DETAILED ACTION
Claims 33-52 are presented for examination, wherein claims 46-52 are withdrawn. Claims 1-32 are cancelled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on August 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the claimed “recess portion” (claim 39) is not cited in the drawings, see e.g. Figures 5-6 plus instant specification, at ¶0167.
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.
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 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528 (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.
Claims 33 and 37-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11-12, and 16-18 of copending Application No. 18/699,681 (US 2025/0239747, indicated as allowable on July 21, 2026) in view of Jung et al (KR 2020/0020173, published February 26, 2020).
While the reference application does not claim the “gasket includes a fluorine resin,” Jung teaches a rechargeable battery (e.g. item 100) with a rivet terminal (e.g. item 130) on a battery cover (e.g. item 122) with a gasket (e.g. item 140) that seals and insulates the space between said rivet terminal and said battery cover, wherein said gasket may be composed of an electrically insulating and heat-resistant material, such as e.g. perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 12-15, 20-24, 34-40, 52-54).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the gasket of the reference application with the PFA material of Jung, since Jung teaches a battery gasket may be suitably made of PFA.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 33 and 37-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13-14, 18-20, and 22 of copending Application No. 18/697341 (US 2025/0055162) in view of Jung et al (KR 2020/0020173, published February 26, 2020).
While the reference application does not claim the “gasket includes a fluorine resin,” Jung teaches a rechargeable battery (e.g. item 100) with a rivet terminal (e.g. item 130) on a battery cover (e.g. item 122) with a gasket (e.g. item 140) that seals and insulates the space between said rivet terminal and said battery cover, wherein said gasket may be composed of an electrically insulating and heat-resistant material, such as e.g. perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 12-15, 20-24, 34-40, 52-54).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the gasket of the reference application with the PFA material of Jung, since Jung teaches a battery gasket may be suitably made of PFA.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 33 and 37-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-10, 14-16, and 18 of copending Application No. 18/692945 (US 2025/0015402) in view of Jung et al (KR 2020/0020173, published February 26, 2020).
While the reference application does not claim the “gasket includes a fluorine resin,” Jung teaches a rechargeable battery (e.g. item 100) with a rivet terminal (e.g. item 130) on a battery cover (e.g. item 122) with a gasket (e.g. item 140) that seals and insulates the space between said rivet terminal and said battery cover, wherein said gasket may be composed of an electrically insulating and heat-resistant material, such as e.g. perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 12-15, 20-24, 34-40, 52-54).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the gasket of the reference application with the PFA material of Jung, since Jung teaches a battery gasket may be suitably made of PFA since it is an electrically insulating and/or heat-resistant material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 33 and 37-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11-12, 16-18, and 20 of copending Application No. 18/565211 (US 2025/0038316) in view of Jung et al (KR 2020/0020173, published February 26, 2020).
While the reference application does not claim the “gasket includes a fluorine resin,” Jung teaches a rechargeable battery (e.g. item 100) with a rivet terminal (e.g. item 130) on a battery cover (e.g. item 122) with a gasket (e.g. item 140) that seals and insulates the space between said rivet terminal and said battery cover, wherein said gasket may be composed of an electrically insulating and heat-resistant material, such as e.g. perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 12-15, 20-24, 34-40, 52-54).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the gasket of the reference application with the PFA material of Jung, since Jung teaches a battery gasket may be suitably made of PFA since it is an electrically insulating and/or heat-resistant material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 33, 37-38, 40-43, and 45 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 8-10, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/278102 (US 2024/0128597) in view of Jung et al (KR 2020/0020173, published February 26, 2020).
While the reference application does not claim the “gasket includes a fluorine resin,” Jung teaches a rechargeable battery (e.g. item 100) with a rivet terminal (e.g. item 130) on a battery cover (e.g. item 122) with a gasket (e.g. item 140) that seals and insulates the space between said rivet terminal and said battery cover, wherein said gasket may be composed of an electrically insulating and heat-resistant material, such as e.g. perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) (e.g. ¶¶ 0001, 12-15, 20-24, 34-40, 52-54).
As a result, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the gasket of the reference application with the PFA material of Jung, since Jung teaches a battery gasket may be suitably made of PFA since it is an electrically insulating and/or heat-resistant material.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 33-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al (JP 2010/033940).
Regarding independent claim 33, Suzuki teaches a sealed nonaqueous battery comprising a sealing member for a negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8), said sealing member comprising:
(i) a rhombohedral battery can assembly comprising
(i.a) a battery can (e.g. item 1) with an opening at one end and
(i.b) a lid (e.g. item 5) that closes an upper surface opening of a battery case (e.g. item 1),
wherein said lid includes an electrolyte injection port (e.g. item 13), extending through said lid from an exterior to an interior, that may be sealed with a plug (e.g. item 14); and,
(ii) a plastic insulating plate (e.g. item 6) disposed on a back surface of said battery lid (e.g. item 5),
(iii) said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) passing through said battery lid (e.g. item 5) via a through hole (e.g. item 10), wherein said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) comprises a structure including
(iii.a) a head portion (e.g. item 20) having a rectangular shape located on said exterior of said battery;
(iii.b) a cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21) extending from said head portion (e.g. item 20) and located within said through hole (e.g. item 10);
(iii.c) an outer flange portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) extending along an outer surface of a bottom of said lid (e.g. item 5) extending from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21);
(iii.d) a caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) enlarged in diameter and deformed to extend along an inner surface of a bottom of said lid (e.g. item 5) extending from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21), wherein said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) is illustrated to decrease in thickness as it extends in a direction away from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21),
(iii.e) a Flat Portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) indirectly provided at an end of said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21), wherein said Flat Portion is exposed to said interior of said lid of said battery can assembly;
(iv) an insulating gasket (e.g. item 7) located in said through hole (e.g. item 10) positioned between and fixing said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) and an inner edge surface plus an upper edge surface of said lid (e.g. item 5), wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) has a structure that includes
(iv.a) a rectangular outer flange portion (item 16, see e.g. Figure 2 and Annotated Figure 3) interposed between said outer flange portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) and said outer surface of said lid (e.g. item 5), said outer flange portion with a thickness of e.g. 1 mm and an outer diameter of 7mm;
(iv.b) a tubular portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) inserted into said shaft insertion hole (e.g. item 18); and,
(iv.c) a boss portion (e.g. item 17, see e.g. Figure 2 and Annotated Figure 3) indirectly interposed between said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) and an inner surface of said lid (e.g. item 5), said boss portion with a thickness of e.g. 0.5 mm and an outer diameter of 3mm,
wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) is preferably composed of a thermoplastic fluororesin, which is desired since thermoplastic fluororesin has excellent heat resistance, minimal creep, minimal stress relaxation, and maintains an elastic property over a wide temperature range,
wherein said thermoplastic fluororesin may be e.g. tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkoxyethylene copolymer (PFA) and tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer; and,
(v) a washer (e.g. item 9) fixed to said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8),
wherein said head portion (e.g. item 20) of said rivet (e.g. item 8) may have a rectangular shape with a diameter of 8mm x 8mm and height of 2mm; and, said rhombohedral battery can assembly may have dimensions of 21mm length, 101mm width, and 112mm height
(e.g. ¶¶ 0010-19, 32, and83-89 plus e.g. Figures 1-3), reading on “riveting structure of an electrode terminal,” said sealing member comprising:
(1) said rhombohedral battery can assembly comprising said battery can (e.g. item 1) with said opening at one end and said lid (e.g. item 5) that closes said upper surface opening of said battery case (e.g. item 1), wherein said lid includes said electrolyte injection port (e.g. item 13), extending through said lid from said exterior to said interior, that may be sealed with said plug (e.g. item 14)
said taught battery can assembly corresponding with the claimed “battery can with an open end;” and,
said taught electrolyte injection port at said lid, extending through said lid from said exterior to said interior, corresponding with the claimed “open end,”
(e.g. supra), reading on “a battery can with an open end;”
(2) said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) passing through said battery lid (e.g. item 5) via said through hole (e.g. item 10) (e.g. supra),
wherein while the battery is illustrated with the lid—with the negative terminal thereon—being at a top of said battery, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to orient the battery so that the battery lid, through hole, and negative terminal therein, which are illustrated as on top, is oriented so that they are at a bottom and the illustrated bottom is at a top, in order to provide the negative terminal at a bottom orientation, which may be suitable for applications such as for a negative busbar located below a plurality of batteries for easy removal and replacement of batteries from above, see also e.g. MPEP § 2114.04(VI)(C),
said taught lid of said assembly oriented to correspond with the claimed “bottom of the battery can,”
reading on “an electrode terminal riveted through a through hole formed in a bottom of the battery can;” and,
(3) said insulating gasket (e.g. item 7) located in said through hole (e.g. item 10) positioned between said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) and said inner edge surface plus said upper edge surface of said lid (e.g. item 5) (e.g. supra), reading on “a gasket provided between the electrode terminal and an edge of the through hole,”
wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) is preferably composed of said thermoplastic fluororesin, which is desired since thermoplastic fluororesin has excellent heat resistance, minimal creep, minimal stress relaxation, and maintains an elastic property over a wide temperature range, wherein said thermoplastic fluororesin may be e.g. tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkoxyethylene copolymer (PFA) and tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (e.g. supra), reading on “the gasket includes a fluorine resin,”
wherein said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) comprises said structure including
(2.a) said head portion (e.g. item 20) having said rectangular shape located on said exterior of said battery;
(2.b) said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21) extending from said head portion (e.g. item 20) and located within said through hole (e.g. item 10);
(2.c) said outer flange portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) extending along said outer surface of said “bottom” of said lid (e.g. item 5) extending from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21);
(2.d) said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) enlarged in diameter and deformed to extend along said inner surface of said “bottom” of said lid (e.g. item 5) extending from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21), wherein said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) is illustrated to decrease in thickness as it extends in said direction away from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21)
(e.g. supra),
said taught negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) corresponding with the claimed “the electrode terminal;”
said taught cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21) corresponding with the claimed a body portion;”
said taught outer flange portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) corresponding with the claimed “outer flange portion; and,
said taught said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) corresponding with the claimed “inner flange portion,
reading on “the electrode terminal includes: a body portion inserted into the through hole; an outer flange portion extending along an outer surface of the bottom from a circumference of a first side of the body portion exposed through the outer surface of the bottom; and an inner flange portion extending toward an inner surface of the bottom from a circumference of a second side of the body portion exposed through the inner surface of the bottom.”
PNG
media_image1.png
470
1392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 34-35, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said insulating gasket (e.g. item 7) is located in said through hole (e.g. item 10), wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) has said structure that includes
(3.a) said rectangular outer flange portion (item 16, see e.g. Figure 2 and Annotated Figure 3) interposed between said outer flange portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) and said outer surface of said lid (e.g. item 5), said outer flange portion with said thickness of e.g. 1 mm and said outer diameter of 7mm;
(3.b) said tubular portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) inserted into said shaft insertion hole (e.g. item 18); and,
(3.c) said boss portion (e.g. item 17, see e.g. Figure 2 and Annotated Figure 3) indirectly interposed between said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) and said inner surface of said lid (e.g. item 5), said boss portion with said thickness of e.g. 0.5 mm and said outer diameter of 3mm,
wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) is preferably composed of said thermoplastic fluororesin, which is desired since thermoplastic fluororesin has excellent heat resistance, minimal creep, minimal stress relaxation, and maintains said elastic property over said wide temperature range, wherein said thermoplastic fluororesin may be e.g. tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkoxyethylene copolymer (PFA) and tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer
(e.g. supra),
said rectangular outer flange portion (item 16) corresponding with the claimed “outer gasket portion;” and,
said boss portion (e.g. item 17) corresponding with the claimed “inner gasket portion,”
reading on “the gasket includes: an outer gasket portion interposed between the outer flange portion and the outer surface of the bottom; and an inner gasket portion interposed between the inner flange portion and the inner surface of the bottom” (claims 34-35), but does not expressly teach the properties “a thickness change rate of the outer gasket portion satisfies Equation 2 below,
0 ≤ [(X1-X2) / X1] x 100(%) ≤ 10% [Equation 2]
where, in Equation 2, X1 is a thickness of the outer gasket portion at room temperature, and X2 is the thickness of the outer gasket portion when the outer gasket portion is left at 150° C. for 10 minutes” (claims 34) or “a thickness change rate of the outer gasket portion satisfies Equation 3 below,
0 ≤ [(X1-X2) / X1] x 100(%) ≤ 10% [Equation 3]
where, in Equation 3, X1 is a thickness of the outer gasket portion at room temperature, and X2 is the thickness of the outer gasket portion when the outer gasket portion is left at 230° C. for 30 minutes” (claim 35).
However, Suzuki teaches a substantially identical rectangular outer flange portion (item 16) composed of a substantially identical thermoplastic fluororesin (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0148-151 plus e.g. ¶¶ 0152-158), severably establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed properties, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 36, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) is preferably composed of said thermoplastic fluororesin, which is desired since thermoplastic fluororesin has excellent heat resistance, minimal creep, minimal stress relaxation, and maintains said elastic property over said wide temperature range, wherein said thermoplastic fluororesin may be e.g. tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkoxyethylene copolymer (PFA) and tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the property “a melting point of the fluorine resin is 280° C. or higher.”
However, Suzuki teaches a substantially identical thermoplastic fluororesin (e.g. supra, compared with instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0134-135), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed property, see also e.g. MPEP § 2112.01.
Regarding claim 37, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) is preferably composed of said thermoplastic fluororesin, which is desired since thermoplastic fluororesin has excellent heat resistance, minimal creep, minimal stress relaxation, and maintains said elastic property over said wide temperature range, wherein said thermoplastic fluororesin may be e.g. tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkoxyethylene copolymer (PFA) and tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (e.g. supra), reading on “the fluorine resin includes one or more selected from the group consisting of perfluoroalkoxy (PFA) and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE).”
Regarding claim 38, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) includes said Flat Portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) indirectly provided at said end of said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21), wherein said Flat Portion is exposed to said interior of said lid of said battery can assembly at said “bottom”
said taught Flat Portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) corresponding with the claimed “flat portion,”
reading on “the electrode terminal further includes a flat portion provided at an end of the body portion exposed through the inner surface of the bottom;” and/or, differences in shape do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), wherein there does not appear to be such evidence in the initial filing, see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0163-166.
Regarding claim 39, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 38, wherein said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) includes said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) enlarged in diameter and deformed to extend along said inner surface of said “bottom” of said lid (e.g. item 5) extending from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21) plus said Flat Portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) indirectly provided at said end of said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21), wherein said Flat Portion is exposed to said interior of said lid of said battery can assembly at said “bottom,” but does not expressly teach the limitation “a recess portion is provided between the inner flange portion and the flat portion.”
However, differences in shape do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), wherein there does not appear to be such evidence in the initial filing, see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶0166.
Regarding claim 40, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) includes said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) enlarged in diameter and deformed to extend along said inner surface of said “bottom” of said lid (e.g. item 5) extending from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21) plus said Flat Portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) indirectly provided at said end of said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21), wherein said Flat Portion is exposed to said interior of said lid of said battery can assembly at said “bottom,” wherein an innermost surface of said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) and said Flat Portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) appear to be approximately parallel, but does not expressly teach the limitation “an angle between the inner flange portion and the inner surface of the bottom is 0° to 60° or less.”
However, differences in shape do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), wherein there does not appear to be such evidence in the initial filing, see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0165 and 171.
Regarding claim 41, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said negative electrode output terminal rivet (e.g. item 8) includes said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) enlarged in diameter and deformed to extend along said inner surface of said “bottom” of said lid (e.g. item 5) extending from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21), wherein said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) is illustrated to decrease in thickness as it extends in a direction away from said cylindrical shaft body portion (e.g. item 21) (e.g. supra), reading on “a thickness of the inner flange portion decreases as a distance from the body portion increases;” and/or, differences in shape do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), wherein there does not appear to be such evidence in the initial filing, see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶0167.
Regarding claims 42 and 44, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said insulating gasket (e.g. item 7) is located in said through hole (e.g. item 10), wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) has said structure that includes
(3.a) said rectangular outer flange portion (item 16, see e.g. Figure 2 and Annotated Figure 3) interposed between said outer flange portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) and said outer surface of said lid (e.g. item 5), said outer flange portion with said thickness of e.g. 1 mm and said outer diameter of 7mm;
(3.b) said tubular portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) inserted into said shaft insertion hole (e.g. item 18); and,
(3.c) said boss portion (e.g. item 17, see e.g. Figure 2 and Annotated Figure 3) indirectly interposed between said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) and said inner surface of said lid (e.g. item 5), said boss portion with said thickness of e.g. 0.5 mm and said outer diameter of 3mm
(e.g. supra),
said rectangular outer flange portion (item 16) corresponding with the claimed “outer gasket portion;” and,
said boss portion (e.g. item 17) corresponding with the claimed “inner gasket portion,”
reading on “the gasket includes: an outer gasket portion interposed between the outer flange portion and the outer surface of the bottom; and an inner gasket portion interposed between the inner flange portion and the inner surface of the bottom, wherein the inner gasket portion and the outer gasket portion have different thicknesses depending on positions” (claim 42); and, “the gasket includes: an outer gasket portion interposed between the outer flange portion and the outer surface of the bottom; and an inner gasket portion interposed between the inner flange portion and the inner surface of the bottom, wherein the inner gasket portion extends longer than the inner flange portion” (claim 44); and/or, differences in shape severably do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), wherein there does not appear to be such evidence in the initial filing, see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0168-169 and 171.
Regarding claim 43, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 42, wherein said insulating gasket (e.g. item 7) is located in said through hole (e.g. item 10), wherein said gasket (e.g. item 7) has said structure that includes said tubular portion (not itemized, see e.g. Annotated Figure 3) inserted into said shaft insertion hole (e.g. item 18) and said boss portion (e.g. item 17, see e.g. Figure 2 and Annotated Figure 3) indirectly interposed between said caulking shaft portion (e.g. item 22) and said inner surface of said lid (e.g. item 5) (e.g. supra), but does not expressly teach the limitation “a region interposed between an inner edge of the through-hole connected with the inner surface of the bottom and the inner flange portion in the region of the inner gasket portion has a relatively smaller thickness than other regions.”
However differences in shape severably do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), wherein there does not appear to be such evidence in the initial filing, see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶¶ 0168-169.
Regarding claim 45, Suzuki teaches the sealing member of claim 33, wherein said head portion (e.g. item 20) of said rivet (e.g. item 8) may have said rectangular shape with said diameter of 8mm x 8mm; and, said rhombohedral battery can assembly may have said dimensions of 21mm length and 101mm width (e.g. supra), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed range, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.05(I), reading on “a radius from a center of the body portion to an edge of the outer flange portion is 10% to 60% of a radius of the bottom;” and/or, differences in shape severably do not patentably distinguish the instant invention from the art in the absence of persuasive evidence of its importance, see also e.g. MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B), wherein there does not appear to be such evidence in the initial filing, see e.g. instant specification, at e.g. ¶0174.
Conclusion
The art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Makino et al (US 2024/0162474);
Lee et al (US 2023/0063841);
Hwangbo et al (US 2022/0231345);
Nemoto et al (US 2019/0189995);
Byun et al (US 2011/0294001);
Nakanishi et al (US 2004/0023108); and,
Kim et al (US 2001/0004505).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5828. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-4.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE-THOMPSON can be reached at (571)270-7078. 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.
/YOSHITOSHI TAKEUCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights