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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/07/2024 and 08/01/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by CN112234296A to Qu et al. (Machine Translation).
With respect to claim 1, Qu et al. teach an end cap assembly for a battery cell, the end cap assembly comprising: an end cap 107 provided with a positive electrode terminal 103a, an insulating member 20a being provided between the positive electrode terminal 103a and the end cap 107; and a fuse structure 120, the fuse structure 120 electrically connecting the end cap 107 to the positive electrode terminal 103a, wherein the fuse structure 120 is configured to be capable of melting when a current flowing through the fuse structure 120 is greater than a predetermined threshold (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 3, Qu et al. teach the end cap assembly, wherein the insulating member 20a is provided between the positive electrode terminal 103a and the end cap 107 in a thickness direction of the end cap 107 (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 4, Qu et al. teach the end cap assembly, wherein a surface of the positive electrode terminal 103a protruding out of the end cap 107 is provided with a notch 13, and a first end of the fuse structure 120 is accommodated in the notch 13 so as to be connected to the positive electrode terminal 103a (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 5, Qu et al. teach the end cap assembly, wherein the end cap 107 assembly is a rectangular (square) end cap assembly, the notch 13 is provided at a first position of the positive electrode terminal 103a, and a connection direction between the first position and the center of the positive electrode terminal 130a is defined as a first direction; and the end cap 107 is further provided with a negative electrode terminal 103b, a connection direction between the center of the negative electrode terminal 103b and the center of the positive electrode terminal 103a is defined as a second direction, and the first direction is different from the second direction (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 12, Qu et al. teach the end cap assembly, wherein the fuse structure is a fuse wire 120 (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 13, Qu et al. teach the end cap assembly, wherein a protective structure 122 is provided on an outer surface of the fuse wire 120 (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 15, Qu et al. teach the end cap assembly, wherein the fuse structure is attached to the insulating member 122 (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 16, Qu et al. teach a battery cell, comprising: an electrode assembly 102; a housing 107 having an opening and configured to accommodate the electrode assembly 102; and the end cap assembly 107, the end cap assembly 107 covering the opening so as to enclose the electrode assembly 102 in the housing 107 (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 17, Qu et al. teach a battery, comprising: the battery cell; and a case 107, the case 107 being configured to accommodate the battery cell (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to claim 18, Qu et al. teach a power consuming device, comprising the battery, the battery being configured to supply electric energy (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
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.
Claims 2, 6-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112234296A to Qu et al.
With respect to claim 2, Qu et al. do not specifically teach the end cap assembly, wherein the predetermined threshold is 0.1 A-10 A.
However, It would have been obvious as of the effective filing dated of the claimed invention to have the predetermined threshold is 0.1 A-10 A, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that discovering that general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller,105 USPQ 233. Generally, differences in ranges will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ranges is critical. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
With respect to claim 6, Qu et al. do not specifically teach the end cap assembly, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the second direction.
However, changes in shape of a known element have been held to be obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 7, Qu et al. further teach the end cap assembly, wherein the notch 13 is provided at a second position of the positive electrode terminal 103a, and the second position is a position on an edge of the positive electrode terminal 103a (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
Qu et al. do not specifically teach the end cap assembly, wherein the end cap assembly is a circular end cap assembly. Changes in shape of a known element have been held to be obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 8, Qu et al. teach the end cap assembly, wherein the second position is a position on the edge of the positive electrode terminal 103a (Qu et al.: Page 4, Line 13 to the end of Page 4).
With respect to the limitation, “the second position is farthest away from an edge of the end cap assembly,” the particular rearrangement of the second position was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). With the motivation of having a means such the rearrangement could be modified due to the needs of the customer.
With respect to claims 9-11, Qu et al. do not specifically teach the end cap assembly, wherein the notch has a size of 1 mm-2 mm in a thickness direction of the positive electrode terminal; wherein the notch has a size of 1 mm-4 mm in a third direction, the third direction is an extension direction of the first end of the fuse structure, and the third direction is perpendicular to the thickness direction of the positive electrode terminal; and wherein the notch has a size of 1 mm-2 mm in a fourth direction, and the fourth direction is perpendicular to the third direction and the thickness direction of the positive electrode terminal.
However, the specification or the claims do not specifically show the criticality of the size and the location of the notch. In this case, changes in shape or size of a known element have been held to be obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
With respect to claim 14, Qu et al. do not specifically teach the end cap assembly, wherein the fuse wire has a cross-sectional area of 0.01 mm2 to 0.20 mm2.
However, the specification or the claims do not specifically show the criticality of the size and the location of the fuse wire. In this case, changes in size of a known element have been held to be obvious. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984) and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINGWEN R ZENG whose telephone number is (571)272-6649. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Tiffany Legette can be reached on (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.
/LINGWEN R ZENG/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights