HOUSING ASSEMBLY WITH REINFORCING STRUCTURE AND BUTTON BATTERY
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) submitted on 3/25/2024 and 11/5/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “inner surface of the housing provided with an insulating layer” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for the reinforcing member being of an annular structure made of alloy, does not reasonably provide enablement for a type of alloy. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
This is a scope of enablement rejection. One of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation in order to make and use applicants claimed invention. See, In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Circ. 1988); see also, MPEP § 2164.01. MPEP 2164.01(a) sets forth the following factors, summarized from In re Wands, which should be considered when determining whether the claimed invention would require undue experimentation. The factors are as follows:
(A) the breadth of the claims; (B) the nature of the invention; (C) the state of the prior art; (D) the level of one of ordinary skill; (E) the level of predictability in the art; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) the existence of working examples; (H) and the quality of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the content of the disclose.
The factors are addressed in order. As to factor A, the claim broadly recites for the reinforcing member being of an annular structure made of alloy, wherein this alloy could be at least a thousand different possible combinations. No specific examples of the workability of any other alloy are given. Therefore, this factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factors B and E, the field of material science is an unpredictable art. Thus, the formulation of compounds containing different elements from those that have been optimized experimentally may present different problems. In addition, the formulation of alloy materials requires different chemical formulations. It is not as simple as mixing each component into a beaker. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would not know what problems might arise when formulating an active material using the elements for which applicants have not presented experimental data to support. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
As to factor C, the closest prior arts of record are vast being that the limitation of “an alloy” is itself a broad limitation. As such, this factor militates against finding of enablement.
As to factor D, the level of ordinary skill in the art would be a person holding a bachelors degree in chemical engineering, material science, or chemistry. This factor does not weigh for or against a finding of enablement.
As to factors F and G, the applicant’s specification provides no examples of for the reinforcing member being of an annular structure made of alloy. Paragraph 0052 of the as-filed specification simply states the “reinforcing member 15 may be of an annular structure made of an alloy material that is subjected to surface insulation treatment, and the reinforcing member 15 may also be an annular structure made of one of ceramic materials, epoxy resin, glass fiber, and mica”.
As to factor H, because of the unpredictability of the material science field, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to perform experimentation on each and every combination of the thousands possible. Such a degree of testing is undue experimentation. This factor militates against a finding of enablement.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(a) for their dependence on claims 1 and 5.
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 are 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.
Claims 1 and 5 disclose the reinforcing member is subjected to surface insulation treatment. There is no explanation for what this treatment is or how it is conducted.
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for their dependence on claims 1 and 5.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 2020-095904 A) and further in view of Bang et al. (US 2017/0040575 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Suzuki et al. teach a button battery (Paragraph 0002), comprising a battery cell (20) (Fig. 2, element 2 discloses electrode bodies.) and a housing assembly with a reinforcing structure for accommodating the battery cell (20) (Abstract), wherein the housing assembly with the reinforcing structure comprises:
a housing (100) comprising a first housing (11) (Fig. 2, element 17 discloses a first container.) and a second housing (12) (Fig. 2, element 18 discloses a second container.), the second housing (12) comprising a bottom wall (Fig. 2 shows the second container, element 18, comprises a bottom wall, element 31.)and a side wall arranged at an edge of the bottom wall and extending upwards (Fig. 2 shows the second container, element 18, comprises a peripheral wall, element 32.), the first housing (11) covering an opening of the second housing (12) (Fig. 3), the first housing (11) or the second housing (12) being defined with a through hole (101) (Figs. 2-4 disclose the second container, element 18, comprising a through hole, element 35.);
an electrical connection member (13) (Fig. 4B, element 39 discloses a positive terminal.), a projection of the electrical connection member (13) being located within the through hole (101) (Fig. 4B shows the positive terminal, element 39, embedded in the through hole, element 35.), the electrical connection member (13) being accommodated in the through hole (101) (Fig. 4B shows the positive terminal, element 39, embedded in the through hole, element 35.), an annular gap being defined in the through hole (101), and the annular gap being filled with an insulating material (Fig. 4B shows the through hole, element 35, forms a gap which accommodates the positive terminal, element 39. Paragraph 0014 discloses an insulating film is interposed and sandwiched between the outer periphery of the electrode terminal and the inner periphery of the through hole.);
an insulating member (14) configured for fixedly connecting the electrical connection member (13) with the housing (100), the insulating member (14) being arranged inside or outside the housing (100) (Figs. 3 and 4 disclose a sealing ring, element 37, disposed inside the second container, element 18.); and
a reinforcing member (15) partially projected into the through hole (101) and fixedly connected with the housing (100) through the insulating member (14) (Paragraph 0036; Fig. 4B discloses a positive electrode plate, element 38, connected to the second container, element 18, via the sealing ring, element 37 by a thermal weld.), the reinforcing member (15) being defined with an opening (151) (See Fig. 3), the opening (151) being located in a projection surface of the through hole (101) in an axial direction (Y) (Fig. 4B shows the projection of the positive terminal, element 39, in the through hole, element 35.), and the reinforcing member (15) being of an annular structure made of alloy (Paragraphs 0037-0038 disclose the positive electrode plate can be comprised of a metal alloy.) and subjected to surface insulation treatment (Paragraph 0036; Fig. 4B discloses the sealing ring, element 37, which is insulating, disposed on the surface of the positive electrode plate, element 38.).
However, Suzuki et al. do not teach the second housing (12) being provided with a first protrusion (121) protruding from an opening plane (122), the first protrusion (121) and the opening plane (122) defining a positioning groove (123), and the first housing (11) being embedded in the positioning groove (123).
Bang et al. teach a battery pack (Fig. 10, element 100) having an upper housing (Fig. 10, element 150) and a lower housing (Fig. 10, element 130). The upper housing is provided with a first protrusion (Fig. 10, element 151 discloses a fastening protrusion.) protruding from an opening plane (Fig. 10 shows element 151 being an extension of the upper housing, element 150) defining a positioning groove, and the first housing being embedded in the positioning groove (Paragraph 0044; Fig. 10 shows the lower housing, element 130, having a fastening groove, element 136a, which accommodates the fastening protrusion.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki with Bang in order to prevent moisture from being induced into the battery pack, thus improving safety.
Regarding claims 2 and 6, the combination of Suzuki and Bang et al. teach the housing assembly and button battery according to claims 1 and 5. Further, Suzuki et al. teach wherein the electrical connection member (13) is provided with a protrusion (131), a size of the protrusion (131) is smaller than a size of the opening (151) in a radial direction (X), and a thickness of the protrusion (131) is larger than a depth of the opening (151) in the axial direction (Y) (Fig. 4B, element 39 discloses the protrusion of the positive terminal. It is slightly smaller than the through hole, element 35, but has a thickness larger than its depth.).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, the combination of Suzuki and Bang et al. teach the housing assembly and button battery according to claims 1 and 5. Further, Bang et al. teach wherein the housing (100) is further provided with a liquid injection hole (102) and/or an explosion-proof sculpture (103) (Fig. 6 teach an electrolyte injection hole, element 142a.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki with Bang in order to prevent electrolyte from leaking out of the battery pack, thus improving safety.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 2020-095904 A) and Bang et al. (US 2017/0040575 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Sabrowsky et al. (US 2020/0083497 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 8, the combination of Suzuki and Bang et al. teach the housing assembly and button battery according to claims 1 and 5. However, they do not teach wherein an inner surface of the housing (100) is provided with an insulating layer.
Sabrowsky et al. teach a button cell (Paragraph 0031) wherein the inner surface of the housing is provided with an insulating layer (Paragraph 0031 discloses a grommet, shown as an insulating layer, element 200, located on the inner surface of a casing, element 102.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Suzuki and Bang with Sabrowsky in order prevent short circuiting between the active core of the battery and the housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL S GATEWOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-7958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30.
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 Tavares-Crockett 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.
Daniel S. Gatewood, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1729
/DANIEL S GATEWOOD, Ph. D/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729 July 7th, 2026
Prosecution Insights