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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
P105 states “…and the second arc chamfer segment 2142c is configured to connect the second groove portion 2142 and the straight groove segment 2142a”, however, in Fig. 6, the second arc chamfer segment 2142c is configured to connect the third groove portion 2143 and the straight groove segment 2142a.
The Examiner notes P18 of Applicant’s specification has a similar issue as it recites “…and the second arc chamfer portion is configured to connect the second groove portion and the straight groove segment…the arrangement of the second arc chamfer segment enables the second groove portion to transition more smoothly to the straight groove segment, so that the outward flipping and opening process of the pressure relief portion is smoother.”
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, 8, and 12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pressure relief groove adjacent to an end of the peripheral wall". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pressure relief groove". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “…wherein the second groove portion further comprises a first arc chamfer segment and a second arc chamfer segment, wherein the first arc chamfer segment is configured to connect the first groove portion and the straight groove segment, and the second arc chamfer portion is configured to connect the second groove portion and the straight groove segment”.
Claim 12 depends from claim 10 which recites “…wherein the second groove portion comprises a straight groove segment…”.
It is unclear how the second arc chamfer portion connects the second groove portion and the straight groove segment when the second groove portion comprises the straight groove segment.
In order to advance prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim as if it states “…and the second arc chamfer portion is configured to connect the third groove portion and the straight groove segment”.
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 1-2, 15-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (CN212434721U, given in the 03/05/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a shell for accommodating an electrode assembly (lithium-ion battery casing 1 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P64), comprising:
a peripheral wall, extending in a first direction and configured to enclose an outer side of the electrode assembly (battery casing body 11 in Figs. 2-14; first direction can be drawn to the direction at which length L is seen in Fig. 2; see entire disclosure and especially P64); and
pressure relief grooves, arranged on the peripheral wall, wherein the peripheral wall is configured to crack along the pressure relief grooves when a pressure or a temperature inside the shell reaches a threshold, so as to release the pressure inside the shell (a first explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 111 and a second explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 112 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P71, 91);
wherein a length L1 of the peripheral wall along the first direction and a distance L2 between the pressure relief groove adjacent to an end of the peripheral wall and the end satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (the length of the battery casing body 11 is 180 to 600 mm; the distance from the first explosion-proof marking 111 and the first opening end if 2.5 to 10 mm; the distance between the second-explosion proof marking and the second opening end is 2.5 to 10 mm; see entire disclosure and especially P67, 72-74; therefore, L1 is 180 to 600 mm, and L2 is 2.5 to 10 mm; using these values, L1 and L2 of Li satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (using the minimum value for L1 and maximum value for L2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 10 ≤ 180/3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 10 ≤ 60)).
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein 300mm ≤ L1 ≤ 600mm and L2 ≤ 100mm (Example 1 at P96 states the length of the casing body it 395 mm, the distance from the first explosion-proof notch 111 to the first opening end is 2.8mm, and the distance from the second explosion-proof notch 112 to the second opening end is 3mm).
Regarding claim 15, Li discloses wherein the pressure relief grooves are arranged on an outer surface of the peripheral wall (see Figs. 2-14).
Regarding claim 16, Li discloses a battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly; and the shell according to claim 1, wherein the shell is configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (see entire disclosure and especially P64, 70, 85, 87).
Regarding claim 19, Li discloses a shell for accommodating an electrode assembly (lithium-ion battery casing 1 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P64), comprising:
a peripheral wall, extending in a first direction and configured to enclose an outer side of the electrode assembly (battery casing body 11 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P64); and
pressure relief grooves, arranged on the peripheral wall, wherein the peripheral wall is configured to crack along the pressure relief grooves when a pressure or a temperature inside the shell reaches a threshold, so as to release the pressure inside the shell (a first explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 111 and a second explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 112 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P71, 91);
wherein a length L1 of the peripheral wall along the first direction and a distance L2 between the pressure relief groove adjacent to an end of the peripheral wall and the end satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (the length of the battery casing body 11 is 180 to 600 mm; the distance from the first explosion-proof marking 111 and the first opening end if 2.5 to 10 mm; the distance between the second-explosion proof marking and the second opening end is 2.5 to 10 mm; see entire disclosure and especially P67, 72-74; therefore, L1 is 180 to 600 mm, and L2 is 2.5 to 10 mm; using these values, L1 and L2 of Li satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (using the minimum value for L1 and maximum value for L2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 10 ≤ 180/3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 10 ≤ 60)).
Li necessarily discloses a manufacturing method wherein the shell is provided and the pressure relief grooves are processed on the peripheral wall of the shell, given Li discloses the shell with the claimed configuration.
Regarding claim 20, Li discloses a shell for accommodating an electrode assembly (lithium-ion battery casing 1 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P64), comprising:
a peripheral wall, extending in a first direction and configured to enclose an outer side of the electrode assembly (battery casing body 11 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P64); and
pressure relief grooves, arranged on the peripheral wall, wherein the peripheral wall is configured to crack along the pressure relief grooves when a pressure or a temperature inside the shell reaches a threshold, so as to release the pressure inside the shell (a first explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 111 and a second explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 112 in Figs. 2-14; see entire disclosure and especially P71, 91);
wherein a length L1 of the peripheral wall along the first direction and a distance L2 between the pressure relief groove adjacent to an end of the peripheral wall and the end satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (the length of the battery casing body 11 is 180 to 600 mm; the distance from the first explosion-proof marking 111 and the first opening end if 2.5 to 10 mm; the distance between the second-explosion proof marking and the second opening end is 2.5 to 10 mm; see entire disclosure and especially P, 67, 72-74; therefore, L1 is 180 to 600 mm, and L2 is 2.5 to 10 mm; using these values, L1 and L2 of Li satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (using the minimum value for L1 and maximum value for L2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 10 ≤ 180/3 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 10 ≤ 60)).
Li necessarily implicitly discloses a manufacturing device for the shell wherein a providing apparatus provides the shell and a processing apparatus processes the pressure relief grooves on the peripheral wall of the shell, as the shell must be provided somehow and the pressure relief grooves must be processed on the peripheral wall of the shell somehow, given Li discloses the shell with the claimed configuration.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yeo et al (US 20090305114 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yeo discloses a shell for accommodating an electrode assembly (can 120 in Figs. 1-2b; see entire disclosure and especially P37), comprising:
a peripheral wall, extending in a first direction and configured to enclose an outer side of the electrode assembly (wide surface 121 in Figs. 1-2b; first direction can be drawn to the direction at which the battery stands in an up-down manner; see entire disclosure and especially P37); and
pressure relief grooves, arranged on the peripheral wall, wherein the peripheral wall is configured to crack along the pressure relief grooves when a pressure or a temperature inside the shell reaches a threshold, so as to release the pressure inside the shell (plurality of rupture grooves 145a in Figs. 1-2b; see entire disclosure and especially P39; given the grooves are grooves, therefore having less thickness than the other sections of can 120, they are the weakest points on the can 120; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the grooves would crack if the internal pressure inside the can 120 rises above their strength limit as they are weakened parts of the can 120);
wherein a length L1 of the peripheral wall along the first direction and a distance L2 between the pressure relief groove adjacent to an end of the peripheral wall and the end satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (this is seen in Figs. 1-2b; see also the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
541
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Yeo Fig. 2a
Regarding claim 3, Yeo discloses wherein the peripheral wall is provided with at least one pressure relief groove group, and the pressure relief groove group comprises a plurality of pressure relief grooves arranged at intervals along a circumferential direction of the peripheral wall (see Figs. 1-2b wherein the plurality of rupture grooves 145a are arranged in a line around the circumference of the can 120).
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 3-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN212434721U, given in the 03/05/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Yeo (US 20090305114 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Li does not disclose wherein the peripheral wall is provided with at least one pressure relief groove group, and the pressure relief groove group comprises a plurality of pressure relief grooves arranged at intervals along a circumferential direction of the peripheral wall.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yeo teaches a secondary battery (100 in Figs. 1-2b) including an electrode assembly (110 in Figs. 1-2b) disposed within a can (120 in Figs. 1-2b; P35). Yeo teaches a notched part (140 in Figs. 1-2b) is formed at a lower part of the can such that the notched part can rupture and the electrode assembly can be discharged from the can (P35).
Yeo teaches there are a plurality of forms the notched part that ruptures can take. Yeo teaches the notched part can take the shape of a linearly continuous rupture groove (245 in Fig. 3; P58). Yeo teaches a notched part may be formed in a shape of a stripe parallel to the lower surface and the notched part consists of a plurality of rupture grooves (145a in Figs. 1-2b) and space regions (145b in Figs. 1-2b) forming a rupture groove group (145 in Figs. 1-2b; P39-40).
While Yeo teaches their rupture grooves are designed to rupture during a vertical compression test when the battery has force applied to the narrow surfaces (122 in Fig. 1), given the rupture grooves of Yeo are weakened portions (grooves), one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize they would indeed crack if the inner pressure inside the shell rises above their strength limit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Yeo and chosen to change the form/shape of both of the pressure relief grooves of Li (first explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 111 and second explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 112) to have a structure consisting of a plurality of pressure relief grooves formed in the shape of a stripe having space regions in-between, thereby forming a rupture / pressure relief groove group, given Yeo teaches a single linearly continuous groove and a plurality of pressure relief grooves formed in the shape of a stripe having space regions in-between are both known forms for a rupture mechanism on a battery can to take in order to release an electrode assembly, and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 4, modified Li meets the limitation wherein: the at least one pressure relief groove group comprises a first pressure relief groove group and a second pressure relief groove group (given both the first explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 111 and second explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 112 have had their form/shape changed to include a plurality of pressure relief grooves formed in the shape of a stripe having space regions in-between); and the first pressure relief groove group and the second pressure relief groove group are arranged, along the first direction, at intervals on the peripheral wall, and the pressure relief grooves in the first pressure relief groove group and the pressure relief grooves in the second pressure relief groove group are adjacent to two ends of the peripheral wall, respectively (given both the first explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 111 and second explosion-proof marking/groove/notch 112 are arranged at two ends of the battery casing 11 in the first direction; the first direction can be drawn to the direction at which length L is seen in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Li meets the limitation wherein 300mm ≤ L1 ≤ 600mm (Example 1 at P96 states the length of the casing body it 395 mm).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yeo et al (US 20090305114 A1) as applied to claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Yeo does not disclose wherein: the at least one pressure relief groove group comprises a first pressure relief groove group and a second pressure relief groove group, however, this is merely a duplication of the pressure relief groove group of Yeo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the pressure relief groove group into a first pressure relief groove group and a second pressure relief groove group in order to, for example, provide a failsafe in the chance that one of the pressure relief groove groups does not rupture as designed, because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Modified Yeo does not meet the limitation wherein the first pressure relief groove group and the second pressure relief groove group are arranged, along the first direction, at intervals on the peripheral wall, and the pressure relief grooves in the first pressure relief groove group and the pressure relief grooves in the second pressure relief groove group are adjacent to two ends of the peripheral wall, respectively, however, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Yeo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the parts of modified Yeo as claimed in order to, for example, allow for the electrode assembly to discharged both downward from the can and upward from the can during vertical compression dependent upon the needs of the one handling the battery, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 5, while modified Yeo does not meet the limitation wherein the at least one pressure relief groove group further comprises a third pressure relief groove group, wherein the third pressure relief groove group is located, along the first direction, between the first pressure relief groove group and the second pressure relief groove group, this is merely a duplication of the parts of modified Yeo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the one of pressure relief groups as claimed in order to, for example, provide a failsafe in the chance that both the first pressure relief groove group and the second pressure relief groove group do not rupture as designed, because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, while modified Yeo does not meet the limitation wherein the third pressure relief groove group is located, along the first direction, in a middle position of the peripheral wall, this is merely a rearrangement of the parts of modified Yeo. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the parts as claimed in order to, for example, provide wherein the electrode assembly is able to be discharged either downwardly or upwardly dependent upon the needs of the one handling the battery in the occurrence that both the first pressure relief groove group and the second pressure relief groove group do not rupture as designed, because the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al (JP2001345083A, given in the 05/27/2025 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 1, Kato discloses a shell for accommodating an electrode assembly (bottomed rectangular cylindrical outer casing 1 in Figs. 1-4; see entire disclosure and especially P23), comprising:
a peripheral wall, extending in a first direction and configured to enclose an outer side of the electrode assembly (long side surface 1a of the outer can 1 in Figs. 1-4; first direction can be drawn to the height direction at which the battery is found in the up-down direction in Figs. 2-3 from opening 19 to the bottom 20; see entire disclosure and especially P23-24, 31); and
a pressure relief groove, arranged on the peripheral wall, wherein the peripheral wall is configured to crack along the pressure relief groove when a pressure or a temperature inside the shell reaches a threshold, so as to release the pressure inside the shell (explosion-proof valve 18 at the top or bottom of surface 1a in Figs. 2-3; see entire disclosure and especially P11, 26-28, 46);
wherein a length L1 of the peripheral wall along the first direction and a distance L2 between the pressure relief groove adjacent to an end of the peripheral wall and the end satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (the length (height) of the long side surface 1a/outer can 1 is 40 mm; the distance from top or bottom of the long side surface 1a tot the explosion-proof valve 18 is 1 mm; see entire disclosure and especially P31, 42; therefore, L1 is 40 mm, and L2 is 1 mm; using these values, L1 and L2 of Li satisfy L2 ≤ L1/3 (1 ≤ 40)).
Kato does not disclose a plurality of pressure relief grooves, as the multiple pressure relief grooves seen in Figs. 2-3 are just denotations of where the pressure relief groove (18) of Kato is able to be set on the peripheral wall (1a). However, this is merely a duplication of the pressure relief groove (18) of Kato to provide the peripheral wall (1a) a plurality of pressure relief grooves. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have duplicated the pressure relief groove of Kato into multiple pressure relief grooves in order to, for example, provide a failsafe such that if one pressure relief groove fails to open during the rise of internal pressure, another is able to be opened to relieve the pressure, because the mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kato meets the limitation wherein the peripheral wall is provided with pressure relief portions, and each of the pressure relief portions is defined by the pressure relief groove, wherein the pressure relief portions are configured to flip outward and open when the pressure or the temperature inside the shell reaches a threshold, so as to release the pressure inside the shell (the explosion-proof valves can take on the form/shape shown in Fig. 4(c); see the annotated Fig. below and see entire disclosure and especially P35-36; one of ordinary skill would understand that if internal pressure forces its way out of the inside of the shell, the explosion-proof-valve at 18c would open and the pressure relief portion shown in the annotated Fig. below would flip outward due to the force of the pressure exiting the shell).
PNG
media_image2.png
726
982
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kato Fig. 4(c)
Regarding claim 9, modified Kato meets the limitation wherein each of the pressure relief grooves comprises a first groove portion, a second groove portion, and a third groove portion, wherein the first groove portion and the third groove portion are arranged opposite to each other in the first direction, and the first groove portion, the second groove portion, and the third groove portion are sequentially connected to define the pressure relief portion (the explosion-proof valves can take on the form/shape shown in Fig. 4(c); see the annotated Fig. below and see entire disclosure and especially P35-36; see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image3.png
753
1037
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kato Fig. 4(c)
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al (JP2001345083A, given in the 05/27/2025 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claim 9, further in view of Kawamura et al (JPH11185714A, given in the 05/27/2025 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kato meets the limitation wherein the second groove portion comprises a straight groove segment extending in the first direction (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image4.png
726
835
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kato Fig. 4(c)
However, modified Kato does not meet the limitation wherein a length L3 of the straight groove segment and a residual thickness H of the peripheral wall at a position of the straight groove segment satisfy 1/5H+1/2L3＞0.55.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kawamura teaches a battery outer casing that houses an electrode body (P16). Kawamura teaches a stamped explosion-proof valve consisting of a groove-shaped thin film portion having a thickness of 0.06 to 0.15 mm and a straight section length of 6 to 15 mm (P19).
Kawamura teaches if the thickness is less than 0.06 mm there is a risk that the explosion-proof valve may open due to impact such as dropping the battery, causing the electrolyte inside to leak out (P28). Kawamura teaches if the thickness is greater than 0.15 mm there is a risk that the explosion-proof valve will not activate even if the internal pressure inside the outer can increases (P28).
Kawamura teaches if the length of the straight section is less than 6 mm, there is a risk that the explosion-proof valve will not activate even if the internal pressure inside the outer can increases (P29). Kawamura teaches if the length of the straight section is greater than 15 mm, there is a risk that the explosion-proof valve may open due to impact such as dropping the battery, causing the electrolyte inside to leak out (P29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kawamura and chosen a residual thickness H of the peripheral wall at a position of the pressure relief grooves to be from 0.06 to 0.15 mm, given Kawamura teaches a thickness within this range allows the explosion-proof valve to be able to active when the internal pressure inside the can increases, without activating due to an impact such as dropping the battery. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Kawamura and chosen a length L3 of the straight groove segment to be from 6 to 15 mm, given Kawamura teaches a length within this range allows the explosion-proof valve to be able to active when the internal pressure inside the can increases, without activating due to an impact such as dropping the battery.
Due to this modification, modified Kato meets the limitation wherein a length L3 of the straight groove segment and a residual thickness H of the peripheral wall at a position of the straight groove segment satisfy 1/5H+1/2L3＞0.55 (1/5H+1/2L3 can be calculated to fall within the range of 1.3667 to 3.4167 using the ranges for H and L3 above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kato meets the limitation H ≤ 0.4mm (H is from 0.06 to 0.15 mm).
Modified Kato includes L3 from 6 to 15 mm, which overlaps the claimed L3 ≤ 10mm, and in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (See MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kato meets the limitation wherein the second groove portion further comprises a first arc chamfer segment and a second arc chamfer segment, wherein the first arc chamfer segment is configured to connect the first groove portion and the straight groove segment, and the second arc chamfer portion is configured to connect the second groove portion and the straight groove segment (see the annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image5.png
723
1091
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kato Fig. 4(c)
Regarding claim 13, modified Kato does not meet the limitation wherein: a radius R1 of the first arc chamfer segment satisfies R1≤ 5mm; and/or a radius R2 of the second arc chamfer segment satisfies R2 ≤ 5mm, however, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 14 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN212434721U, given in the 03/05/2024 IDS, using the provided machine English translation from Espacenet) as applied to claims 1 and 16 respectively, further in view of Moon et al (US 20200127255 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Li does not disclose wherein the peripheral wall is a cylinder (given the battery casing body 11 forms a square receiving cavity; see entire disclosure and especially P64).
In a similar field of endeavor, Moon teaches a case of a secondary battery can be cylindrical or rectangular according to the usage of the battery (P5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Moon and changed the form/shape of the shell of Li such that the peripheral wall is a cylinder, given Moon teaches a case can be cylindrical or rectangular depending upon how the battery is to be used, and the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claims 17-18, Li discloses wherein the battery cells according to claim 16 are accommodated in a case to form a battery (claim 17), or wherein the battery of claim 17 is utilized in a power consumption device (claim 18).
In a similar field of endeavor, Moon teaches a battery module includes a cell stack having a plurality of unit cells inside a module housing (P54). Moon teaches a rechargeable battery for providing power for a hybrid/electric vehicle can include a plurality of unit cells combined in series or parallel (P6-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teaching of Moon and provided wherein the battery cells according to claim 16 are accommodated in a case to form a battery (battery module) and wherein the battery (battery module) is utilized in a power consumption device, given Moon teaches a battery module can host a plurality of unit cells within a housing and a plurality of unit cells can be used to provide power for a hybrid/electric vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mary Harris whose telephone number is (571)272-0690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at (571)272-1481. 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.
/MARY GRACE HARRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights