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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 April 2024, and 13 February 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objection
In claim 1, line 6, the term “and” should be inserted between “tab” and “a”.
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 9-11 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.
Regarding claim 9, claim 8 recites “wherein the movement reduction members have a same length,” and claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8 further recites “wherein the movement reduction members have different respective lengths.” Claim 9 is considered indefinite because since it is dependent on claim 8, the movement reduction members must be both the same length and different length at the same time.
It may be that applicant intended to recite a dependency on claim 7. Clarification is required.
Claims 10 and 11 are included in this rejection because of their dependency on a rejected claim.
The term “relatively” in claims 10 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively” 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. It is unclear which movement reduction member is at which position along the center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shin et al. (US 20240079691, hereinafter, Shin).
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches a battery cell (¶ 51), an electrode assembly and a case for accommodating the electrode assembly (¶ 52), uncoated portions of positive and negative electrode plates extending from the coated portions and disposed on opposite sides of the electrode assembly, with uncoated portions of the same polarity folded to be in contact with each other (¶ 153 - 154), a first cap assembly with a first terminal portion and second cap assembly with a second terminal portion coupled to both ends of the case, with the uncoated portions electrically connected to the terminal portions (¶ 66, 152), and a protective frame which includes insulating material (¶ 72) and is coupled to the interior of the case indirectly via the protective frame being coupled to the current collecting member (¶ 134), the current collecting member being connected to the terminal portion of the cap assembly (¶ 142 - 143), and the cap assembly being coupled to the case (¶ 66).
Regarding claims 2 - 4, Shin teaches the battery of claim 1, wherein the protective frame has a plate shape, a coupling part 211, and a contact part 212 bent from the end of the contact part perpendicularly (Fig. 5, ¶ 16). The coupling part is coupled to the case indirectly via the protective frame being coupled to the current collecting member (¶ 134), the current collecting member being connected to the terminal portion of the cap assembly (¶ 142 - 143), and the cap assembly being coupled to the case (¶ 66).
Regarding claim 5, while not expressly teaching the claimed limitations of being coated with an insulating material or contacting the insulating material by insert-injecting, Shin does teach the contact part being made of an insulating material (¶ 72), which is substantially identical to the applicant’s instant disclosure of “The movement reduction member 800 may be made of an insulating material” (Instant specification ¶ 82).
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.
Claims 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin (US 20240079691) in view of Wakimoto et al. (CN 115458848, hereinafter, Wakimoto).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches the secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the case comprises long side portions with open ends and short side portions having a lower length that is less than a length of the long side portions (Shin Fig. 2), but does not teach that the movement reduction member is at a center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction. In a related field of endeavor, Wakimoto teaches an auxiliary fixing member 1j that is configured on the central part of the La, corresponding to the center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction (Wakimoto Fig. 15, ¶ “In addition, as a preferred embodiment”). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the secondary battery of Shin with the auxiliary fixing member of Wakimoto. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the inhibiting of the movement of the long side direction of the electrode body (Wakimoto ¶ “In addition, as a preferred embodiment”).
Regarding claim 7, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery of claim 5, wherein the case comprises long side portions with open ends and short side portions having a lower length that is less than a length of the long side portions (Shin Fig. 2), and a plurality of movement reduction members along the longitudinal direction of the long side portion (Wakimoto Fig. 15, auxiliary fixing members 1h-j; Wakimoto ¶ “In addition, as a preferred embodiment” “In addition, in FIG. 15, the fixing member 1d, 1e, 1h and the fixing member 1f, 1 g, 1i relative to the central line CL of the central part in the Y direction of the battery shell 10 is symmetrically configured, but not limited to this, also can be asymmetrically configured relative to the CL.”).
Regarding claim 8, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the battery of claim 7, wherein the auxiliary fixing members have the same label and are thus the same part with the same dimensions (Wakimoto Fig. 15, auxiliary fixing members 1h-j).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery including multiple movement reduction members, but does not teach that the movement reduction members have different respective lengths, nor that the movement reduction member with relatively long length is at a center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction, nor that the movement reduction with relatively short length is outside the movement reduction member having the relatively long length. However, making some of the movement reduction members a different length than the others would be considered a matter of design choice within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the court has 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. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 11, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery of claim 10, including reduction members, but not that the movement reduction members having relatively long length and the movement reduction members having relatively short length are alternately located. However, in conjunction with the above rejection for claims 9 and 10, the particular placement of the relatively long and relatively short movement reduction members is considered to be a matter of design choice within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery of claim 7, wherein the fixing member can be more than 1/30 of La and less than 3/4 of La, and less than 1/2 La or less than 1/3 of La. The claimed range of the movement reduction member being 15% to 25% of the length of the long side portion in a left and right direction based on the center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction would be about 30% to 50% of the total length of the long side portion, corresponding to about 1/3 La and 1/2 La (Wakimoto ¶ “In the above embodiment, in the flat outer surface”).
Regarding claim 13, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery of claim 13, wherein the movement reduction member is below the long side portion, but not above the long side portion. However, it would be obvious to add a second auxiliary fixing member corresponding to 1j on the opposite side, and the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 14, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery of claim 13, wherein the parts in contact with the short side portions are contact parts of the movement reduction members, and those parts in contact with the short side portions are parallel to the short side portions (Shin Fig. 6; Wakimoto Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 15, Shin in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery of claim 14, wherein the contact parts of the movement reduction members do not contact each other (Shin Fig. 6; Wakimoto Fig. 15).
Claims 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 20240079691) in view of Kubota et al. (US 20180219262, hereinafter, Kubota).
Regarding claim 16, Shin teaches a secondary battery comprising a case having a hexahedral shape having opened ends in a longitudinal direction, and having first and second surfaces as long side portions, and third and fourth surfaces connecting the first surface to the second surface (Shin Fig. 2, hexahedral shape, with opened ends in the longitudinal direction in the z direction, first and second surfaces as long side portions facing in the x direction, third and fourth surfaces connecting the first surface to the second surface facing in the y direction), an electrode assembly and a case for accommodating the electrode assembly (¶ 52), uncoated portions of positive and negative electrode plates extending from the coated portions and disposed on opposite sides of the electrode assembly, with uncoated portions of the same polarity folded to be in contact with each other (¶ 153 - 154), a first cap assembly with a first terminal portion and second cap assembly with a second terminal portion coupled to both ends of the case, with the uncoated portions electrically connected to the terminal portions (¶ 66, 152), and a protective frame which includes insulating material (¶ 72). However, Shin does not teach that the protective frame is coupled to an interior of the first or second surface.
In a related field of endeavor, Kubota teaches a secondary cell including a flat wound group 18 with a flat portion 17 provided with insulating tape holding portions 19 fixed to the inner wall of the cell case 3 (Kubota ¶ 43, Fig. 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the secondary battery of Shin with the holding portions of Kubota because doing so would reduce the bad influence of vibrations on the flat wound group (Kubota ¶ 43).
Regarding claims 17 - 19, Shin in view of Kubota teaches the secondary battery of claim 16, wherein the protective frame has a plate shape, a coupling part 211, and a contact part 212 bent from the end of the contact part perpendicularly (Fig. 5, ¶ 16). The coupling part is coupled to the case indirectly via the protective frame being coupled to the current collecting member (¶ 134), the current collecting member being connected to the terminal portion of the cap assembly (¶ 142 - 143), and the cap assembly being coupled by welding to the opening of the case (¶ 66). Alternatively, the coupling protective frame, current collecting member, and cap assembly may be formed integrally to form a more direct welding connection between the coupling part and the case, and the court has held that “the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 20, while not expressly teaching the claimed limitations of being coated with an insulating material or contacting the insulating material by insert-injecting, Shin does teach the contact part being made of an insulating material (¶ 72), which is substantially identical to the applicant’s instant disclosure of “The movement reduction member 800 may be made of an insulating material” (Instant specification ¶ 82).
Claims 21 - 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Shin (US 20240079691) in view of Kubota (US 20180219262) in further view of Wakimoto (CN 115458848).
Regarding claim 21, Shin in view of Kubota teaches the secondary battery of claim 20, wherein the case comprises long side portions with open ends and short side portions having a lower length that is less than a length of the long side portions (Shin Fig. 2), but does not teach that the movement reduction member is at a center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction. In a related field of endeavor, Wakimoto teaches an auxiliary fixing member 1j that is configured on the central part of the La, corresponding to the center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction (Wakimoto Fig. 15, ¶ “In addition, as a preferred embodiment”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date to modify the secondary battery of Shin in view of Kubota with the auxiliary fixing member of Wakimoto. One would be motivated to do so in order to improve the inhibiting of the movement of the long side direction of the electrode body (Wakimoto ¶ “In addition, as a preferred embodiment”).
Regarding claim 22, Shin in view of Kubota in further view of Wakimoto teaches the battery of claim 21, wherein the movement reduction member is below the long side portion, but not above the long side portion. However, it would be obvious to add a second auxiliary fixing member corresponding to 1j on the opposite side, and the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 23, Shin in view of Kubota in further view of Wakimoto teaches the battery of claim 22, wherein the parts in contact with the third and fourth surfaces are contact parts of the movement reduction members, and those parts in contact with the third and fourth surfaces are parallel to the third and fourth surfaces (Shin Fig. 6; Wakimoto Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 24, Shin in view of Kubota in further view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery of claim 22, wherein the fixing member can be more than 1/30 of La and less than 3/4 of La, and less than 1/2 La or less than 1/3 of La. The claimed range of the movement reduction member being 15% to 25% of the length of the long side portion in a left and right direction based on the center of the long side portions in the longitudinal direction would be about 30% to 50% of the total length of the long side portion, corresponding to about 1/3 La and 1/2 La (Wakimoto ¶ “In the above embodiment, in the flat outer surface”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8815. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 10:00am-6:00pm.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/M.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights