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 Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “battery cell (4)” in line 1. Claim 6 also recites the limitation "battery cell" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the battery cell” limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "battery cell" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Deng et al. (CN 206364073 U).
Claim 1: Deng teaches a battery comprising a sealed shell/housing 1 and a battery cell 2 inside the shell 1, wherein the shell 1 comprises a frame 11 having two opening, and two cover plates 12 are respectively welded on the left and right sides of the frame 11 (Fig 2 and page 3, lines 10-14). The shell meets the claimed battery housing, the frame 11 meets the claimed housing and the two cover plates meet the claimed first cover plate and second cover plate. Deng teaches a contact surface between the frame 11 and each of the two cover plates 12 is a horizontal plane (Fig. 2). Deng teaches the frame 11 has at least one pole 112 (Figs. 2 and 3). The area the pole 112 is formed meets the claimed first through hole.
Claim 4: Deng teaches the two cover plates 12 are rectangular (Fig. 2).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 206364073 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN 102788686 B).
Deng teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 2: Deng teaches the frame 11 is set with an explosion-proof valve (page 2, line 29), but does not teach the explosion-proof valve is on the cover plate 12. However, Wang teaches a battery shell having a sealing cover provided with a safety valve explosion-proof [0003]. Deng and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Wang, (i.e., having the explosion-proof valve on the sealing cover) with the invention of Deng, and the motivation for combining would be, as Wang suggested, to prevent explosion [0003].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 206364073 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 213546491 U).
Deng teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 3: Deng does not teach a liquid injection hole on the frame 11. However, Zhang teaches a housing assembly 110 for a secondary battery (page 3, lines 20-21), wherein the housing assembly 110 comprises a frame body 111 having a liquid injection hole 114 (page 2, line 32 and page 6, lines 32-34). Deng and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Zhang, (i.e., having a liquid injection hole 114 on the frame body 111) with the invention of Deng, and the motivation for combining would be, as Zhang suggested, for injecting electrolyte (page 6, line 34).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 206364073 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2022/0059910 A1).
Deng teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 4: Deng teaches the battery is a square battery (page 3, line 10). Even though Fig. 2 of Deng teaches that the two cover plates 12 are rectangular (Fig. 2), Deng does not teach the square battery has two rectangular cover plate 2. Sun teaches battery housings of various width and geometries including a square battery, a “squircle-shaped” battery and a rectangular battery [0028]. Sun shows that a rectangular battery is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two battery housings were art recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a square battery for a rectangular battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 206364073 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morita et al. (US 2001/0018150 A1).
Deng teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 5: Deng does not teach the thickness of the housing 1. However, Morita teaches a housing for a battery, wherein the thickness of the housing to fall within a range between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm [0171]. Deng and Morita are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Morita, (i.e., setting the thickness of the housing between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm) with the invention of Deng, and the motivation for combining would be, as Morita suggested, to provide a battery small in thickness and light in weight [0171].
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 206364073 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pasma et al. (CN 209947930 U).
Deng teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 6: Deng does not teach a first connecting member and a second connecting member. However, Pasma teaches a shell 110 (page 5, line 17) for a battery 100 (page 5, line 17), wherein a terminal 130 bonded to the shell 110 (page 5, lines 32-32), and a feed-through member 120 inserted through opening 112 (page 5, 37-40). Pasma teaches the terminal 130 includes an anode terminal and the feed-through member 120 includes a cathode feed-through element (page 8, lines 9-11). The terminal 130 meets the claimed second connecting member and the feed-through member 120 meets the claimed first connecting member. Deng and Pasma are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the terminal 130 and the feed-through member 120 of Pasma with the invention of Deng, and the motivation for combing would be to release and receive electrons.
Claim 7: Deng does not teach a first tab and a second tab. However, Pasma teaches the terminal 130 includes an anode terminal and the feed-through member 120 includes a cathode feed-through element (page 8, lines 9-11). The anode terminal of Pasma meets the claimed second tab, and the cathode feed-through element of Pasma meets the claimed first tab. Deng and Pasma are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the terminal 130 and the feed-through member 120 of Pasma with the invention of Deng, and the motivation for combing would be to release and receive electrons.
Claim 8: Deng does not teach a connecting piece, a first insulating piece, a second insulating piece and a pole. However, Pasma teaches the feed-through member comprises a rivet 221, an outer washer 222, an inner washer 224 and a terminal 51 in the order thereof (Fig. 2A and page 5, lines 37-39). The rivet 221 meets the claimed pole, the outer washer 222 meets the claimed second insulating piece, the inner washer 224 meets the claimed first insulating piece and the terminal 51 meets the claimed connecting piece. Pasma teaches the outer washer 222 is made of a polymer (page 6, line 21), the inner washer 224 is made of a pigmented polymer (page 7, lines 46-47) and the terminal 226 is made of a metal (page 7, line 21). Pasma teaches the inner washer 224 and terminal 226 are inside the shell 110 (Fig. 2A); the outer washer 222 is outside of the shell 110 (Fig. 2A); and the rivet 221 sequentially passes through the outer washer 222, an opening 112 of the shell 110, the inner washer 224 and the terminal 226 (Fig. 2A and page 5, lines 37-42). Deng and Pasma are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the rivet 221, the outer washer 222, the inner washer 224 and the terminal 51 of Pasma with the invention of Deng, and the motivation for combing would be to release and receive electrons and prevent electrolyte leakage.
Claim 10: Deng teaches the battery can be applied to a vehicle mounted power supply system (page 2, line 1). The vehicle mounted power supply system meets the claimed electronic product.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (CN 206364073 U) and Pasma et al. (CN 209947930 U) as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2007/0166611 A1).
Deng and Pasma teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 9: Pasma does not teach the terminal 130 is made of a nickel. However, Oh teaches a lithium cell unit body 11 comprising an anode terminal 15 made of a nickel (Fig. 1, [0007] and [0008]). Pasma and Oh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Oh, (i.e., forming the terminal 130 of a nickel) with the invention of Pasma and the motivation for combining would be to resist rust and environmental degradation.
Deng, Pasma and Oh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the battery art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the nickel terminal 130 of Pasma and Oh with the invention of Deng, and the motivation for combining would be to release while resisting rust and environmental degradation.
Pertinent Prior Art
Toshiro et al. (US 2021/0399284 A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
September 5, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights