, 11) with a flat shape that includes a positive electrode (positive plate, 11A) and a negative electrode (negative plate, 11B); a battery case (outer case, 12) that accommodates the wound electrode body (electrode assembly, 11); and a pressing member (insulating member, 2) that presses the battery case (outer case, 12) (Figures 2, 4, 7, and 12, [0061-0062, 0068, 0087]). Seto further discloses that the battery case (outer case, 12) includes a bottom wall (bottom portion), an upper wall (sealing plate, 12b), a pair of first side walls (wide flat surfaces, 12A) disposed so as to face each other and connecting the bottom wall (bottom portion) and the upper wall (sealing plate, 12b), and a pair of second side walls (narrow width faces, 12B) disposed so as to face each other and connecting the bottom wall (bottom portion) and the upper wall (sealing plate, 12b) (Figure 7, [0068, 0070, 0072]). Seto further discloses that the wound electrode body (electrode assembly, 11) includes a flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) provided with a pair of flat outer surfaces, and a pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) provided on both ends of the flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) and each provided with a curved outer surface (Figure 13, [0085]). Seto further discloses that the wound electrode body (electrode assembly, 11) is disposed inside the battery case (outer case, 12) in a manner that a winding axis is disposed along the bottom wall (bottom portion) and each of the pair of flat outer surfaces faces the first side wall (wide flat surfaces, 12A) (Figure 7, [0072, 0084]). Seto further discloses a space (cooling groove, 21) extending from a center part to an end part of the wound electrode body (electrode assembly, 11) in a winding axis direction is formed between the part facing the flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) and the pressing member (insulating member, 2) (Figures 11 and 12, [0090]).
The examiner notes that the term “an entire area” as written is a broad limitation and is subject to the broadest reasonable interpretation during the review of the prior art.
Seto does not explicitly disclose that in at least one of the pair of first side walls (wide flat surfaces, 12A) of the battery case (outer case, 12), when an entire area of parts facing the pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) is 100%, 80% or more of the area including border parts with the flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) is pressed in a band shape along the winding axis by the pressing member (insulating member, 2). However, Seto does disclose that the pressing member (insulating member, 2) includes guide walls (22) at the four corner portions which are L-shaped and appear to press the entire area facing the pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) into a band shape along the winding axis (Figures 13 and 14, [0086]). Therefore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that ~100% of the area is pressed in a band shape along the winding axis by the pressing member (insulating member, 2).
Likewise, Seto does not disclose that when an entire area of a part facing the flat region is 100%, 20% or more and 50% or less of the area is pressed by the pressing member. However, from Figures 12 and 13 of Seto, it can be seen that ~50% of the pressing member (insulating member, 2) is in contact with one of the pair of first side walls (wide flat surfaces, 12A) due to the shape of the pressing member (insulating member, 2).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to select for the area being pressed by the pressing member, 50% based on an entire area of a part facing the flat region being 100%, as it is known in the art that such a pressing area is suitable for a pressing member to exert on a flat region of a wound electrode assembly, as taught by Seto. Furthermore, it has been held that changes in size/shape of an object is a matter of design choice absent persuasive evidence the particular shape of the claimed object is significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV).
The examiner notes that although Seto does not explicitly state that the when an entire area of a part facing the flat region is 100%, 20% or more and 50% or less of the area is pressed by the pressing member, nor state that the figures are drawn to scale, the skilled artisan would naturally look to the figures to inform the selection of the relative dimensions of the various battery pack components for optimization purposes when reviewing the disclosure of Seto. As such, upon the above modification, all of the limitations of Claim 1 are met.
In Regards to Claim 2 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Seto discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Seto discloses that the pressing member (insulating member, 2) includes guide walls (22) at the four corner portions which are L-shaped and appear to press the entire area facing the pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) into a band shape along the winding axis (Figures 13 and 14, [0086]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that for the pair of first side walls (wide flat surfaces, 12A) of the battery case (outer case, 12), each position facing vertex parts of the pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) is pressed by the pressing member (insulating member, 2) (Figures 13 and 14, [0086-0087]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 2 are met.
In Regards to Claim 3 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Seto discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. Seto further discloses that the pressing member (insulating member, 2) includes a protrusion part (bottom boards, 28) with a stripe shape at the part facing the flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) and in at least one of the pair of first side walls (wide flat surfaces, 12A) of the battery case (outer case, 12), the part facing the flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) is pressed by the protrusion part (bottom boards, 28) (Figures 13 and 14, [0090]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 3 are met.
In Regards to Claim 4 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Seto discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Seto discloses that the pressing member (insulating member, 2) includes guide walls (22) at the four corner portions which are L-shaped and appear to press the entire area facing the pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) into a band shape along the winding axis (Figures 13 and 14, [0086]). As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that in at least one of the pair of first side walls (wide flat surfaces, 12A) of the battery case (outer case, 12), each of the entire parts facing the pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) is pressed by the pressing member (insulating member, 2) (Figures 13 and 14, [0086]). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 4 are met.
In Regards to Claim 5 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Seto discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Seto discloses that the pressing member (insulating member, 2) includes guide walls (22) at the four corner portions which are L-shaped and appear to press the entire area facing the pair of curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) into a band shape along the winding axis (Figures 13 and 14, [0086]). Therefore, the skilled artisan would appreciate that ~100% of the area of the curved regions (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) (i.e., Ay%) is pressed in a band shape along the winding axis by the pressing member (insulating member, 2). Likewise, upon the modification detailed in the rejection of Claim 1, modified Seto discloses that an area of a region pressed by the pressing member (insulating member, 2) in the part facing the flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) (i.e., Ax%) is 50%.
As such, the skilled artisan would appreciate that the difference between Ax% and Ay% (Ay – Ax) is 50%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I). Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 5 are met.
In Regards to Claim 6 (Dependent Upon Claim 1):
Seto discloses the battery pack of Claim 1 as set forth above. As detailed above in the rejection of Claim 1, Seto discloses that in at least one of the pair of first side walls (wide flat surfaces, 12A) of the battery case (outer case, 12), a part ranging from the part facing the curved region (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) to a part that does not face the curved region (region adjacent to active material non-contact area, 12Y) and the flat region (region adjacent to active material contact area, 12X) is pressed in the band shape along the winding axis by the pressing member (insulating member, 2) (Figure 12, [0087-0088]).
The examiner notes that the instant claim as written does not require that the “part ranging from the part facing the curved region to a part that does not face the curved region and the flat region” extends the entire distance of the part facing the curved region to a part that does not face the curved region and the flat region, and as such may be selected to be any “part” located within that area. Thus, all of the limitations of Claim 6 are met.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1498. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at (571)-270-5256. 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.
/E.E.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights