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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims state the limitation "overlap or do not overlap each other in a thickness direction" Since there is no in-between state between overlapping and not overlapping, this limitation does not further limit the subject matter of claims 1 and 10, respectively. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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) 1-9 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (EP4376148A2, cited in the IDS), hereinafter Lee, in view of Wakimoto (US20230291083A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a secondary battery (Fig. 3, 100, [0030]) comprising: an electrode assembly (Fig. 3, 110 [0030]);
a main tab electrically coupled to the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, 111, [0038]);
a sub-tab electrically coupled to the main tab, and extending away from the electrode assembly (Fig. 3, 120, [0038]);
an insulating member covering the main tab (Fig. 4, 170, [0050]), and comprising:
a base plate contacting the main tab (Fig. 4, 175, [0053]), and defining base plate through-holes (Fig. 4, 175a, [0053]);
a case accommodating the electrode assembly, the main tab, the sub-tab, and the insulating member (Fig. 1, 140);
a side terminal electrically coupled to the sub-tab (Fig. 6, 152);
and a cap plate to which the side terminal is coupled to pass therethrough, and sealing the case (Fig. 6, 151, [0045]).
Lee does not teach that the insulating member comprises one or more stacked plates stacked on the base plate, and defining stacked plate through-holes.
Wakimoto, however, teaches a secondary battery including an electrode tab and an insulating member surrounding the tab (Abstract). Wakimoto also teaches that the insulating member comprises one or more stacked plates stacked on the base plate (Fig. 7, 80, [0048]), and defining stacked plate through-holes (Fig. 8, 82h, [0056]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the Lee battery to include stacked plates stacked on the base plate, as taught by Wakimoto. This is because the stacked plates prevent the electrode body from coming into contact with the positive electrode electrical collector member and the positive electrode terminal (Wakimoto [0062]), and therefore allows for more of a short circuit suppressing effect in the battery (Wakimoto [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base plate comprises a first plate region contacting one side of the main tab, a second plate region contacting another side of the main tab, and a connection region interconnecting the first and second plate regions, and wherein the base plate through-holes comprise first plate first through-holes provided in the first plate region, and second plate second through-holes provided in the second plate region (See Lee fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 2, wherein the connection region defines an opening through which the sub-tab passes (See Lee fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
688
1356
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 3, wherein the base plate comprises a first sidewall along an edge of the first plate region, and a second sidewall along an edge of the second plate region (See Lee fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
668
934
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 4, wherein the stacked plates comprise a first stacked plate stacked on the first plate region, and a second stacked plate stacked on the second plate region (See Wakimoto fig. 7 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
787
1383
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first stacked plate contacts the first sidewall, and the second stacked plate contacts the second sidewall (Wakimoto [0048]). Since Wakimoto states that the stacked plate can be attached to the recessed part (Fig. 6, 74), which corresponds to the sidewalls of the Lee reference, modified Lee teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacked plate through-holes and the base plate through-holes overlap or do not overlap each other in a thickness direction. There is a finite number of possibilities on whether the though-holes are overlapping or not, so it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to either make the through-holes overlapping or not overlapping. "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, supports prima facie obviousness determination. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (MPEP 2143, Part E).
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacked plate through-holes and the base plate through-holes have different respective shapes (Lee 175a; Wakimoto 82h). Lee teaches circular base plate through-holes and Wakimoto teaches elliptical stacked plate through-holes.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacked plate through-holes and the base plate through-holes have different respective sizes (Lee 175a; Wakimoto 82h). In addition, Lee teaches that the through-holes allow for electrolyte to pass through [0053]. This means that changes in size change the flow rate of electrolyte, so it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to change the size of the holes in order to meet the desired flow rate.
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first plate through-hole and the second plate through-hole overlap or do not overlap each other in a thickness direction. There is a finite number of possibilities on whether the though-holes are overlapping or not, so it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to either make the through-holes overlapping or not overlapping. "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, supports prima facie obviousness determination. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (MPEP 2143, Part E).
Regarding claim 12, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 10, wherein the first plate through-hole and the second plate through-hole have different respective sizes. Lee teaches that the through-holes allow for electrolyte to pass through [0053]. This means that changes in size change the flow rate of electrolyte, so it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to change the size of the holes in order to meet the desired flow rate.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 10, but does not specifically teach that the first plate through-hole and the second plate through-hole have different respective shapes. However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to alter the configuration, or shape, of the through-holes as desired because changes in shape do not significantly affect the function. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that the configuration … was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration … was significant (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the base plate through-holes have a circular shape (Lee 175a), but does not specifically teach that the stacked plate through-holes have a circular shape, a quadrangular shape, a triangular shape, a pentagonal shape, a polygonal shape, a cross shape, or an L-shape.
However, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the modified Lee stacked plate through-hole so that it matches the Lee circular shape. This is because changes in shape do not significantly affect the function. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), the court held that the configuration … was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration … was significant (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lee teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sub-tab is bent in a U-shape between the main tab and the side terminal (Lee Fig. 3, 120).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Wakimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon et al. (US12136695B2), hereinafter Yoon.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee in view of Wakimoto teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1, wherein the stacked plates comprise a first plate stacked on the base plate and defining a first plate through-hole, but does not specifically teach that there is a second plate stacked on the first plate and defining a second plate through-hole.
Yoon, however, teaches of a secondary battery (Abstract) that includes a first plate stacked on the base plate and defining a first plate through-hole, and a second plate stacked on the first plate and defining a second plate through-hole (Fig. 3, 120, 130; Col. 4, lines 28-35).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to further modify the modified Lee battery so that there is a second plate stacked on top of the first plate because the insulation property is increased to prevent phenomena such as short circuit, thereby improving stability (Yoon Col. 6, lines 9-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hwang (US 20250096376 A1) teaches of a secondary battery with an insulating member surrounding the electrode tab [0066].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE WEI whose telephone number is (571)270-0870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5pm, Friday 7:30am-4pm.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at (571) 272-3433. 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.
/YVONNE WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights