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 . 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. (US 2006/0078787 A1), hereinafter “Sato.”
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a cylindrical lithium ion secondary battery comprising:
a cylindrical can (¶ [0041], Fig. 1, ref. no. 1);
an electrode assembly in the cylindrical can (¶ [0041], Fig. 1, ref. no. 2); and
a cap assembly for sealing the cylindrical can, in this case the sealing lid group (¶ [0042], Fig. 1, ref. no. 9);
wherein the cap assembly comprises a top plate, in this case the rupture plate (¶ [0045], Figs. 1 & 2, ref. no. 18), having a notch formed thereon (¶ [0045], Fig. 2, ref. no. 23), a support plate having a first through-hole formed through a center thereof, in this case the stripper with a small hole (¶ [0044], Fig. 2, ref. nos. 16 & 22), and a bottom plate electrically connected with the electrode assembly and connected to an inner surface of the top plate through the first-through-hole, in this case the conductive thin film (¶ [0044], Fig. 1, ref. no. 21) that is electrically connected to the electrode assembly via the lead wire (¶ [0042], Fig. 1, ref. no. 11), the top plate wrapping around an edge of the support plate, in this case the protrusion wraps around the interior edge of the small hole of the stripper (see Fig. 1, ref. nos. 16, 18, & 20);
wherein the support plate has a strength that is greater than that of the top plate, in this case the rupture plate is designed to be broken while the stripper plate is not deformed (see ¶ [0108]-[0109]) meaning that the strength of the stripper plate is greater than that of the rupture plate.
Regarding claim 2, Sato further discloses that the support plate includes a first region having the first through-hole formed thereon, in this case the surface around the small hole perpendicular to the stacking direction (see annotated Fig. 2, below), a second region positioned at an exterior side of the first region and positioned lower than the first region, in this case the exterior side of the small hole parallel to the stacking direction (see annotated Fig. 2, below), and a third region connecting the first and second regions to each other and including a plurality of through-holes formed thereon, in this case the edge between the first and second regions (see annotated Fig. 2, below) that define the sector holes (¶ [0044], Fig. 2, ref. no. 19).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Sato further discloses that a ring-shaped groove is formed on the second region, in this case the circular notch (¶ [0045], Fig. 2, ref. no. 23).
Regarding claim 5, Sato further discloses that the ring-shaped groove is formed to have a depth of 5% to 20% of a thickness of the support plate (¶ [0057]).
Regarding claim 6, Sato further discloses an insulation plate positioned between the support plate and the bottom plate and having a through-hole centrally located to correspond to the first through-hole of the support plate, in this case the insulating sheet opened at a central side to form a gas passage (¶ [0043], Figs. 1 & 2, ref. no. 17).
Regarding claim 7, Sato further discloses that the top plate is configured to be upwardly convexly deformed to electrically disconnect from the bottom plate, in this case the rupture plate is pushed to the terminal plate side and the conduction path is cut off due to elevated internal pressure (¶ [0108]).
Regarding claim 8, Sato further discloses that the top plate notch is configured to break when the internal pressure exceeds a breaking pressure (¶ [0109]).
Regarding claim 9, Sato further discloses an insulation gasket positioned between the cap assembly and the cylindrical can that insulates the cap assembly from the cylindrical can (¶ [0042], Fig. 1, ref. no. 10).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. § 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. § 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 1,183,043. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights