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’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pole post of a battery”, “a welding print generated by a welding tool”, and “a second width of a welding print generated by the welding tool” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “overcurrent current” should be rewritten as “overcurrent . Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 5, 10-11, 14, 16, and 19 are 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.
Claims 2 and 16 recites “a length of the first welding print” (L1) and “a length of a welding print generated by a welding tool” (L). The broad disclosure of “a welding print” would encompass all welding prints, therefore renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is needed if “a welding print generated by a tool” is a different physical entity than that of a first welding print or is it part of a process in creating the first welding print.
Claims 5, 14, and 19 recites “a number of second welding prints”. It is unclear to the examiner if second welding prints is the same as “the second welding prints”. Clarification is needed. Additionally, claim 5 recites “a second width of a welding print generated by the welding tool”. The broad disclosure of “a welding print” would encompass all welding prints, therefore renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is needed if “a second width of a welding print generated by a tool” is a different physical entity than that of the second welding print (or even a first welding print) or is it part of a process in creating the second (and/or first) welding print.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the fusing hole" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pole tab" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pole post" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 3, 6, 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 213459999.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, CN ‘999 discloses power battery comprising a shell, a top cover assembly, and a core is disposed in an accommodation spaced formed by the shell and the top cover assembly, and pole tabs of the core are connected to the pole post on the top cover assembly, wherein the core comprises a body and a plurality of layers of pole tabs (100), wherein an end of the plurality of the layers of pole tabs is connected to the body, and another end of the plurality of layers of pole tab is configured to be connected to a pole post of a battery, wherein the plurality of layers of pole tabs are welded to form a first welding print, and the first welding print is disposed at a root of the pole tabs and close to the body to enable the plurality of layers of pole tabs to gather up (All Figs).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, please see all Figs. Ref 101 corresponds to the claimed first welding print and ref 102 corresponds to the claimed second welding print.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, CN ‘999 discloses that the pole tabs are in a V-shape and an angle is formed between the first and second welding print (All Figs).
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 14, 16, and 18-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213459999.
Regarding claims 2 and 16, CN ‘999 discloses a core comprising a first welding print and a body, however, fails to explicitly disclose the thickness of the first welding print and thickness of the body relationship as presently claimed, B1=B-X1.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation, especially since CN ‘999 discloses that the thickness of the first welding print is less than the thickness of the body (All Figs).
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the first welding print and the body to satisfy the claimed relationship, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed relationship is critical and has unexpected results. In the present invention, one would have been motivated to optimize the thicknesses of the first welding print and body dependent on the degree in reducing the unconstrained tabs, which increases battery safety (Abstract).
Furthermore, CN ‘999 discloses a length of the first welding print as claimed (Fig. 1). With regards to “a welding print generated by a welding tool”, determination of patentability is based on the final product itself, not an intermediate product using an apparatus. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). As set forth above, CN ‘999 discloses a length of the first welding print.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, CN ‘999 discloses spacing distance between the second and first welding print, however, is silent on the ranges (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance within the limits known in the art based on the desired end use of the battery since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 19, CN ‘999 discloses a width of the second welding print and is different than that of the first welding print (Fig. 1). Further, CN ‘999 discloses a width of the second welding print overlapping the claimed range (width of second welding print is greater than width of the first welding print, wherein the first welding print has a width of 1-6 mm.
With regards to “a welding print generated by a welding tool”, determination of patentability is based on the final product itself, not an intermediate product using an apparatus. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
As set forth above, CN ‘999 discloses a width of the second welding print overlapping the claimed range (width of second welding print is greater than width of the first welding print, wherein the first welding print has a width of 1-6 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges that satisfy the claimed relationship disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Claims 7-8, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213459999 in view of CN 211907570.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, CN ‘999 discloses a first (101) and second (102) welding print and the pole tabs as claimed (all Figs), however fails to disclose a fusing hole is provided between the first and second welding print as presently claimed. Additionally, CN ‘999 discloses that the pole tabs are in a V-shape and an angle is formed between the first and second welding print (All Figs).
CN ‘570 discloses a battery comprising pole tabs comprising at least one fusing hole (12) (All Figs). The tab structure comprising a fusing hole prevents reaction inside the battery that may cause the battery to leak, catch fire, or explode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘999 tab structure to provide a fusing hole between the first and second welding print as presently claimed, since CN ‘570 disclosing that providing a fusing hole would prevent reaction inside the battery that may cause the battery to leak, catch fire, or explode.
Regarding claim 8, CN ‘999 in view of CN ‘570 discloses a cross-section area of an opening region of the fusing hole and a minimum and maximum cross-sectional area of the pole tabs (all Figs). However, CN ‘999 in view of CN ‘570 fails to disclose the claimed relationship with regards to the specific fusing/current application.
However, a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have arrived at the claimed invention by routine experimentation alone, without exercising undue experimentation.
Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue known option within his or her technical grasp. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to optimize the cross-sectional area of each of the fusing hole and the pole tabs subjected to a specific current, since it has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not invention to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The burden is upon the Applicant to demonstrate that the claimed relationship is critical and has unexpected results.
Regarding claim 12, CN ‘999 discloses a first and second welding print as claimed and further discloses spacing distance between the second and first welding print, however, is silent on the ranges (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the distance within the limits known in the art based on the desired end use of the battery since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range(s); see In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions; see Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
CN ‘999 discloses a first (101) and second (102) welding print and the pole tabs as claimed (all Figs), however fails to disclose a fusing hole is provided between the first and second welding print as presently claimed.
CN ‘570 discloses a battery comprising pole tabs comprising at least one fusing hole (12) (All Figs). The tab structure comprising a fusing hole prevents reaction inside the battery that may cause the battery to leak, catch fire, or explode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘999 tab structure to provide a fusing hole between the first and second welding print as presently claimed, since CN ‘570 disclosing that providing a fusing hole would prevent reaction inside the battery that may cause the battery to leak, catch fire, or explode.
Regarding claim 13, CN ‘999 discloses a first and second welding print as claimed. CN ‘999 discloses that length of the first welding print may be greater than that of the second welding, however, fails to disclose that it is the same as presently claimed. However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, having a difference of 0.0000000001 mm between the lengths does not appear confer patentability to the claims in the absence of a showing of critically associated with the claimed length relationship.
CN ‘999 discloses a first (101) and second (102) welding print and the pole tabs as claimed (all Figs), however fails to disclose a fusing hole is provided between the first and second welding print as presently claimed.
CN ‘570 discloses a battery comprising pole tabs comprising at least one fusing hole (12) (All Figs). The tab structure comprising a fusing hole prevents reaction inside the battery that may cause the battery to leak, catch fire, or explode.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CN ‘999 tab structure to provide a fusing hole between the first and second welding print as presently claimed, since CN ‘570 disclosing that providing a fusing hole would prevent reaction inside the battery that may cause the battery to leak, catch fire, or explode.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213459999 in view of CN 111129414.
Regarding claim 9, CN ‘999 discloses a first (101) and second (102) welding print and the pole tabs as claimed (all Figs). Although CN ‘999 discloses a cell body, CN ‘999 fails to explicitly disclose that it comprises of a separator. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that CN ’999 battery cell body would comprise of a separator, since a separator is a nominal feature in a battery cell. Alternative, any of the components within the cell body would corresponds to the claimed “separator”. CN ‘999 fails to disclose a protective adhesive layer as presently claimed.
CN ‘414 discloses a protective adhesive layer (13) is attached onto the pole tabs and a separator of the body (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a protective adhesive layer onto the pole tabs and a separator of the body in CN ‘999, since CN ‘414 discloses that it would prevent the area from corroding, which thereby improve the safety and the stability of the battery (Abstract).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 213459999, in view of CN 211907570, and in view of CN 111129414.
CN ‘999 in view of CN ‘570 discloses first and second welding print and fusing hole as set forth above. CN ‘414 discloses a protective adhesive layer as set forth above. CN ‘414 fails to disclose a specific placement of the protective adhesive layer as presently claimed.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the placement of the protective adhesive layer as presently claimed within the limits known in the art based on the desired protective properties (CN ‘414: Abstract) since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) 1980.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
