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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency with the initial phrase “bottomed-cylinder-shaped exterior can housing,” the phrase “an opening of the exterior can” should be written as “an opening of the bottomed-cylinder-shaped exterior can housing.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: for sake of consistency with the initial phrase “bottomed-cylinder-shaped exterior can housing,” the phrase “an opening of the exterior can” should be written as “an opening of the bottomed-cylinder-shaped exterior can housing.” 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 1-6 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.
The term “easily-deformable” in Claim 1 (said term is also present in Claims 2 and 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily-deformable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear degree of deformability (or capability of being deformed) renders a given exposed portion as “easily” deformable.
Claim 7 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.
The term “easily-deformable” in Claim 1 (said term is also present in Claims 2 and 4) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “easily-deformable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In other words, Claim 1 is rendered particularly indefinite insofar as it is unclear degree of deformability (or capability of being deformed) renders a given exposed portion as “easily” deformable.
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.
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 1-3, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogi et al. (JP 2008-166030, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Ura (US 2004/0237290).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogi teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary battery (Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0044]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Ogi teaches that the battery comprises an electrode assembly in which a negative electrode (“first electrode”) and a positive electrode (“second electrode”) are wound via a separator, a non-aqueous electrolyte, a battery case (“exterior can”) housing the electrode assembly and the non-aqueous electrolyte, and a battery cover (“sealing assembly”) capping an opening of the battery case ([0002]-[0003]), [0032], [0035], [0040]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Ogi teaches that the negative electrode comprises a core (“core”) having a negative active material layer (“mixture layer”) formed on at least a part of a surface of the core, and a core exposed portion (“exposed portion of the core”) provided on an end on one side in a winding axis direction of the electrode assembly ([0032], [0038]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, the core exposed portion has a fold line (“easily-deformable portion”) formed along a winding direction of the electrode assembly ([0032]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, and in particular Figures 2(a)-2(e), on an end face on one side in the winding axis direction of the electrode assembly, an end face portion formed by bending the exposed portion along the fold line is disposed ([0033]-[0034]). As illustrated in Figure 3, the end face portion is welded to a current collector plate (“current-collecting plate”) ([0028]-[0029], [0035]). Furthermore, Ogi teaches that the current collector plate is welded (“connected”) to the battery case ([0035]).
Ogi does not explicitly teach that the battery case is bottomed-cylinder-shaped having an opening capped by the battery cover.
However, Ura teaches a rechargeable battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Ura teaches that the battery comprises a spirally wound electrode assembly ([0020]). Ura teaches that said electrode assembly is accommodated in a battery case (5) which has a closed bottom and an open top aperture that is sealed with a cap assembly ([0020]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Ura teaches that the battery is constructed such that the battery case constitutes the negative terminal via a negative current collecting plate which connects the battery case to folded portions of the negative electrodes that extend from the electrode assembly ([0020]-[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the battery case of Ogi in the shape of a cylinder having a closed bottom and an open top aperture (“bottomed-cylinder-shaped”) capped by the battery cover, as taught by Ura, given that such a modification would help ensure that the secondary battery, overall, exhibits a substantially cylindrical outer shape while allowing for a configuration where the battery case functions as the negative terminal.
Regarding Claim 2, Ogi, as modified by Ura, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As illustrated in Figures 1-2 of Ogi, the exposed portion is bent to an inner side in a radial direction of the electrode assembly along the fold line.
Regarding Claim 3, Ogi, as modified by Ura, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 1), the “first electrode” is the negative electrode of the electrode assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, Ogi teaches a non-aqueous electrolyte lithium-ion secondary battery, and a method for manufacturing said battery (Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0044]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Ogi teaches that the battery comprises an electrode assembly in which a negative electrode (“first electrode”) and a positive electrode (“second electrode”) are wound via a separator, a non-aqueous electrolyte, a battery case (“exterior can”) housing the electrode assembly and the non-aqueous electrolyte, and a battery cover (“sealing assembly”) capping an opening of the battery case ([0002]-[0003]), [0032], [0035], [0040]). As illustrated in Figures 1-2, Ogi teaches that the negative electrode comprises a core (“core”) having a negative active material layer (“mixture layer”) formed on at least a part of a surface of the core, and a core exposed portion (“exposed portion of the core”) provided on an end on one side in a winding axis direction of the electrode assembly ([0032], [0038]). As illustrated in Figures 2-3, Ogi teaches that when the negative and positive electrodes are wound, the core exposed portion is protruded from one end face in a winding axis direction of the electrode assembly, the core exposed portion is bent along a fold line (“easily-deformable portion”) formed alone a winding direction of the electrode assembly to disposed an end face portion formed by bending the core exposed portion, and the end face portion and a current collector plate (“current-collecting plate”) are welded, for example, by laser welding (“laser-bonded”) ([0028]-[0029], [0033]-[0035]).
Ogi does not explicitly teach that the battery case is bottomed-cylinder-shaped having an opening capped by the battery cover.
However, Ura teaches a rechargeable battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figure 1, Ura teaches that the battery comprises a spirally wound electrode assembly ([0020]). Ura teaches that said electrode assembly is accommodated in a battery case (5) which has a closed bottom and an open top aperture that is sealed with a cap assembly ([0020]). As illustrated in Figure 1, Ura teaches that the battery is constructed such that the battery case constitutes the negative terminal via a negative current collecting plate which connects the battery case to folded portions of the negative electrodes that extend from the electrode assembly ([0020]-[0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the battery case of Ogi in the shape of a cylinder having a closed bottom and an open top aperture (“bottomed-cylinder-shaped”) capped by the battery cover, as taught by Ura, given that such a modification would help ensure that the secondary battery, overall, exhibits a substantially cylindrical outer shape while allowing for a configuration where the battery case functions as the negative terminal.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogi et al. (JP 2008-166030, using the provided machine translation for citation purposes), and further in view of Ura (US 2004/0237290) and Lee et al. (US 2011/0151318).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogi, as modified by Ura, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 1, as previously described.
Ogi, as modified by Ura, does not explicitly teach that the fold line is a groove.
However, Lee teaches a secondary battery (Abstract). As illustrated in Figures 9-13, Lee teaches that the secondary battery comprises an electrode assembly, wherein the electrode assembly comprises an electrode plate having an uncoated region, wherein the uncoated region extends so as to be in contact with a current collector ([0117]-[0118], [0127], [0130]). As illustrated in Figures 9-13, Lee teaches that the uncoated region is bent along a folding groove (370, 470, 570) when in contact with the current collector, wherein the folding groove is either continuously formed (See Figures 10-11) or discontinuously formed (See Figures 12-13) ([0117]-[0118], [0127], [0130]). Lee teaches that the continuously or discontinuously formed folding grooves not only provide for easy folding of the uncoated region, but also help increase contact area and contact stability between the uncoated region and the current collector ([0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that one of ordinary skill in the art would form the fold line or Ogi, as modified by Ura, as a continuously or discontinuously formed folding groove (“groove”), as taught by Lee, given that such a folding groove would not only provide for easy folding of the core exposed portion, but also help increase contact area and contact stability between the core exposed portion and the current collector plate.
Regarding Claim 5, Ogi, as modified by Ura and Lee, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 4), the folding groove is, for example, continuously formed.
Regarding Claim 6, Ogi, as modified by Ura and Lee, teaches the instantly claimed invention of Claim 4, as previously described.
As previously described (See Claim 4), the folding groove is, for example, discontinuously formed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN whose telephone number is (571)270-7595. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 5712707871. 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.
/MATTHEW W VAN OUDENAREN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights