CTNF 18/577,229 CTNF 101825 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Katsumoto et al. (WO 2021065334 A1; see attached machine translation) . Regarding claim 1, Katsumoto discloses a button-type secondary battery having a diameter greater than a height thereof (para 19), the button-type secondary battery comprising: a jelly roll-type electrode assembly (“battery element 20”) in which electrodes 21/22 and separator 23 are wound (para 34; fig 3); a can body 10 housing the electrode assembly; a base plate (“lid portion 12”) including a through-hole 10K and covering an opening at an upper end of the can body, the base plate bonded to the can body (para 24); an electrode terminal 30 covering the through hole 10K of the base plate, at least a portion of the electrode terminal being inserted into the through-hole of the base plate (para 53; fig 14); an insulating gasket 40 capable of insulating the electrode terminal and the base plate from each other (para 20); and an insulating sheet disposed on a bottom surface of the base plate to insulate the bottom surface of the base plate (para 68), wherein a central hole (para 35, "winding center space of 20K”) is defined at a winding center of the electrode assembly (fig 2), and wherein the electrode terminal includes a protrusion at a bottom surface of the electrode terminal and protruding in a direction toward the central hole (see annotated figure 2 from Katsumoto below). Regarding claim 2, Katsumoto discloses the base plate (lid portion 12) is joined to the can body (container portion 11) by a welding (para 24). Katsumoto further teaches that welding method can be laser welding method (para 77). Figure 2 shows lid portion 12 and container portion 11 joined at the upper end edges. Accordingly, Katsumoto discloses an edge of the base plate and the upper end of the can body are [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1: Annotated figure 2 from Katsumoto et al.)] PNG media_image1.png 315 577 media_image1.png Greyscale bonded to each other by laser welding (see annotated figure 2 from Katsumoto below). Regarding claim 5, Katsumoto discloses a diameter of a bottom surface of the protrusion is equal to or less than a diameter of the central hole 20K (para 50, fig 2/3). Regarding claim 8, Katsumoto discloses electrode terminal 30 comprises: an insertion part (para 53, “terminal portion 31”; fig 4) inserted into the through-hole 10K of the base plate (para 53; fig 2); and a terminal plate part (para 53, “terminal portion 32”; fig 4) extending outward from an upper end of the insertion part and extending to have a plate shape (fig 2/4), wherein the protrusion (para 53, “terminal portion 33”) protrudes from a bottom surface of the insertion part in the direction toward the central hole (fig 2). Regarding claim 10, Katsumoto discloses a center pin at least partially filling the central hole (see annotated figure 14 from Katsumoto below). Regarding claim 11, Katsumoto discloses the diameter of the protrusion is equal to or less than a diameter of the center pin. The center pin extends from the protrusion and thus, inherently has diameter equal to that of the center pin (see annotated figure 14 from Katsumoto below). Regarding claim 12, Katsumoto discloses, in a plan view, an area occupied by the protrusion is disposed within an area occupied by the center pin. Katsumoto shows the protrusion and the center pin are within space R (see annotated figure 14 from Katsumoto below). [AltContent: textbox (Figure 2: Annotated figure 14 from Katsumoto et al.)] PNG media_image2.png 306 556 media_image2.png Greyscale Regarding claim 13, Katsumoto discloses the electrode terminal has a positive polarity, and each of the can body and the base plate has a negative polarity (para 43) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-27-aia AIA Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Katsumoto et al. (WO 2021065334 A1; see attached machine translation) . Regarding claim 3, the examiner notes that “through thermal fusion” is a method limitation in a product claim. The “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production”. Only the “structure implied by the process steps should be considered”. See MPEP 2113. The claim implies that discloses electrode terminal, insulating gasket and base plate are bonded. Katsumoto discloses electrode terminal 30, insulating gasket 40 and base plate (lid portion 12) are attached (para 78). The claim does not recite any structural characteristic resulting from the thermal fusion process that would distinguish the claimed secondary battery from the secondary battery disclosed by Katsumoto. Therefore, the thermal fusion limitation is not given patentable weight beyond the structure it produces. Accordingly, Katsumoto teaches electrode terminal, the insulating gasket, and the base plate are bonded to each other through thermal fusion. Alternatively, if it not taken that Katsumoto anticipates the bond is a thermal fusion bond, the following rejection is set forth: It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, for the bond between the electrode terminal, gasket and base plate to be a thermal bond as the button type secondary battery of Katsumoto discloses the terminal gasket and base plate joined with a bond capable of being thermally created . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumoto et al. (WO 2021065334 A1; see attached machine translation) . Regarding claim 4, Katsumoto does not explicitly disclose the insulating sheet is attached to the bottom surface of the base plate. However, Katsumoto discloses insulating sheet is between battery can 10 and battery element 20 to prevent short circuit (para 68). There are finite number of identified locations for the placement of insulating sheet. Insulating sheet can be located on M1, M2, M3 or M4 (fig 2). M4 is the base plate (lid portion 12). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to attach the insulating sheet to the bottom surface of the base plate because it would have predictably prevented a short circuit between the base plate and the electrode assembly with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 6, Katsumoto does not explicitly disclose the protrusion (terminal portion 33) has a cross-sectional diameter which gradually decreases in a direction closer to the electrode assembly. Katsumoto does disclose that three-dimensional shape of the each of the terminal portions is not limited (para 139). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select protrusion which has a cross-sectional diameter which gradually decreases in a direction closer to the electrode assembly as such a configuration is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by the above cited sections of Katsumoto. Regarding claim 9, Katsumoto does not explicitly disclose the insertion part (terminal portion 31) has a cross-sectional diameter which gradually decreases in a direction closer to the electrode assembly. As stated in rejection of claim 6, Katsumoto does disclose that three-dimensional shape of the each of the terminal portions is not limited (para 139). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to select protrusion which has a cross-sectional diameter which gradually decreases in a direction closer to the electrode assembly as such a configuration is a design choice obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as taught by the above cited sections of Katsumoto . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumoto et al. (WO 2021065334 A1; see attached machine translation) , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al. (CN 112786973 A) . Regarding claim 7, Katsumoto discloses the insulating sheet (para 68). Katsumoto does not disclose insulating sheet has an insertion hole therein, and the protrusion passes through the insertion hole of the insulating sheet. Chang discloses insulation mat 160 which has an insertion hole therein, and the protrusion 130 passes through the insertion hole of the insulating sheet (fig 1). It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify battery of Katsumoto such that the insulating sheet has an insertion hole therein, and the protrusion passes through the insertion hole of the insulating sheet as taught by Chang as doing such avoids a short circuit (para 45). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTI KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8608. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-5pm. 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, Michael N Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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. /A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1746 /CHRISTOPHER T SCHATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746 Application/Control Number: 18/577,229 Page 2 Art Unit: 1746
Prosecution Insights