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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 defines a battery comprising the battery cell of claim 1. A battery cell is a battery. Therefore, Claim 15 fails to narrow the scope of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020063584-A1) and Han (CN-213520133-U).
Claim 1: Yang ‘584 teaches a battery cell [¶ 0006], a top cover assembly (1) comprising a top cover plate {end cover} (11) [¶ 0082], a housing (2) [¶ 0081], that the combination of the top cover assembly and housing forms an accommodating cavity that encloses the electrode assembly (3) [¶ 0081], a lower insulating member (14) {insulator} [¶ 0082], and an insulating sheet (21) {protective film} [¶ 0081] that fits around the outside of the electrode assembly (3) [FIG. 1].
Yang ‘548 does not teach the insulating sheet (21) and the lower insulating member (14) being fit together.
Han ‘133 teaches a top cover assembly for a secondary battery that can be used to seal the housing containing a battery cell [¶ 0005], that said top cover assembly includes a top cover sheet and an insulating film assembly [¶ 0005], that the insulating film assembly is below the top cover sheet and wraps around the battery cell [¶ 0005].
Han ’133 further teaches that one of the top cover sheet and insulating film has a protrusion (41) while the other has a recess (42) to engage said protrusion [¶ 0010], and that this configuration would allow for a fix of the parts without employing hot-melt procedures which have associated risks, additional processes, and additional costs [¶ 0010].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to have modified Yang ‘584 to include the snap-fit joint of Han ‘133 in order to join the insulating sheet and lower insulating member without applying a holt-melt fix so as to avoid associated risks and reduce processing costs, as suggested by Han.
Claim 2: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It may be further understood that the insulating film protrusions (41) and recesses (42) that engage said protrusions of Han ‘133 [¶ 0010] are buckles and holes, respectively.
Claim 3: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 teach the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Yang ‘584 further teaches the lower insulating member (14) has an outer side surface [FIG. 3] facing toward an inner wall of the housing [¶ 0081; FIG. 1].
Yang ‘584 does not teach the insulator having buckles on the outer side surface.
Han ’133 teaches that one of the top cover sheet and insulating film has a protrusion {buckle} (41) while the other has a recess {hole} (42) to engage said protrusion [¶ 0010], and that this configuration would allow for a fix of the parts without employing hot-melt procedures which have associated risks, additional processes, and additional costs [¶ 0010].
Han ‘133 further teaches the protrusion (41) facing away from an outer side surface of the battery cell [¶ 0027].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to have modified Yang ‘584 to include the snap-fit joint of Han ‘133 in order to join the insulating sheet and lower insulating member without applying a holt-melt fix so as to avoid associated risks and reduce processing costs, as suggested by Han.
It is understood that by modifying the film and lower insulating member in this way, since the lower insulating member of Yang ‘584 is contained within the housing (2), the protrusions on the outer side surface of the insulating film would be facing toward an inner wall of the housing (2).
Claim 13: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. It may be further understood that the insulating film protrusions (41) and recesses (42) that engage said protrusions of Han ‘133 [¶ 0010] are lug bosses and holes, respectively.
Claim 14: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 teach the limitations of claim 13, as discussed above. Yang ‘584 further teaches their embodiment uses the cooperation of convex and concave parts to prevent undesired movement during use [¶ 0103].
As Yang ‘584 does not teach the insulator and protective film being fit together – as emphasized in the Claim analysis of Claim 1 – and that lug bosses and holes are taught by Han ‘133 – as addressed in the Claim analysis of Claim 13 – Yang ‘584 does not teach the Claim language of Claim 14.
Han ‘133 further teaches that “various structures that can produce concave-convex fitting can be used alone or in combination, as long as a stable concave-convex fitting can be produced” [¶ 0025].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Yang ‘584 to have the concave-convex fitting of the protrusion/hole structure of Han ‘133 in order to prevent undesired movement during the use of the invention, as suggested by Yang.
An interpretation by the Examiner is provided below for one embodiment of Han ‘133 that has a connection portion disposed between the lug boss and an inner wall of the protective film, the hole having a first section and a second section, the second section being disposed on a side of the first section, that the second section is further away from the end cover, that at least part of the connecting portion is disposed at the second section, and that the lug boss and the first section of the hole are in interference fit to prevent the lug boss from running out of the first section.
PNG
media_image1.png
1000
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 15: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, it is understood that a battery is a battery cell.
Claim 16: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 teach the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, it is understood that a battery is configured to supply electrical energy.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020063584-A1) and Han (CN-213520133-U)¸ as applied to Claim 2, and further in view of Wang (US-20160376081-A1).
Claim 12: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 teach the limitations of claim 2, as discussed above. Han ‘133 further teaches two first protection portions disposed opposite in a thickness direction of the battery when assembled (31, 32) [FIG. 2] and two second protection portions disposed opposite in a length direction of the battery when assembled (33, 34) [FIG. 2]. And it can be seen by the indication of folding lines on FIG. 2 that when the film is assembled, the length and thickness direction of the end cover are perpendicular to each other. It further teaches that the advantage of this invention is easy installation and a firm connection [¶ 0017].
Han ‘133 does not teach second and first holes partially overlapping such that they fit in the same buckle.
Wang ‘081 teaches a packing case including a base (10) and a box (20) {collectively a ‘housing’} [¶ 0016] that forms an accommodating cavity [FIGs. 1, 3, 5]. It further teaches a plurality of locking holes {first holes} (12) and a locking member {buckle} (24) on the shell (22) that engages and locks the locking hole and shell together [¶ 0018].
It is understood that the cavity into which the locking member (24) is placed is a hole within the shell (22) {second holes} [FIG. 2, 4].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to modify Yang ‘584 to have the snap-fit joint of Han ‘133 in order to join the insulating sheet and lower insulating member without applying a holt-melt fix so as to avoid associated risks and reduce processing costs, as suggested by Han, as discussed in the claim analysis of claim 1 above. And further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the Art prior to the filing date to further modify the snap-fit joint to contain the multiple overlapping holes of Wang ‘081 to have an easy installation of the film that had a firm connection, as further suggested by Han.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following are statements of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 4: Yang ‘584 and Han ‘133 are discussed above. Neither alone nor in combination do they teach the outer side surface having grooves in which buckles are disposed.
While it is common in the Art to fix the top cap of a battery to the housing by various means and wrap a sheet or film around said housing to add protection, the means of fitting these parts is often an engineering fit, a snap fit, or a tongue and groove fit. The prior Art does not fairly teach or suggest grooves on the outer side surface of an insulator that faces an inner wall of the housing and with buckles disposed in the grooves.
Claims 5-11: These claims depend on Claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chris Gagnon whose telephone number is (571)270-0417. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday 8:00am-5:00pm (ET) and Saturday 8:00am-12:00pm (ET).
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 Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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 L GAGNON/Examiner, Art Unit 1712
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights