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(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation "between 3% and 20%", and the claim also recites "preferably between 6% and 15%" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes, examiner considers the narrower range of 6% to 15% as merely exemplary and, thus, not required. However, appropriate correction is required in order to overcome the indefiniteness rejection.
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.
Claims 8, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2020/0365856) (Kim) (of record).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses a cylindrical secondary battery cell (title) comprising: a cylindrical can (110) comprising an end side (top side, Fig. 1B), and a terminal (141) arranged at the can end side (see Fig. 1B; [0033]; [0041]-[0043]), wherein: the terminal (141) comprises a terminal surface (141a) for connecting electrical interconnects to the cylindrical secondary cell (see Fig. 1C; [0041]-[0043]), the terminal surface (141a) comprises a first part (141d) surrounded by a second part (141f+141e) (see Figs. 1C and 2; [0043]). Kim further discloses that the first part (141d) is formed with a surface-treated region (10) that has a roughness from a plurality of concave-convex structures (see Fig. 2; [0044]; [0068]). However, Kim discloses that the second part (141f+141e) is not formed with this surface-treated region (10) (see Fig. 2; [0069]). Thus, Kim necessarily discloses that a first surface roughness of the first part (141d) exceeds a second surface roughness of the second part (141f+141e) by more than a predetermined amount, reading on all of the limitations in claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Kim further discloses that the surface-treated region (10) of the first part (141d) is formed through knurling ([0044]; [0068]), reading on the limitations in claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Kim further discloses that the terminal surface (141a) is circular, and the first part (141d) is arranged at the center of the circular terminal surface (141a) (see Figs. 1A and 2; [0034]), reading on the limitations in claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Kim further discloses that the can end side includes a bent part (114) (corresponding to the claimed second terminal) as part of the cylindrical case (110) (see Fig. 1B; [0034]), wherein the cylindrical case (110), including the bent part (114), can act as a negative electrode terminal ([0035]-[0036]). Therefore, since Kim discloses that the terminal (141) acts as a positive electrode terminal ([0062]), Kim reads on the limitation that the second terminal (114) is of opposite polarity than the terminal (141). Kim further discloses that the cylindrical secondary cell comprises an isolating part (145) between the can end side and the terminal (141) (see Fig. 1B; [0064]). Thus, Kim reads on all of the limitations in claim 14.
Claims 8, 11-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kashiwazaki (JP 2002124218 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Kashiwazaki discloses a cylindrical secondary cell (title) comprising: a cylindrical can (1) comprising an end side (top side, Fig. 1), and a terminal (8) arranged at the end side (see Fig. 1; [0006]), wherein the terminal (8) comprises a terminal surface for connecting external electrical interconnects to the cylindrical secondary cell ([0007]-[0008]), the terminal surface comprising a first part (8a) surrounded by a second part (see Modified Figure 1 below). Kashiwazaki further discloses that only the first part (8a) of the terminal (8) is roughened to have a roughness between 2 to 25 µm ([0007]-[0010]; see Table 1). Therefore, since Kashiwazaki indicates that the second part of the terminal (8) surrounding the first part (8a) is not roughened, it is clear that Kashiwazaki reads on the limitation that a first surface roughness of the first part (8a) exceeds a second surface roughness of the second part by more than a predetermined amount.
PNG
media_image1.png
296
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1, Kashiwazaki
Regarding claim 11, Kashiwazaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As set forth above, Kashiwazaki discloses that only the first part (8a) of the terminal (8) is roughened ([0007]-[0010]). Furthermore, Kashiwazaki discloses that a maximum roughness of the first part (8a) is 25 µm ([0007]-[0010]; see Table 1). Thus, since the second part clearly has a surface roughness less than that of the first part (8a), Kashiwazaki necessarily discloses that the second part has a surface roughness less than, at most 25 µm, reading on the claimed range of less than 40 µm.
Regarding claim 12, Kashiwazaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Kashiwazaki further discloses that the terminal surface is circular (see Fig. 1; [0006]), and the first part (8a) is arranged at the center of the circular terminal surface (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Kashiwazaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Kashiwazaki further discloses that the cylindrical can (1), including portions at the can end side, can act as a second terminal of positive polarity (see Modified Figure 1 above; [0006]). Kashiwazaki further discloses that the terminal (8) acts as a negative electrode terminal ([0006]), thus reading on the limitation that the second terminal is of opposite polarity than the terminal. Kashiwazaki further discloses an isolating part (6) between the can end side and the terminal (8) (see Fig. 1; [0006]). Thus, Kashiwazaki reads on all of the limitations in claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwazaki (JP 2002124218 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 9, Kashiwazaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As set forth above, Kashiwazaki discloses that only the first part (8a) of the terminal (8) is roughened ([0007]-[0010]). Furthermore, Kashiwazaki discloses that a first surface roughness of the first part (8a) can be equal to 25 µm ([0007]; see Example 5, Table 1). While Kashiwazaki does not give a specific value for a second surface roughness of the second part, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second surface roughness of the second part to approach 0 µm since Kashiwazaki only indicates that the first part (8a) is roughened. Thus, it also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the first surface roughness to exceed the second roughness by a value equal to 25 µm, suggesting the limitations in claim 9.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0365856) (Kim) (of record) in view of Kashiwazaki (JP 2002124218 with English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. As set forth above, Kim discloses that only the first part (141d) of the terminal (141) comprises a surface-treated region (10) with a roughness arising from a plurality of concave-convex structures (see Fig. 2; [0044]; [0068]-[0069]). Thus, since Kim discloses that the second part (141f+141e) does not contain a surface-treated region (10), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for a difference between a first surface roughness of the first part (141d) and a second surface roughness of the second part (141f+141e) to be equal to the roughness of the first part (141d). Kim fails to explicitly disclose, however, a value for the first surface roughness.
Kashiwazaki teaches a similar cylindrical secondary cell (title) comprising: a terminal (8) (see Fig. 1; [0006]), wherein the terminal (8) comprises a first part (8a) surrounded by a second part (see Modified Figure 1 above). Kashiwazaki further discloses that only the first part (8a) of the terminal (8) is roughened ([0007]-[0010]), wherein the roughness of the first part (8a) can be equal to 25 µm ([0007]; see Example 5, Table 1). Kashiwazaki further discloses that configuring the surface roughness of the first part (8a) in this way helps to decrease the contact resistance between the first part (8a) and an external electrical interconnect ([0007]-[0010]; see Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the surface roughness of the first part of the terminal disclosed by Kim such that it exceeds the surface roughness of the second part by 25 µm, as suggested by Kashiwazaki, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to decrease the contact resistance of the first part.
Regarding claim 11, modified Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 9. As set forth above, modified Kim discloses that a second surface roughness of the second part (Kim: 141f+141e) is less a first surface roughness of the first part (Kim: 141d) (Kim: see Fig. 2; [0044]; [0068]-[0069]). Therefore, since modified Kim includes the teachings from Kashiwazaki that the first surface roughness is equal to 25 µm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the second surface roughness to be less than 25 µm, suggesting the claimed range of less than 40 µm.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2020/0365856) (Kim) (of record) in view of Kang et al. (US 2011/0151294) (Kang).
Regarding claim 13, Kim discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 8. Kim further discloses that the first part (141d) of the terminal (141) constitutes an upper region of the terminal (141) that is raised with respect to the rest of the terminal (141) (see Fig. 1C; [0045]). Kim fails to explicitly disclose, however, a relationship between the area of the first part (141d) with respect to the total area of the terminal surface (141a).
Kang teaches a similar cylindrical secondary cell (title; [0028]), comprising: a cylindrical can (120) comprising an end side (top side, Fig. 1), and a terminal (140) arranged at the can end side (see Fig. 1; [0028]-[0030]), wherein the terminal (140) comprises a first part (141) surrounded by a second part (142+143), wherein the first part (141) is raised with respect to the second part (142+143) (see Figs. 2 and 3; [0030]). Kang further discloses that a diameter (D2) of the first part (141) is from about 40% to about 50% of the entire diameter (D4) of the terminal (140) (see Fig. 3; [0041]). Thus, Kang necessarily discloses that an area of the first part (141) is in a range of about 16% ((1/52)/(1/22)) to 25% ((1/42)/(1/22)) of the total area of the terminal (140), overlapping the claimed range of 3% to 20%. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Kang further discloses that configuring the diameter (D2) of the first part (141) in this way helps to facilitate welding of the terminal (140) to an external tab ([0035]-[0036]; [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the area of the first part disclosed by Kim to have the claimed relationship with the total area of the terminal surface, as suggested by Kang, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help facilitate welding of the terminal to an external tab.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights