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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on December 7th, 2023, has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim states: “The method as recited in claim in claim 18”. The extra “in claim” should be removed.
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)(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, 10, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al. (US20030224246A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Watanabe et al., teaches:
A battery cell comprising:
A housing including a first edge, a second edge on an opposite side of the housing as the first edge, a third edge extending between the first and second edges, and a fourth edge on an opposite of the housing as the third edge and extending between the first and second edges wherein a dimension of the first edge and a dimension of the second edge are greater dimension than any other edges of the housing: [Fig14B]
PNG
media_image1.png
270
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Watanabe et al.)]
A first tab that protrudes outwardly from the first edge; and a second tab that protrudes outwardly from the second edge ([0035], Fig 13A “both the tabs protrude from the long sides of the unit cell formed in the rectangular shape”)
Regarding Claim 2, Watanabe et al., teaches:
The housing includes a centerline extending perpendicular to the first and second edges, a centerline of the first tab is spaced- apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of the third edge, and a centerline of the second tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of the fourth edge ([0038, Fig 14B- “shows a plan view of the unit cell wherein one of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated rightward in the figure whereas the other ones of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated leftward in the figure”- the annotated figure 14B shows the centerline of the tab spaced apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of third and fourth edge).
PNG
media_image2.png
272
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Watanabe et al. (Annotated))]
Regarding Claim 10, Watanabe et al, teaches:
Wherein the first tab and the second tab protrude outwardly beyond respective first and second edges, respectively, by the same distance ([0036], Fig. 13b)
PNG
media_image3.png
274
360
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Watanabe et al.)]
Regarding Claim 12, Watanabe et al., teaches:
Wherein the battery cell is part of a battery pack of an electrified vehicle ([0052] Fig. 22).
Regarding Claim 18, Watanabe et al., teaches:
A method comprising:
Arranging first and second tabs relative to a housing of a battery cell such that a first tab protrudes outwardly from a first edge of the housing and a second tab protrudes outwardly from a second edge of the housing, wherein the dimension of the first edge and a dimension of the second edge are greater dimension than any other edges of the housing ([0035], Fig 13A “both the tabs protrude from the long sides of the unit cell formed in the rectangular shape”).
Regarding Claim 19, Watanabe et al., teaches:
The method as recited in claim 18, wherein:
The housing includes a centerline extending perpendicular to the first and second edges,
A centerline of the first tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of the third edge, and
A centerline of the second tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of the fourth edge (([0035, Fig 14B- “shows a plan view of the unit cell wherein one of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated rightward in the figure whereas the other ones of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated leftward in the figure”- the figure 14B shows the centerline of the tab spaced apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of third and fourth edge).
PNG
media_image2.png
272
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Watanabe et al. (Annotated))]
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.
Claims 3-9, and 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al., (US20030224246A1).
Regarding Claim 3, while Watanabe et al., teaches the limitations of claim 2 that claim 3 depends upon. It further teaches that the tabs protrude out of the unit cell deviated rightward or leftward ([0038] Fig.14B). However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein the centerline of the first tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing by a different distance than the centerline of the second tab.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to rearrange the tabs within different distances of each other in relation to the centerline of the housing to test for optimum battery cell performance, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 4, Watanabe et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3 that claim 4 depends upon. It further teaches that the tabs of a certain surface area protruding out of the unit cell deviated rightward or leftward ([0038] Fig. 14B). However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein, the first tab exhibits a greater surface area than the second tab, and the centerline of the first tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing by a lesser distance than the centerline of the second tab.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to test for different shapes of tabs, that impart different surface areas to the tabs, and different locations for the tabs with respect to the centerline of the housing either symmetrically or asymmetrically to test for optimum battery cell performance, since it has been held that a mere scaling up or down or a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 5, Watanabe et al., teaches the limitations of claim 4 that claim 5 depends upon. It further teaches that the tabs protruding out of the unit cell that are deviated rightward or leftward ([0038] Fig.14B). However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first tab is spaced-apart from the third edge by a greater distance than the second tab is spaced-apart from the fourth edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to rearrange the tabs within different distances along the third and fourth in relation to the centerline of the housing to test for optimizing of battery cell performance, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 6, Watanabe et al., teaches the limitations of claim 5, which claim 6 depends upon. It further teaches that the tabs protruding out of the unit cell deviated rightward or leftward ([0038] Fig. 14B). However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first tab is spaced-apart from the third edge by a distance substantially 50% greater than the distance the second tab is spaced-apart from the fourth edge.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to rearrange the tabs within different distances, like the first tab being spaced- apart from the third edge by a distance substantially 50% greater than the second tab, in relation to the housing centerline to test for optimum battery cell performance, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 7, Watanabe et al., teaches the limitations of claim 4 which claim 7 depends upon. It further teaches that the tabs protruding out of the unit cell deviated rightward or leftward ([0038], Fig. 14B). However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein the centerline of the second tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing by a distance substantially 50% greater than the distance by which the centerline of the first tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to rearrange the tabs within different distances of each other, like the second tab being spaced- apart by a distance substantially 50% greater than the distance of the first tab, in relation to the housing centerline to test for optimum battery cell performance, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 8, Watanabe et al., teaches the limitations of claim 7 which claim 8 depends upon. It further teaches that the tabs of certain surface areas protrude out of the unit cell and deviates rightward or leftward ([0038], Fig 14B). However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein the surface area of the first tab is substantially twice the surface area of the second tab.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to test different shapes of tabs, either symmetrically or asymmetrically to optimize the functioning of the battery cell, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered within the ordinary skill of art.
Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding Claim 9, Watanabe et al., teaches the limitations of claim 8 which claim 9 depends upon. It further teaches that the tabs protrude out of the unit cell and deviates rightward or leftward ([0038], Fig. 14B). However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein a dimension of an end of the first tab is substantially twice a dimension of an end of the second tab.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to test different shapes of tabs, like where one of the tabs (first tab) has substantially twice the dimension of an end of the second tab, to test for optimum functioning of the battery cell, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art.
Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding Claim 13, Watanabe et al., teaches:
A battery cell, comprising:
A housing including a first edge, a second edge on an opposite side of the housing as the first edge, a third edge extending between the first and second edges, and a fourth edge on an opposite side of the housing as the third edge and extending between the first and second edges, and a fourth edge on an opposite side of the housing as the third edge and extending between the first and second edges, wherein a dimension of the first edge and a dimension of the second edge are greater dimensions that any other edges of the housing;
A first tab that protrudes outwardly from the first edge;
A second tab that protrudes outwardly from the second edge; ([0035], Fig 13A “both the tabs protrude from the long sides of the unit cell formed in the rectangular shape”)
Wherein the first tab is closer to the third edge than the fourth edge and the second tab is closer to the fourth edge than the third edge ([0038] Fig.14B- “wherein one of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated rightward whereas the other one of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated leftward”).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Watanabe et al.)]
However, Watanabe et al., does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first tab exhibits a greater surface area than the second tab,
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to test different shapes of the tabs, either symmetrically or asymmetrically, to optimize the functioning of the battery cell, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered within the ordinary skill of art.
Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding Claim 14, Watanabe et al., teaches the combination of claim 13, which claim 14 depends upon. However, Watanabe et al., does not specifically teach:
Wherein the surface area of the first tab is substantially twice the surface area of the second tab.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to test different shapes of the tabs, like where the surface area of the first tab is substantially twice the surface area of the second tab, to optimize the functioning of the battery cell, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered within the ordinary skill of art.
Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe et al., teaches the combination of claim 14, which claim 15 depends upon. However, Watanabe et al., does not specifically teach:
Wherein a dimension of an end of the first tab is substantially twice a dimension of an end of the second tab.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to test different shapes of the tabs, like where the dimension of an end of the first tab is substantially twice the dimension of an end of the second tab, to test for ways to optimize the functioning of the battery cell, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in the size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered within the ordinary skill in the art.
Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976)
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe et al., teaches the combination of claim 13, which claim 16 depends upon. However, Watanabe et al., does not specifically teach:
Wherein the first tab is spaced-apart from the third edge by a distance substantially 50% greater than the distance the second tab is spaced-apart from the fourth edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to rearrange the tabs within different distances of each other in relation to the centerline of the housing, like where the first tab is spaced-apart from the third edge by a distance substantially 50% greater than the distance the second tab is spaced-apart from the fourth edge, to test for optimum battery performance, since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art.
The particular placement of an element was held to be obvious when shifting the location of an element would not have modified the operation of device. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ7 (CCPA 1975)
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019,86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe et al., teaches the combination of claim 13, which claim 17 depends upon. Watanabe et al., further teaches:
The housing includes a centerline extending perpendicular to the first and second edges,
A centerline of the first tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of the third edge, and
A centerline of the second tab is spaced-apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of the fourth edge ([0035, Fig 14B- “shows a plan view of the unit cell wherein one of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated rightward in the figure whereas the other ones of the tabs protruding from the long side of the unit cell is deviated leftward in the figure”- the figure 14B shows the centerline of the tab spaced apart from the centerline of the housing in the direction of third and fourth edge).
PNG
media_image2.png
272
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Watanabe et al. (Annotated))]
Regarding Claim 20, Watanabe et al., teaches the combination of claim 18, which claim 20 depends upon. However, Watanabe et al., specifically, does not teach:
Wherein the first tab exhibits a different surface area than the second tab.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to test for different shapes of tabs, that impart different surface areas to the tabs, to test for ways to optimize the performance of the battery cell, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art.
Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US20030224246) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardner et al. (US20090169990).
Regarding Claim 11, Watanabe et al., teaches the limitations of claim 1 which claim 11 depends upon. However, it does not specifically teach:
Wherein the housing is a flexible pouch.
However, Gardner et al., in a similar field of endeavor, teaches:
“The inner components of the battery cell can be sealed within an enclosure made of a pouch material. A typical cell pouch material is comprised of laminated layers of polyethylene, nylon, and aluminum foil”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to take the teachings of Watanabe et al., and create a battery cell with tabs protruding out of the housing and use the method of Gardner et al., to seal the components of the battery cell withing a pouch material (housing) that is made up of flexible materials such as polyethylene, nylon, and aluminum foil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAURAV K JHA whose telephone number is (571)270-5722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1700.
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, Alison L. Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/S.K.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights