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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the component listed as “extension portion 161” is not labeled on the drawings. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fang (CN216251022U).
Regarding Claim 1, Fang teaches a cylindrical battery cell ([0004], [0081]) comprising a housing (20, [0005]), which includes an end wall (23, [0055]) and a side wall ("housing", 22, [0112]) surrounding the end wall. An opening ("recess", FIG. 9, 31 not listed in FIG. 9) is formed on one side of the side wall facing away from the end wall. An electrode assembly (10, [0005]) disposed in the housing, wherein a first tab (11, [0005]) is provided on one side of the electrode assembly facing the opening (FIG. 9). A current collecting component disposed on one side of the electrode assembly facing the opening (40, FIG. 9), wherein the current collecting component is welded and connected to the first tab [0041]. Fang teaches a cover plate welded with the side wall to seal the opening [0112],[0132]. Fang teaches in a thickness direction of the cap, the cap comprises a recessed portion that is recessed toward the electrode assembly [0105], and the recessed portion is welded and connected to the current collecting [0199].
Regarding claim 3, Fang teaches the thickened portion of the current collecting component is welded with the recessed portion of the cap Fig. 5 & 8, [0199].
Regarding claim 4, Fang teaches a center hole located in the center region that corresponds to the positioning of the recess portion of the cap [0214-0217].
Regarding claim 13, Fang teaches a battery assembly comprising the cylindrical battery cell [0082].
Regarding claim 14, Fang teaches an electronic device comprising the battery assembly [0089-0090].
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.
Claim 2 & 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN216251022U), as applied to claim 1 in view of Li (WO2022188484).
Regarding claim 2, Fang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 but does not teach a cover plate being welded with the end cap. Wang teaches a cover plate welded with the end cap [0045] [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylindrical battery of Fang to have a cover plate welded with the end cap as a known means in the battery art of securing the end cap to the cover plate as taught by Li.
Regarding Claim 5, Fang teaches all the limitations of Claim 4 but does not teach the specific limitations of this claim. Li teaches an opening hole corresponding to the liquid injection hole is disposed at a center of the current collecting component [0016-0017] [0099]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Fang and Wang to obtain a cylindrical battery cell having a recess portion disposed at a center of the end cap, wherein a liquid injection hole is disposed at a center of the recess portion and having that corresponding liquid injection hole disposed at a center of the current collecting component, since such would allow injected liquid electrolyte to wet the electrode assembly of Fang as taught by Li (0016).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches liquid injection hole. Li does not teach a liquid injection hole having a diameter of 2 mm to 7 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the size of the liquid injection hole including within a diameter 2 mm to 7 mm, with a reason expectation of success of being able to inject electrolyte into the battery through a hole of that size. It has been held that relative dimensions will not generally distinguish a claimed invention over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A)
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN216251022U) in view of Narbonne (US20210218095A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Fang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 but does not teach the specific limitations of this claim. However, Narbonne teaches a cover for a cylindrical electrochemical device wherein at least a part of a lower surface of the cap located at an outer periphery is in contact with an end surface of the side wall for welding connection (FIG. 1 a, underside of element 3 / element 9 is in contact with the side shell 2), and in a thickness direction of the cap, an annular groove that is recessed toward the electrode assembly side is further disposed at the outer periphery of the cap, a side wall of the annular groove away from a center of the cap is in contact with an inner surface of the side wall for welding connection (FIG. 2a). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylindrical battery of Fang to include the cover of the similar cell of Narbonne. One would have been motivated to combine these two inventions because the presence of the closure part (3), which contains the groove, improves the heat dissipation/ cooling of the container of the cell ([0013], [0050]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN216251022U) in view of Min (EP4047703A2).
Regarding Claim 11, Fang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 but does not teach a venting mark being disposed on the cap. However, Min teaches a cylindrical battery wherein a venting mark is further disposed on the cap [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylindrical battery of Fang with venting mark of Min. One would have been motivated to combine the aspects of these inventions in this way because the vent mark would be configured to rupture once the pressure inside the battery reached, or rather surpassed, a predetermined threshold [0076-0077], which is well known in the art to protect the battery from damage caused by thermal runway.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN216251022U) in view of Lim (CN114865054A).
Regarding Claim 12, Fang teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 but does not teach the limitations of this claim. However, Lim teaches a (cylindrical, [0158]) battery wherein a second tab (62, 63) is Page 14 disposed on one side of the electrode assembly facing the end wall (FIG. 1, 62/63 are elements of 60, 62 not highlighted in this figure), and the cylindrical battery cell further comprises an electrode terminal (50) protruding from an outer surface of the end wall (FIG. 1), the electrode terminal is electrically connected to the second tab ([0074, 0325], 12 is the portion of the tab with no coating). 41. Lim also teaches a liquid injection hole (H3, [0187]), but does not specifically teach it being disposed on the end wall or the electrode terminal. However, it was held that the rearrangement of parts was unpatentable unless a new or unexpected result was produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI) (C)). 42. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the cylindrical battery of Fang with these elements of Lim. One would have been motivated to combine these inventions because terminal 50 being exposed on the lower portion opposite to opening can act as an anode, so when multiple cylindrical batteries are connected in one direction the electrical connection structure is greatly simplified [0328], according to Lim. Moreover, the battery where its structure has a large portion of the lower surface located on the opposite side from the opening and protruding from the casing ensures sufficient area for welding components for electrical connection [0328].
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 & 10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 14 & 18-19 of copending Application No. 18/531,628 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter being claim is of the same invention from the same inventors.
Claim 1 of both applications are claiming similar subject matter with the difference being the description of the connection between the cap and the current collector. The present application (18/534700) describes a cap having a recess portion for a current collecting component to be connected and welded to. The reference application (18/531628) describes a current collecting component having a thickened portion protruding toward the cap, and the thickened portion being connected and welded to the cap. The description of the connection differentiates by the component that is protruding and the component that is recessed, but both are describing the same connection between the same two components at the same location, thus rendering the current claim obvious over the reference application.
Claim 10 of the present (18/534700) application has identical subject matter with claim 14 of the reference application (18/531628). With the differentiating factor being the independent claim they are both derived from, of which it was previously examined to not be patentably distinct; in the discussion above.
Claim 11 of the present (18/534700) application has identical subject matter with claim 18 of the reference application (18/531628). With the differentiating factor being the independent claim they are both derived from, of which it was previously examined to not be patentably distinct; in the discussion above.
Claim 12 of the present (18/534700) application has identical subject matter with claim 19 of the reference application (18/531628). With the differentiating factor being the independent claim they are both derived from, of which it was previously examined to not be patentably distinct; in the discussion above.
Regarding claim 13 claim 20 of 18/531628 teaches a battery assembly containing the cylindrical battery cell.
Regarding claim 14, it would be obvious as known in the battery art to use a battery assembly in an electronic device.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS E VENTURA HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:30 am-4:00 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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/D.E.V./Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights