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 .
Summary
This is a non-final office action for application 18/503,183 filed on 07 November 2023. Claims 1-8 are currently pending in the present application.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutomu (JP-2021086813-A) in view of Tanaka et al. (US-20210159563-A1), hereinafter “Tanaka”, and Imabori (US-20210098768-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsutomu discloses a power storage device comprising (a sealed battery; see [0001]): a case member (The battery case 10 includes a case body 11 and a lid body 15; see [0011]) made of metal (The case body 11 is made of, for example, aluminum; see [0011]) and provided with an insertion hole (The lid 15 also has a terminal mounting hole 18; see [0012]); a terminal member (the current collecting terminal 30 includes a pedestal portion 31, an electrode body connecting portion 32, a shaft portion 33; see [0020]) inserted through the insertion hole (the shaft portion is… inserted into the terminal mounting hole; see [0023]); an electrode body accommodated in the case member (the electrode body 20 inside the battery case 10; see [0019]) and connected to the terminal member (the current collecting terminal 30 is connected to the electrode body 20; see [0019]); and a resin member (The insulating material 40 is made of, for example, a PFA resin; see [0027]) in contact with each of the case member and the terminal member (The insulating material 40 is integrally molded with the lid 15 and the current collecting terminal 30; see [0026]) to insulate between the case member and the terminal member (The insulating material 40 is integrally molded with the lid 15 and the current collecting terminal 30 so as to fill the space between the terminal mounting hole 18 and the current collecting terminal 30; see [0026]), wherein the case member includes a surface facing outside (The lid 15 has… an outer side surface 17 facing the outside; see [0012]) and including a region in contact with the resin member (The insulating material 40 includes… a second flange portion 43 extending in the horizontal direction along the outer surface 17 of the lid body 15; see [0026]), the region including: a ring-shaped (see Fig. 1 Part 40) seal region surrounding the insertion hole (“The insulating material 40 includes a tubular portion 41 located between the terminal mounting hole 18 and the shaft portion 33”; see [0026] and “the terminal mounting hole 18 is insulated. It is sealed with the material 40”; see [0029]), to which the resin member is firmly fixed (the insulating material 40 can be immovably fixed to the lid 15; see [0030]); and a contact region located outside the seal region in radial directions of the insertion hole, with which the resin member is in contact (The insulating material 40 includes… a second flange portion 43 extending in the horizontal direction along the outer surface 17 of the lid body 15; see [0026] and Figs. 1-2), and the seal region has a seal length at a seal length ratio of 1.4 or less, which is a ratio of a maximum seal length to a minimum seal length (see Figs. 1-2, which shows Part 41, the tubular seal portion of part 40, as being uniform, therefore having a seal length ratio of 1).
Tsutomu does not explicitly teach an airtight fix. However, Tanaka discloses an airtight seal (airtightness of the case; see [0022]).
Tsutomu and Tanaka are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sealed battery cases. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsutomu by incorporating the teachings of Tanaka to maintain airtight seals for the battery case. Doing so would prevent the leakage of electrolyte solution (see Tanaka [0039]).
Examiner interprets the limitation claiming, “a two-region consisting of the seal region and the contact region has a two-region length, which is a total length of the seal and contact regions, at a two-region length ratio of 3.0 or more, which is a ratio of a maximum two-region length to a minimum two-region length” as indicating that a width of the contact region varies along the perimeter of the contact region while the length of the seal region is fairly uniform along its perimeter, and wherein the longest width of the contact region is at least 3x longer than the shortest width of the contact region. Tsutomu also does not explicitly teach the claimed two-region length ratio. However, Imabori discloses a plate portion in the same relative position of the flange portion of Tsutomu (see Fig. 4 Parts 44a and 54a), wherein the ratio of the maximum length to the minimum length exceeds 3.0 (see Fig. 3, where the length of 54a on the left side of part 52a is much longer, at least 3 times longer, than the length of 54a on the right side of part 52a, and certainly at least 3 times longer than the length above and below part 52a).
Tsutomu and Imabori are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sealed batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsutomu by incorporating the teachings of Imabori and vary the width of the contact region. Doing so would allow for the disclosed relative positioning of the flange and plate portions, which suppresses deformations of the plate portions and propagation of stress (see Imabori [0056]). The two-region length ratio being 3.0 or more would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because the ratio is a results effective variable which effects the propagation of stress (see Imabori [0056]), and therefore would have been a matter of routine experimentation. The courts have held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 2, Tsutomu, Tanaka, and Imabori together disclose the power storage device according to claim 1. Tsutomu further discloses wherein the seal length ratio of the seal length is 1.2 or less (as mentioned in the claim 1 rejection, see Figs. 1-2, which shows Part 41, the tubular seal portion of part 40, as being uniform, therefore having a seal length ratio of 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Tsutomu, Tanaka, and Imabori together disclose the power storage device according to claim 1. When modifying Tsutomu with Tanaka and Imabori, it would inevitably follow that the contact region would include an area having the maximum two-region length. Tsutomu discloses the contact region including an insulating material, which is made of resin, as discussed in the claim 1 rejection. Tsutomu further discloses the insulating material, or resin, being made of resin injected in insert-molding ( In the injection molding step S04, the molding die 60 is first heated. The heating temperature varies depending on the type of resin, but is about 100 to 200 degrees. When the heating of the molding die 60 is completed, the molten resin is injected from the gate portion. The molten resin is filled in the concave portion of the upper mold, and further filled in the concave portion of the lower mold 61 through the terminal mounting hole 18. After that, the molding die 60 and the molded product are cooled. As a result, the insulating material 40, the lid 15, and the current collecting terminal 30 are integrally molded.; see [0036]).
Regarding Claim 4, Tsutomu, Tanaka, and Imabori together disclose the power storage device according to claim 2. The remaining limitations of claim 4 do not exceed those of claim 3. Please refer to the claim 3 rejection as the rejection of claim 4 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, Tsutomu, Tanaka, and Imabori together disclose the power storage device according to claim 1. Tsutomu further discloses wherein the seal region is located on the surface facing outside the case member (This was established in the claim 1 rejection) and has been subjected to a surface-roughening treatment (The lid 15 and the current collecting terminal 30 are fixed to the insulating material 40 by the roughening processing portion 15b of the lid 15; see [0029] and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Tsutomu, Tanaka, and Imabori together disclose the power storage device according to claim 2. The remaining limitations of claim 6 do not exceed those of claim 5. Please refer to the claim 5 rejection as the rejection of claim 6 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, Tsutomu, Tanaka, and Imabori together disclose the power storage device according to claim 3. The remaining limitations of claim 7 do not exceed those of claim 5. Please refer to the claim 5 rejection as the rejection of claim 7 follows the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 8, Tsutomu, Tanaka, and Imabori together disclose the power storage device according to claim 4. The remaining limitations of claim 8 do not exceed those of claim 5. Please refer to the claim 5 rejection as the rejection of claim 8 follows the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALYSSA LEE KUYKENDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-3806. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00am-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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/A.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights