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 Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “…a shielding portion between the resin member and a peripheral edge portion of the sealing plate…” and has exact written language in the instant specification.
From the instant specification, the three features of the above clause are identified on the instant figures:
PNG
media_image1.png
515
1053
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The definition of “between” is:
PNG
media_image2.png
834
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Clearly form the figure of the instant specification, the shielding portion is not located in an area between the resin and the sealing plate as would be understood through common English. Therefore, any interpretation of a feature that is permanent or temporary the is utilized in the welding process reads on instant claimed, “shielding portion”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (USPAT 6573000) and further in view of Tsutsumi (PGPUB 2013/0171510).
Claim 1: Miyazaki teaches a sealed battery with an opening in an external casing sealed with a sealing plate and laser welding [Abstract]. The prior art teaches preparing a bottom case body (10: external casing) with an opening and a sealing plate (31: sealing plate) and an electrode body therein (20: wound electrode) [Fig 1; Col 3 Ln 37-67]. An insulating sleeve composed of insulating resin is provided between the electrode construction (20) and the sealing plate (31) [Col 4 Ln 52-63]. The battery is assembled prior to welding such that the electrical storage device comprises an electrode body in the casing and the sealing plate is in place on top to enclose the assembly prior to welding [Fig 1; Col 3 Ln 37 – Col 5 Ln 67]. Additionally, it could be interpreted that the gasket material of the prior art (33) reads on the instant claim resin member [Fig 2A; Col 5 Ln 33-Ln 67]. A laser welding of the case with an irradiating pulsed light is utilized at the sealing plate to weld the peripheral edge portion of the sealing plate [Fig 2A; Col 5 Ln 51 – Col 6 Ln 31]. The laser weld is performed in an environment with an assist gas that includes non-oxidizing gas (inert) and oxidizing gas [Col 6 Ln 09 – Ln 18].
Miyazaki teaches a method of welding, but is silent to teach a shielding element.
Tsutsumi teaches a battery cell capable of preventing damage to an insulating gasket when the battery case and cover are laser welded together [Abstract]. A shielding member (4) is utilized to protect the terminal features that penetrate the cell cover (10b) so heat generated during welding the cover (10b) and case (10a), after the electrode assembly is placed inside, does not damage the internal components of the battery [Fig 1; 0016-0042]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the battery of Miyazaki to include the welding shield of Tsutsumi in order to reduce damage to the gasket during welding and ensure sealability of the cell [0008].
Claim 4: Miyazaki is silent to teach a shielding element.
Tsutsumi teaches shielding element (4). The instant claim does not recite a mechanism for attaching and removal of the shield. It is interpreted that one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of attaching as taught by Tsutsumi and could remove the shield if they desired.
Claim 5: Miyazaki is silent to teach a shielding element.
Tsutsumi teaches a shield (4) that is separate from the terminal feature [Fig 4]. The feature would be obvious to make removable as it serves no function for electrochemical conduction after the welding part has been performed. Leaving the shield in place would increase weight and serves no additional purpose therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to remove the shield in order to reduce the weight of the battery – MPEP 2144.04 Making separable.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (USPAT 6573000) and Tsutsumi (PGPUB 2013/0171510) as applies to claim 1 above, further in view of Matsubara et al (EP 0579205).
Claim 2-3: Miyazaki teaches the laser welding process to include a shining laser light (50) and assist gas supplied to the spot formed by the laser light, where by the gas is taught to be oxidizing and non-oxidizing, specifically nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen, or an inert gas such as argon [Col 6 Ln 5-22]. Miyazaki is silent to teach the vol% of the oxidizing gas in the laser welding process.
Matsubara teaches a laser welding method that provides improved welding quality [Abstract]. A gas having a mixture of 10% oxygen gas and the rest argon is exemplified [Description of the Preferred Embodiments]. The amount of oxygen should not be less than 5% else the degree of oxidation is low and causes the molten metal to slosh and swell [Fig 5]. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the oxidizing volume of Matsubara to modify the gas composition amounts of Miyazaki in order to have an assist gas that improves the welding quality [Fig 5].
Claim 4: Miyazaki is silent to teach a shielding element.
Matsubara teaches shielding element (4). The instant claim does not recite a mechanism for attaching and removal of the shield. It is interpreted that one having ordinary skill in the art would be capable of attaching as taught by Miyazaki and could remove the shield if they desired.
Claim 5: Miyazaki is silent to teach a shielding element.
Matsubara teaches a shield (4) that is separate from the terminal feature [Fig 4]. The feature would be obvious to make removable as it serves no function for electrochemical conduction after the welding part has been performed. Leaving the shield in place would increase weight and serves no additional purpose therefore one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to remove the shield in order to reduce the weight of the battery – MPEP 2144.04 Making separable.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (USPAT 6573000) and Tsutsumi (PGPUB 2013/0171510) as applies to claim 1 above, further in view of Schildgen (USPAT 7777153).
Claim 6-7: Miyazaki teaches an assist gas for use in welding that comprises non-oxidizing gas and oxidizing gas, but is silent to teach a second gas.
Schildgen teaches a method of connecting two components by a weld [Abstract]. Schilgen teaches the utilization of a non-oxidizing gas supply (38) that allows a cover gas of inert gas like argon to be supplied when the laser (32) is creating a weld in a manner that generated oxides and soot can be reduced and with a flow force to help dissipate a cloud of particulate matter generated during welded [ Col 3 Ln58-67]. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the welding process of Miyazaki to include a second flow force of inert, non-oxidizing gas as taught by Schildgen in order to reduce soot and help dissipate a cloud of particulate matter generated during welded [ Col 3 Ln58-67].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J YANCHUK whose telephone number is (571)270-7343. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-8p.
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, Nick Smith can be reached at 571-272-8760. 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.
/STEPHEN J YANCHUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights