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 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 3 and 4 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 3 recites “wherein when the maximum thickness of the lid is 100%, the peripheral part of the opening is placed in a region of 25% or more and less than 50% from the inner surface in a thickness direction in the attachment step.” It is unclear how a thickness can be a percentage instead of a measurement. Furthermore it is unclear what “25% or more and less than 50% from the inner surface in a thickness direction” is supposed to mean. What thickness direction is being referred to, is it any thickness direction or is it referring to the thickness of the lid? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “wherein when the maximum thickness of the lid is 100%, the peripheral part of the opening is placed in a region of 25% or more and less than 50% from the inner surface in a thickness direction in the attachment step.” It is unclear how a thickness can be a percentage instead of a measurement. Furthermore, it is unclear what “the peripheral part of the opening is placed in a region of 25% or more and less than 50% from the inner surface in a thickness direction” is supposed to mean. What thickness direction is being referred to, is it any thickness direction or is it referring to the thickness of the lid? Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maeda (US 20240014488 A1) .
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a method for manufacturing an electrical storage device (100 [0019]-[0053]), comprising,
a case (11, see Fig. 2 [0020]-[0021]), comprising an outer case (see Fig. 2) having an opening (12 [0022]) on one side surface and a bottom (see Fig. 2),
and a lid (15 [0024]) having terminal attachment holes (18 [0024]) and sealing the opening (14W see Fig. 4 [0038]),
an electrode body (32 [0031] ) accommodated in the case,
a terminal member (31, 33, 34 [0031]-[0032] ), having an one end electrically connected to the electrode body in an inside of the case, and the other end exposed to an outside of the lid (See Fig. 2), and
a resin insulating member (40 [0020]), which insulates a surface of the lid, which is an outer surface on an outside of the case, the opening of which is sealed (See Fig. 3, [0036]), from the terminal member,
the method comprising,
a step of preparing the outer case in which a peripheral part of the opening is a flat surface, and a lid assembly, wherein the lid assembly is obtained by integral molding of the lid, the terminal member and the insulating member (insert-molding is an integral molded since objects of different material are molded together [0051]);
a step of attaching the lid assembly to the opening of the outer case (See Fig. 2 to Fig. 1, and claim 1 which recites laser-welding [0053]); and
a step of laser welding (14W see Fig. 4 [0038]) of the outer case and the lid assembly by irradiating a boundary between the peripheral part of the opening and an outer edge part of the lid with laser light from an outer surface side of the lid; wherein the lid prepared in the preparation step has an inclined part (See 19, [0024]), which becomes thinner from a middle side toward the outer edge part of the lid (sloped and angle declines towards outer region), in a region in which the outer edge part of the lid and the insulating member are closest (see Fig. 3) to each other,
the lid assembly is placed so that the inclined part will become thinner from the outer surface toward a boundary with the outer case in the attachment step (See Fig. 3), and an outer surface of the lid is placed at a higher place (note triangular portion is at a higher place) than the peripheral part of the opening, and an inner surface (underside surface of 16) of the lid is placed at a lower place than the peripheral part of the opening.
Regarding claim 3, Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Maeda discloses wherein when a maximum thickness of the lid is 100%, the lid assembly prepared in the preparation step has the inclined part in a region of 50% or less from the outer surface in a thickness direction (since inclined region is directly part of outer surface and directly abuts insulator it is less than 50% of a thickness direction away from outer region).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Maeda discloses wherein when the maximum thickness of the lid is 100%, the peripheral part of the opening is placed in a region of 25% or more and less than 50% from the inner surface in a thickness direction (no thickness direction has been established with regards to a fixed reference point and therefore any thickness direction can be chosen) in the attachment step.
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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saimaru (US 20160254501 A1) in view of Iwasaki (US 20160211491 A1) in view of Ebara (JP2021086813A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Saimaru discloses a method for manufacturing an electrical storage device (1, see Fig. 1), comprising,
a case (100), comprising an outer case (see Figs. 1 and 2) having an opening (100d, see Fig. 2) on one side surface and a bottom (100c, see Fig. 2), and a lid (200 [0047]) having terminal attachment holes (201 [0047]) and sealing ([0061]) the opening ,
an electrode body (64/74 [0055]) accommodated in the case (100),
a terminal member (6/7 [0047]), having an one end electrically connected to the electrode body in an inside of the case (see Fig. 2 and [0047]), and the other end exposed to an outside of the lid, and
a resin insulating member (8 and 5 [0048], combination of both gasket and insulation members will seal), which insulates a surface of the lid, which is an outer surface on an outside of the case (See Fig. 2), the opening (201) of which is sealed, from the terminal member (6/7 [0047]),
the method comprising,
a step of preparing the outer case in which a peripheral part of the opening is a flat surface (see Fig. 2 and Fig. 11A and 11B, 123 is flat);
a step of attaching the lid assembly to the opening (100d) of the outer case [0041]; and
a step of laser welding ([0041]) of the outer case and the lid assembly by irradiating a boundary between the peripheral part of the opening and an outer edge part of the lid with laser light from an outer surface side of the lid (See Fig. 11A and 11B [0107]-[0108]);
an outer surface of the lid is placed at a higher place (See Figs. 11A and 11B) than the peripheral part of the opening, and an inner surface of the lid is placed at a lower place (See Figs. 11A and 11B) than the peripheral part of the opening.
However, Saimaru does not disclose wherein the lid prepared in the preparation step has an inclined part and the lid assembly is placed so that the inclined part will become thinner from the outer surface toward a boundary with the outer case in the attachment step.
Iwasaki discloses a sealed battery (100, see Fig. 1) wherein the lid (13) outer upper surface is placed at a higher position that the peripheral opening (casing is 12, see Figs. 4 and 5) wherein the casing lid has an outer portion which is laser welded which has an inclined part and further discloses that having an angled portion at edge improves joint strength and reduces impact on electrode groups ([0065][0081] and see Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the shape of the peripheral opening of case and lid of Saimaru to have the geometry as disclosed by Iwasaki because it will improve joint strength and reduce impact on electrode groups.
Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the positioning of the inclined portion relative to the electrode groups of modified Saimaru so that the inclined portion becomes thinner from a middle side toward the outer edge part of the lid, in a region in which the outer edge part of the lid and the insulating member are closest to each other in order to optimize positioning of electrodes and battery size and furthermore because as disclosed by Iwasaki above such an inclined portion prevents damage to electrode groups.
However, Saimaru does not disclose a step of preparing a lid assembly, wherein the lid assembly is obtained by integral molding of the lid, the terminal member and the insulating member.
Ebara discloses that a closing lid, a terminal and an insulator for a sealed battery can have the lid, the terminal, and the insulator be integrally molded ([0010]) and this can ease joining processing requirements ([0038][0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of joining the lid, the terminal, and the insulator of modified Saimaru as disclosed by Ebara by using an integral molding method because Ebara discloses this can ease joining processing requirements.
Regarding claim 2, modified Saimaru discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Saimaru discloses wherein the outer case prepared in the preparation step has a rectangular opening, a rectangular bottom surface facing the opening, a pair of first side walls extended from the bottom surface and facing each other, and a pair of second side walls extended from the bottom surface and facing each other, the lid assembly prepared in the preparation step has a rectangular lid, and the inclined part is provided to span a whole circumference of the outer edge part of the lid (See modification above, and [0060] of Iwasaki).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Saimaru discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Saimaru discloses that TA, TB, and TC shown in Fig. 4 are adjustable ([0040][0069]) and further discloses that the fusion area effects joint strength ([0080]).
However, Saimaru does not explicitly disclose:
wherein when a maximum thickness of the lid is 100%, the lid assembly prepared in the preparation step has the inclined part in a region of 50% or less from the outer surface in a thickness direction
wherein when the maximum thickness of the lid is 100%, the peripheral part of the opening is placed in a region of 25% or more and less than 50% from the inner surface in a thickness direction in the attachment step
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the inclined part height relative to the opening by repositioning the lid or changing the dimensions of the opening of Saimaru to have the dimensions above because as disclosed by Saimaru doing so will allow for optimizing the fusion area.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
Prosecution Insights