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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 2 of paragraph [0057], applicant refers to “the connecting portion 153” in discussing the terminal connecting portion (163). The number reference is in error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 recites “…wherein an upper end of the wing portion is in close contact with the side surface of the can.” The examiner interprets the qualifier “close” in “close contact” to mean the upper end of the wing portion is in direct contact with the inner surface of the can about their respective circumferences.
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 2-4 and 8-10 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.
Regarding each of Claims 2-4 and 8-10, each of Claims 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10 individually depends from Claim 1 and each recites the “cut portion” which is referred to in Claim 1 as a “cutout portion.” Accordingly, the term “the cut portion” in each of these claims lacks antecedent basis. Claim 3, which depends from Claim 2, likewise recites “the cut portion.” Correction is required.
For purposes of examination, the examiner has interpreted the “cut portion” to be synonymous with the “cutout 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.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (WO 2022/158858), cited via US equivalent (United States Patent 12,609,362 B2) (“Jo ‘362”), in view of Do et al. (KR 20050019359A).
Regarding Claim 1, Jo ‘362 discloses:
A secondary battery comprising:
an electrode assembly (corresponding to “electrode assembly” [See Col. 3, Lines 22-33]);
a can (corresponding to “battery housing (20)” [See Col. 3, Lines 35-36 and Fig. 1]) having a lower surface and a side surface (corresponding to “upper surface” and “outer circumferential surface”, respectively [See Col. 12, Lines 42-43]) and accommodating the electrode assembly therein [See Col. 3, Lines 35-36];
a cap plate (corresponding to “cap (90)” [See Col. 6, Lines 31-33]) coupled to an upper end of the can (corresponding to “open portion of the battery housing” [See Col. 6, Lines 31-33]);
a terminal (corresponding to “terminal” [See Col. 5, Lines 6-44]) on the lower surface of the can; and an insulator (corresponding to “insulator” [See Col. 3, Lines 37-43]) having
a plate-shaped portion (corresponding to “first cover portion” (41) [See Col. 3, Lines 44-47 and Col. 14, Lines 29-46]) between the electrode assembly and the lower surface of the can and
a wing portion (corresponding to “second cover portion” (42) [See Col. 3, Lines 47-49]) extending upwardly from a circumference of the plate-shaped portion [See Col. 3, Lines 50-52 and Col. 14, Lines 29-46]…
Jo ‘362 does not disclose:
the wing portion (“second cover portion” (42)) having a cutout portion.
Do discloses:
the wing portion having a cutout portion (corresponding to discontinuities in the side walls of “upper insulating plate” (112) as shown in annotated Fig. 2, reproduced below.)
Jo ‘362 and Do are each in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, specifically, battery technology and more particularly insulation technology for cylindrical cells. Accordingly, these references constitute analogous art as required by MPEP §2141.01(a). Moreover, as the modification of the insulator in Do to include discontinuous or cut portions in the sidewall is a simple mechanical change, a person having ordinary skill in the battery arts would have had a reasonable chance of success to modify the battery of Jo ‘362 with the teachings of Do to improve short circuit prevention and avoid damage from movement of components within the can and thus arrive at the secondary battery of Claim 1 before the effective filing date thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
721
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Do also teaches:
wherein the cut portion extends downwardly from an upper end of the wing portion [See “upper insulating plate” 112 in annotated Fig 2 above].
Regarding Claim 3, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 2. Do also teaches:
wherein the cut portion extends a length smaller than a height of the wing portion [See preserved area of wing portion in cut portion in annotated Fig 2 above].
Regarding Claim 4, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Do also teaches:
wherein the cut portion comprises a plurality of cut portions arranged along a circumferential direction of the wing portion [See “upper insulating plate” 112 in annotated Fig 2 above].
Regarding Claim 5, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Jo ‘362 also teaches:
wherein the plate-shaped portion has a smaller diameter than the can (the radius of the “round portion” of the “first cover portion” being preferably equal to or smaller than the radius within the battery housing [See Col. 6, Lines 50-62].
Regarding Claim 7, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Jo ‘362 also teaches:
wherein an upper end of the wing portion is in close contact with the side surface of the can [See Col. 6, Lines 61-62 indicating that preferably the round portion of the first cover portion (applicant’s plate-shaped portion) may come into contact with the inner surface of the battery housing without a gap, in conjunction with Col. 14, Lines 31-37 indicating the second cover portion (applicant’s wing portion) extend vertically from the outer periphery of the first cover portion].
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Neither Jo ‘362 nor Do teaches the following respective additional limitations:
wherein the cut portion…
…has a larger width at a lower portion thereof than at an upper portion thereof. (As to Claim 9)
…has a V-shape. (As to Claim 10)
Each of these claims differs from the cited prior art solely in the respective shapes of the cut (interpreted as “cutout”) portion of the wing portion of the insulator. According to applicant’s specification, as to embodiments of each of Claims 8-10:
The wing portion 192 may be formed to have an upper end having a slightly larger diameter than the can 120…before…insulator 190 is inserted into the can 120. Therefore, as the insulator 190 is inserted into the can 120, the upper end of the wing portion 192 may be deformed to have a diameter corresponding to that of the can 120, that is, the wing portion 192 can be brought into close contact with the side surface of the can 120 in an interference-fit manner (see, e.g., FIG. 4). [Par 64]… Thus, even when the wing portion is formed to have a larger diameter than the can, the wing portion can be easily deformed to a diameter corresponding to that of the can by the cut portion, thereby allowing the insulator to be easily inserted into the can in an interference-fit manner. [Par 82]
According to applicant’s specification, as to an embodiment of Claim 8:
In the illustrated embodiment (showing straight line cutout portions descending partly down the wing portion from its upper end), the wing portion 192 has a cut portion 192A so that the upper end thereof can be more easily deformed into an intended shape as it is inserted into the can 120. [Par 65]
According to applicant’s specification, as to an embodiment of Claim 9:
In the insulator 290…the cut portion 292A has…an upper portion…extending in a straight line shape having a constant width and another…lower portion…having a larger width… By this configuration, because two adjacent wing portions 292 can be more easily deformed inwardly to be closer to each other, the insulator 290 can be more easily inserted into the can. [Pars 71-72]
According to applicant’s specification, as to an embodiment of Claim 10:
…in the insulator 390, the cut portion 392A is formed in a V-shape (see, e.g., FIG. 6). By this configuration, when two adjacent wing portions 392 are deformed inwardly to be closer to each other, the possibility that the upper ends of the adjacent wing portions 392 inappropriately interfere with each other is reduced. [Pars 75-76]
It is apparent that each of the singular additional limitations recited in Claims 8-10, cut (cutout) portions shaped as a straight line, expanding to a larger width at the bottom, or as a V, respectively, is directed to the issues of the ease with which the insulator can be inserted in the can and that upon the attendant deformation of the wing portion a sufficient degree of contact be obtained between the upper edge of the wing portion and the inner circumferential surface of the can.
The additional limitations of each of Claims 8-10 represent widely known mechanical manipulations with readily predictable results that would provide one of ordinary skill with a reasonable chance of success in adapting the battery of Jo’ 362 as modified by Do to obtain applicant’s identical end result – an appropriate fit of the insulator to the can.
Do teaches a wide cutout portion (See annotated Fig. 2 referenced in paragraph 6 above), while Karl teaches a narrow, straight line cutout portion (See annotated Fig. 1 referenced in paragraph 17 above). Applicant’s specification is silent as to the significance of the respective shape limitations of Claims 9 and 10 over the prior art. Thus, each limitation is a mere change in shape that does not patentably distinguish applicant’s asserted invention over the prior art. See MPEP §2144.04 IV. B. (Changes in Shape):
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Regarding Claim 11, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Jo ‘362 also teaches:
wherein the wing portion (“second cover portion” (42)) extends around a periphery of a lower portion of a side surface of the electrode assembly [See Col. 4, Lines 20-25, Col. 16, Lines 51-53, and Col. 18, Lines 23-49].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (WO 2022/158858), cited via US equivalent (United States Patent 12,609,362 B2) (“Jo ‘362”), in view of Do et al. (KR 20050019359A) and further in view of Karl (WO 2021/202365) cited via US equivalent (US2023/0246317 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Neither Jo ‘362 nor Do teaches:
wherein, before the insulator is installed into the can, an upper end of the wing portion has a diameter larger than that of the can, and
wherein, when the insulator is accommodated in the can, the wing portion is deformed such that the upper end of the wing portion has a diameter corresponding to that of the can.
Karl teaches:
wherein, before the insulator (corresponding to insulator (18)) is installed into the can (corresponding to installation in lumen (26) of can (14)), an upper end of the wing portion has a diameter (corresponding to d1) larger than that of the can (corresponding to diameter of can lumen dL) [See annotated Fig. 10 below, See also Pars. 79 and 81: “The first diameter d1 is larger than the lumen diameter dL in the undeformed state 86.”], and
wherein, when the insulator is accommodated in the can, the wing portion is deformed such that the upper end of the wing portion has a diameter (corresponding to d2) corresponding to that of the can (corresponding to dL) [See annotated Fig. 11 below, See also Pars. 79 and 82: “In the deformed state 90, the second diameter d2 is…substantially the same as the lumen diameter dL.”].
PNG
media_image2.png
413
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (WO 2022/158858), cited via US equivalent (United States Patent 12,609,362 B2) (“Jo ‘362”), in view of Do et al. (KR 20050019359A) and further in view of Hwangbo et al. (WO 2023/163400) cited via US equivalent (US2024/0204313 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Neither Jo ‘362 nor Do teaches:
wherein the cut portion has a straight line shape.
Hwangbo teaches:
wherein the cut portion has a straight line shape [See annotated Fig. 1 below; See also Pars. 8, 9, and 82].
PNG
media_image3.png
424
444
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (WO 2022/158858), cited via US equivalent (United States Patent 12,609,362 B2) (“Jo ‘362”), in view of Do et al. (KR 20050019359A), and further in view of Jo et al. (WO 2023/055091 A1), cited via US equivalent (US 2024/006721 A1) (“Jo ‘721”).
Regarding Claim 12, Jo ‘362 in view of Do teaches the secondary battery of Claim 1. Neither Jo ‘362 nor Do teaches:
wherein the wing portion contacts an edge of a lower end of the electrode assembly.
Jo ‘721 teaches an insulator (600) with through holes (620) corresponding to applicant’s plate-shaped portion and lacking a wing portion [See Figs. 4-7]. The insulator is fixed to the can [See Par. 11] and interposed between the battery can (200) and the electrode assembly (100) [See Par. 164] Reproduced below is a comparison of Jo ‘721 Fig. 3 and applicant’s Fig. 7 showing an embodiment of Claim 12.
Jo et al. ‘721 Fig. 3
PNG
media_image4.png
833
1328
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s Fig. 7
PNG
media_image5.png
361
617
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The battery of Jo ‘721 includes a flat insulating plate in direct contact with the electrode assembly, whereas in the embodiment of applicant’s Claim 12, the upper edge of the wing portion contacts the circumferential edge of the electrode assembly near the inner wall of the cell. Both appear to accomplish applicant’s stated objective for this embodiment, which is to allow for increased capacity due to the increased width of the jelly roll electrode assembly by utilizing the additional space near the inner wall of the cell which is created by having the wing portion surround the periphery of a lower portion of the electrode assembly as in the embodiment of applicant’s Claim 11.
The difference between the battery of Claim 12 and that of the prior art is then contact of the peripheral edges of the electrode assembly and the wing portion, with a gap existing within the circumference of the wing portion in the former case, as opposed to direct contact between the electrode assembly and the insulator plate across the area of the insulator plate, with the sole exception of the through holes in the latter case. Applicant has not asserted any particular advantage to inclusion of the wing portion of the insulator in this embodiment, and applicant’s arrangement has apparently negated the utility thereof as it no longer serves to shield the periphery of the electrode assembly and introduces space between the plate-shaped portion and the electrode assembly. Recitation of the additional limitation of Claim 12 therefore appears to render the wing portion a mere duplication of parts that does not patentably distinguish the battery of Claim 12 over the prior art. See MPEP §2144.04 VI.B. (Duplication of Parts):
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.)
Absent the showing of a new and unexpected result from applicant’s arrangement using the edge of the wing portion in contact with the electrode assembly, the additional limitation “wherein the wing portion contacts an edge of a lower end of the electrode assembly” cannot impart patentable significance to the battery of Claim 12 over the combined teachings of Jo ‘362, Do, and Jo ‘721.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (KR20160019359A) discloses a battery with a wound electrode assembly (1), a cylindrical case (2), a cap plate (70), a terminal (71, 72) and an insulating plate (60). Ariga (US20230318158 A1) discloses a cylindrical battery having wound electrodes, a cap, and an insulating member disposed between the cap and an exterior member (Abstract). Jung et al. (EP 4340099 A1) discloses a cylindrical secondary battery having an electrode assembly accommodated in a cylindrical case, a cap plate, a terminal, and an insulator (insulation tape) between the cylindrical case and the electrode assembly (first current collector plate) (Abstract). Geng et al. discloses a cylindrical battery cell having an insulator separating a jelly roll electrode assembly from the outer housing (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER G IZZO whose telephone number is (571)270-0705. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Michael N. Orlando, can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER G. IZZO/Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights