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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/05/2023. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Claim 1 and dependent claims 2-20 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 1 recites the limitation "the border" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR 20120063236A, hereafter Park).
With regard to claim 1, Park teaches a battery cell comprising an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 300) and a housing (pouch exterior member 200) [0025],
wherein the housing comprises a body and a cover (lower sheet 20b and upper sheet 20a) [0007, fig. 1]; a cavity (internal space) is defined in the body for accommodating the electrode assembly, a part of the body extending beyond the cavity forms a flange (as seen in fig. 1); the cover is disposed over the body to cover the cavity [0007, 0029, fig. 1, fig. 3];
wherein the periphery of the cover is connected to the flange to form a side wing to seal the cavity [0007-0008, fig. 1]; wherein
the battery cell further comprises tabs (tabs 400 and 500 integrally formed with leads 600 and 700), the tabs extend out of the housing through the side wing in a first (height) direction [0025-0026, fig 3]; and
the side wing has a first sealing structure (sealing portion 210) and a second sealing structure (differential sealing portion 250), and a distance between the first sealing structure and a border (outer edge of electrode assembly 300) is greater than a distance between the second sealing structure and the border [0029-0030, fig. 3].
Park does not explicitly teach the claimed range for the difference in distances from the border. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since it would scale with the extra width of the differential sealing portion (250) of Park and Park teaches adjusting the extra width allows for reinforced sealing near electrode leads (tabs) which would render the claimed range obvious [0030-0031].
PNG
media_image1.png
422
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Park teaches the tabs (tabs 400 and 500 integrally formed with leads 600 and 700) extend out of the housing through the first sealing structure (sealing portion 210 that includes differential sealing portions 250) [0025-0030, fig 3].
With regard to claim 3, Park teaches the tabs (tabs 400 and 500 integrally formed with leads 600 and 700) extend out of the housing through the second sealing structure [0025-0030, fig 3].
With regard to claim 4, Park teaches the first tab (tab 400 and lead 600) extends out of the housing through the first sealing structure (sealing portion 210 that includes differential sealing portion 250) and the second tab (tab 500 and lead 700) extends out of the housing though the second sealing structure (differential sealing portion 250) [0025-0030, fig 3].
With regard to claim 5, Park teaches a first tab and second tab (tabs 400 and 500 integrally formed with leads 600 and 700) arranged side by side in a direction (width) perpendicular to the first direction [0025-0030, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 6, Park teaches a first sealing structure (center sealing portion 210) is disposed between two second sealing structures (differential sealing portion 250) in the second direction [0025-0030, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 7, Park teaches the second sealing structure (differential sealing portion 250) is disposed between two first sealing structures (center and upper corner sealing portions 210) [0025-0030, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 8, Park teaches the second tab (tab 500 integrally formed with lead 700) is disposed between the first tab (tab 400 integrally formed with lead 600) and the second sealing structure (leftmost portions of sealing portion 210) in the second direction [0025-0030, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 9, Park teaches the first tab (tab 400 integrally formed with lead 600) and the second sealing structure (sealing portion 210) are arranged on the same side (left) of the second tab (tab 500 integrally formed with lead 700) in the second direction [0025-0030, fig. 3].
With regard to claim 10, Park teaches the second sealing structure (central portions of sealing portions 210) is disposed between the first tab and the second tab (tabs 400 and 500 integrally formed with leads 600 and 700) [0025-0030, fig. 3].
With regard to claims 17-19, Park does not explicitly teach the claimed ranges. However, this would be an obvious variant to one of ordinary skill in the art since Park teaches adjusting the extra width (analogous to the claimed W2-W1) allows for reinforced sealing near electrode leads (tabs) and adjusting the extra width to provide the benefit of reinforced sealing would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art [0030-0031].
With regard to claim 20, Park teaches a load (external device) and teaches the battery is used to supply power to the load (electrically connected) [0037]
Claim(s) 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1-10, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2011/0274955 A1, hereafter Shin).
With regard to claims 11-15, Park does not explicitly teach a concave structure. However, in the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches a concave structure (trimming portion) that goes away from the border (edge) towards the cavity (interior holding electrode assembly 21) [0102-0105, fig. 9]. Shin further teaches the concave structure is arranged on two ends in the second direction [fig. 9, claim 12], between the first and second tabs [fig. 9, claim 13]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the concave structure (trimming portions) of Shin with the battery of Park for the benefit of minimizing a dead space around the electrode leads (tabs) [Shin 0103]. When combined with the battery of Park the trimming portions of Shin would be located adjacent to the tabs and corresponding second sealing structure (differential sealing portion 250) and would therefore result in two second sealing structures on two sides of the central trimming portion (claim 14) and the concave structures being disposed on the second sealing structure in the first direction (being concave inward from, claim 15).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claims 1-10, and 17-20 above, and further in view of Fathollahi et al. (US 2015/0194648 A1, hereafter Fathollahi).
With regard to claim 16, Park does not explicitly teach the claimed thickness. However, in the same field of endeavor, Fathollahi teaches the use of thicknesses between 2mm to 12mm (which overlaps and renders the claimed range obvious) [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the thickness of Fathollahi with the battery of Park since it is known to be a desirable range for use in apertures in mobile devices [Fathollahi 00059-0060].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT C THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible schedule, typical hours 11-7 M-F.
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.
/BRENT C THOMAS/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights