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 .
Examiner Interpretation
Claim 1 line 1 recites: “a battery having a symmetry about an axis”. However, no further definition was given to this limitation. As such the examiner is interpretating “a symmetry about an axis” in light of the instant specification [0033]. The BRI is to be an axis of symmetry defined as a line around which there is equal physical volume of the battery. Additionally, the symmetry may be present depending upon the orientation in which the object is viewed. This interpretation is in light of the applicant instant specification [0034], “In FIG. 2 , the external negative tab 210 is in line with the axis of symmetry 216 , but the external negative tab 210 will not be in line with the axis of symmetry 216 if the view is rotated, as in FIG. 1.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the symmetry is a radial symmetry about the axis”. A clear definition of “radial symmetry” is not present in either the claims or the instant specification. Given the limitations outlined in claim 1 line 21-23, “extending along the base exterior surface and the sidewall exterior surface, and configured such that there is a substantially greater portion of the external negative tab on one side of the axis than on an opposing side of the axis”. This forces a feature in which an external tab is located on a specific section of the cases base and side wall. As such, this creates an external surface that cannot have true radial symmetry as the object cannot be rotated such that it is in the same features and shapes across multiple rotations. This feature may be clearly seen in the instant specification and drawings in which the applicant discusses and depicts the radial symmetry [0034-0035, fig. 2-3].
PNG
media_image1.png
296
1115
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Instant figure 3 rotated at various positions to show the variance in features during rotation.
Additional internal features present within the instant specification and drawings (but not necessarily in claim 1) additionally make it clear that the inclusion of internal and external features associated with the battery does not possess radial symmetry. Rather the only radial symmetry present in the instant application is that of the battery can comprising a top and bottom can.
Given the information present in the instant specification the BRI of “the symmetry is a radial symmetry about the axis” is met if the battery case including the top and bottom case is cylindrical.
If the applicant disagrees with this stance and insists that the additional internal and external features of the battery must be present to meet the “radial symmetry” then a 112b rejection may be proper as the applicant has described a physical product incapable of having true “radial symmetry”.
Examiner note
In light of dependent claims 8 and 9, and in the instant specification [0031], the examiner notes that a “top can” of the instant invention may serve two purposes: 1) “the top can 102 defines a top of the enclosure”. 2) “The top can 102 forms a positive terminal on the top”. The duel purpose of a top can in the present applicant will be taken into consideration during prosecution.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su (WO2023070590A1 as cited in the IDS filed 04/30/2025; US20240283107A1 is used as an English equivalent) and as evidenced by Ida (Engineering Electromagnetics: Chapter 8).
Regarding claim 1 and 10, Su discloses a battery having a symmetry about an axis and comprising: a battery can comprising a top can (111) and a bottom can (1) [0085, fig. 3, Su], the top can is disposed at least partially within the bottom can to provide an enclosure encompassing a volume such that: the top can defines a top of the enclosure [fig. 3, Su], the top of the enclosure having a top interior surface and a top exterior surface (1111a) [fig. 3-4, Su], the top exterior surface defining a plane [fig. 3-4, Su]; and the bottom can defines a base (13) and a sidewall (12) of the enclosure [fig. 3, Su], the sidewall being substantially orthogonal to the plane [fig. 3, Su], the base of the enclosure having a base interior surface and a base exterior surface and the sidewall of the enclosure having a sidewall interior surface and a sidewall exterior surface [fig. 3, Su]; a plurality of layers (2) stacked within the volume [fig. 3, Su]; an internal negative tab (4) for providing a current to the plurality of layers [0105, fig. 3 and 5, Su], the internal negative tab (4) adjacent to a first location on the base interior surface [fig. 3 and 5, Su]; an internal positive tab (3) for collecting the current within the plurality of layers [0105, fig. 3 and 5, Su], the internal positive tab (3) adjacent to a second location on the top interior surface and positioned such that an angle is created between the internal negative tab and the internal positive tab as measured in the plane about the axis [fig. 3 and 5, Su]; an external positive tab (1112) connected to the top exterior surface (1111a) at a third location [fig. 1-2, Su], the external positive tab defining a positive terminal for the battery and centered on the axis [0084, 0086, Su]; and an external negative tab (6) connected to the base exterior surface at a fourth location [fig. 1-2, Su], the external negative tab defining a negative terminal for the battery [0084, 0090, Su], extending along the base exterior surface and the sidewall exterior surface [fig. 2, Su], and configured such that there is a substantially greater portion of the external negative tab on one side of the axis than on an opposing side of the axis [fig. 2, Su].
PNG
media_image2.png
518
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
543
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 3, Su
Specifically in regards to claim 10, Su teaches of button cells being used in sound producing Bluetooth headset (“mobile electronic device”) [0003, Su].
The examiner notes, that if the button cells are being used in a sound producing Bluetooth device. The examiner notes that Bluetooth speakers are known to have a housing that contains the speak and any electrochemical apparatus.
As such, this reads on the applicant’s claimed limitation of “A mobile electronic device, comprising: a housing; one or more speakers coupled to the housing”
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Su discloses a magnetic field generated by currents flowing through the battery and its tabs [0005, 0016, 0105, 0111, Su].
The examiner notes that a fundamental property of the electromagnetism is that the magnetic flux density (B, “magnetic field”) and the magnetic field intensity (“H”) possess a linear relationship, reproduced below [pg. 380, Ida].
PNG
media_image4.png
204
964
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As can be seen in figure 5 of Su, the internal negative and positive tabs are located within ~90 degrees of each other [fig. 5, Su].
One of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that if a current is flowing through the internal negative/positive tab such that a magnetic field (“B”) is being generated through each tab, then that magnetic field would inherently have a magnetic field strength (“H” or “H-field”). The “H-field” of Su would be concentrated around these electrode tabs and an “H-field” would be less prominent in sections of the battery that do not possess the electrode tabs.
Therefore, the battery of Su would inherently possess an H-field, generated by the current, has an asymmetric distribution about the axis.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
Regarding claim 3 and 12, Su discloses the battery, wherein the angle between the internal negative tab and the internal positive tab as measured in the plane about the axis is less than 180 degrees [fig. 5, Su].
The angle of the tabs is ~90 degrees, which anticipates the applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 4 and 15, Su discloses the battery, wherein the symmetry is a radial symmetry about the axis, the axis being a central axis [fig. 1-3, Su].
As discussed in the Examiner’s Interpretation above, the limitations for radial symmetry are met if the battery case comprising a top and bottom case is cylindrical.
Regarding claim 7 and 18, Su teaches of an insulating layer (7) between the top can (first/positive electrode, 111) and the housing of the battery [0088, fig. 3, Su].
The examiner notes that the top can (positive electrode) being insulated from the housing reads on an insulative layer between the top can and the bottom can as these two objects are now insulated from one another.
Regarding claim 8 and 19, Su teaches the battery, wherein the top can comprises a raised portion (1112) [0093, fig. 3-4, Su], the raised portion: situated along the top exterior surface [fig. 3-4, Su]; and centered at the third location [fig. 3-4, Su].
The examiner notes that the external positive electrode tab of Su possess the physical features of “a raised portion” and as such reads on the applicant’s claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 9 and 20, Su teaches of the top can further comprises the external positive tab [0093, fig. 3-4].
The first electrode (111, “top can”) of Su is a positive electrode that is connected to the internal positive electrode tab (3) [0086, fig. 3, Su]. The second portion (1112, “external positive tab”) is a used to then connect to electrode to a “connecting member” (5) [0086, fig. 3, Su]. The second protrusion 1112 reads on an “external positive tab”.
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) 5, 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lim (KR20220055905A, IDS filed 11/28/23).
Regarding claim 5 and 16, Su discloses that the second connecting member (6, “external negative electrode terminal”) is connected to the housing at the “fourth location”[0005, fig. 2, Su].
Su is silent to the means by which they are connected.
However, Lim teaches of a second external tab (334, “external negative electrode terminal”) connected to the bottom of the can (“fourth location”) by welding [0102, Lim].
The examiner notes that known welding techniques (e.g. soldering, laser, resistance, vibration, etc.) used to connected the metal external terminal to the metal case will inherently have “a conductive material” present at the weld point. Either via a metal solder or the joining of the two metal pieces through laser/resistance/vibration welding.
There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003), see MPEP 2112.II.
"[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999), see MPEP 2112.I.
Regarding claim 14, modified Su teaches that button cells may be used in Bluetooth devices [0003, Su].
Modified Su is silent to the mobile electronic device being one of a pair of wireless earbuds.
However, Lim notes that coin (button) cells may be used in earbuds [0057, Lim].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Su such that the mobile electronic device was an earbud. This is a known Bluetooth/electronic device that requires a battery for operation [0057, Lim].
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Su as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Wang (CN115458849A).
Regarding claim 6 and 17, Modified Su is silent to 1) an insulative layer between the external negative tab and the base and sidewall exterior surface. 2) the insulative layer starting after the weld point. 3) the insulative layer substantially filling an area between the enclosure and negative tab.
In regards to 1), 2), and 3) Wang teaches of an insulating tape (6a, 6b, 6c, 6d) that is used to insulate the external tabs from the case. This includes examples where the insulating tape (6a) is placed between the external negative electrode tab (3a) and the sidewall of the bottom case (14) [0083, fig. 7-8, Wang]. As well as examples where the insulating tape (6d) is between the base of the bottom case (14) and the external negative electrode (3d/33d) [0100, fig. 18, Wang]. Additionally, the insulating tape starts after the electrically connected point (31 d, “weld point”) [0100, fig. 18, Wang].
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to have an insulating layer be between the external negative tab and both the base exterior and sidewall surface. Doing so provides a necessary insulation structure between the conductive body of the external negative electrode and bottom shell (“bottom can”) [0076, Wang]. It would additionally be obvious to the insulating layer start after the “weld point”. This allows for the part where the external negative electrode tab and the negative electrode to still be electrically connected [0100, Wang].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 13, Su discloses that button cells generate magnetic fields that may impact the sound effect of a Bluetooth headset [0003, Su]. Su then teaches their method for minimizing the magnetic field produced by an electrochemical apparatus such that it may produced magnetic field is weakened and causes less electromagnetic interference with the electric device [0005, Su].
Su is silent to the location of a speaker in relation to greatest concentration of the H-field.
However, prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would appreciate that if the magnetic field generated by a electrochemical apparatus impacts the sound effect of a Bluetooth headset, then the placement of a sound producing device (“speaker”) in relation to any magnetic fields should be considered.
As discussed above in the rejection of claims 2 and 11, magnetic fields will inherently have a magnetic field intensity (“H-field”). The H-field produced by the internal electrode tabs of Su is asymmetrically distributed across the electrochemical apparatus. For clarity of the record, this would result in a greater concentration of H-field at the location of the internal electrode tabs.
When placing a speaker in relation to the H-field produced by a battery, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious-to-try to have the speaker be placed at an area furthest away from the greatest concentration of H-field, see MPEP 2143.I.E.
When placing a speaker in relation to a battery with a concentrated H-field one may choose to A) place the speaker at a point furthest away from the greatest concentration of H-field. B) place the speaker at a point closest to the greatest concentration of H-field. Or C) place the speaker at a point between A) and B). Given that Su notes that magnetic interference worsens the sound in Bluetooth headsets. One of ordinary skill within the arts could predict that placing a speaker closer to a greater concentration of H-field (magnetic field intensity) would impact the sound effect. While alternatively distancing speaker from the greater concentration of H-field (magnetic field intensity) would mean that there is less magnetic interference present to impact the sound effect.
Prior to the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Su such that the speaker was placed at a point furthest away from the greatest concentration of H-field. Doing so would localize the magnetic interference produced by the battery at a point away from the speaker.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724 /BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights