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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [00114] states “The extension part 152 may be inclined so that the end thereof…” should be amended to “The extension part 162” for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11, 12, 14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2013/0078503).
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a secondary battery (100) comprising:
a case (20) in which an electrolyte is accommodated ([0034]);
an electrode assembly (10) accommodated together with the electrolyte in the case (see Figure 1);
a cap assembly (31) coupled to an upper portion of the case (see Figure 1); and
a reinforcement part (23 and 40) comprising a reinforcement body between the electrode assembly and the case to extend in a first direction (vertical direction), in which the case extends (see Figure 1), and an extension part below the cap assembly to extend from the reinforcement body toward a central portion of the cap assembly in a second direction crossing the first direction (horizontal direction; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the case comprises a beading part (21) recessed in the second direction at a lower portion of the cap assembly (see Figure 1), and the extension part is between the beading part and the electrode assembly (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the extension part further extends toward the central portion of the cap assembly than the beading part (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a lower end of the reinforcement body has a diameter less than each of other areas thereof (the reinforcement body 40 has protrusions and indentations, where the indentations would have a diameter less than the protruding areas; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a lower end of the reinforcement body has a thickness less than each of other areas thereof (the reinforcement body 40 has protrusions and indentations, where the indentations would have a thickness less than the protruding areas; see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 14, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reinforcement part has a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the electrode assembly and less than an inner diameter of the case (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 18, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the case comprises:
a circular bottom part (see Figure 1);
a side part bent upward from the circular bottom part to extend (see Figure 1);
a beading part (21) below the cap assembly and recessed inward (see Figure 1); and
a crimping part (22) bent inward from an upper portion of the beading part toward an end of the side part and coupled to the cap assembly (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a gasket (39) between an upper end of the case and the cap assembly (see Figure 1), wherein an end of the extension part extends up to a lower side of the gasket (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jo et al. (CA 3233300).
Regarding claim 1, Jo discloses a secondary battery (10) comprising:
a case (200) in which an electrolyte is accommodated (page 2);
an electrode assembly (100) accommodated together with the electrolyte in the case (see Figure 3);
a cap assembly (400) coupled to an upper portion of the case (see Figure 3); and
a reinforcement part (510) comprising a reinforcement body between the electrode assembly and the case (511) to extend in a first direction (vertical direction), in which the case extends (see Figure 3), and an extension part below the cap assembly to extend from the reinforcement body toward a central portion of the cap assembly (512) in a second direction crossing the first direction (horizontal direction; see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 14, Jo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reinforcement part has a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the electrode assembly and less than an inner diameter of the case (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 17, Jo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reinforcement part is made of at least one resin material of thermoplastic polyimide (TPI), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyarylate (PAR), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polysulfone (PSU), polyethersulfone (PES), polyetherimide (PEI), polybenzimidazole (PBI), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), bakelite, polyamide-imide (PAI), or fiber reinforced plastic (FRP) (page 5).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Su et al. (US 2023/0033282).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses a secondary battery (20) comprising:
a case (21) in which an electrolyte is accommodated ([0029]);
an electrode assembly (22) accommodated together with the electrolyte in the case (see Figure 4);
a cap assembly (23) coupled to an upper portion of the case (see Figure 4); and
a reinforcement part (25) comprising a reinforcement body between the electrode assembly and the case (252; see Figure 5) to extend in a first direction (vertical direction), in which the case extends (see Figure 5), and an extension part below the cap assembly to extend from the reinforcement body toward a central portion of the cap assembly (251) in a second direction crossing the first direction (horizontal direction; see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Su discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the case comprises a beading part (213) recessed in the second direction at a lower portion of the cap assembly (see Figure 5), and the extension part is between the beading part and the electrode assembly (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Su discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a first insulating plate (281 on the bottom as shown in Figures 5 and 7) between the electrode assembly and a bottom surface of the case (see Figure 7); and
a second insulating plate (24) between the electrode assembly and the cap assembly (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Su discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the extension part extends along a top surface of the second insulating plate (it is disclosed the protective component 24 faces the end cover 23 ([0102], such that the extension part 251 extends along a top surface; see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Su discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second insulating plate comprises a first hole that passes between a top surface and a bottom surface of the second insulating plate (see 26 in Figure 3), and the extension part does not overlap the first hole on a plane (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, Su discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reinforcement part has a diameter greater than an outer diameter of the electrode assembly and less than an inner diameter of the case (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 18, Su discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the case comprises:
a circular bottom part (see Figure 6);
a side part bent upward from the circular bottom part to extend (see Figure 6);
a beading part (212) below the cap assembly and recessed inward (see Figure 5); and
a crimping part (214) bent inward from an upper portion of the beading part toward an end of the side part and coupled to the cap assembly (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 19, Su discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a gasket (26) between an upper end of the case and the cap assembly (see Figure 5), wherein an end of the extension part extends up to a lower side of the gasket (see Figure 5).
Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yu (CN 114937855; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a secondary battery (see Figure 4) comprising:
a case (11) in which an electrolyte is accommodated (inherent for cylindrical battery);
an electrode assembly (2) accommodated together with the electrolyte in the case (see Figure 4);
a cap assembly (3) coupled to an upper portion of the case (see Figure 4); and
a reinforcement part (12) comprising a reinforcement body between the electrode assembly and the case to extend in a first direction (horizontal direction), in which the case extends (see Figure 4), and an extension part below the cap assembly to extend from the reinforcement body toward a central portion of the cap assembly in a second direction crossing the first direction (vertical direction; see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 16, Yu discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the material is a metal material such as higher strength steel or heat resisting steel ([0053]).
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) 4 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2013/0078503) in view of Min et al. (KR 2023-0037861; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a second insulating plate (33) between the electrode assembly and the cap assembly (see Figure 1), but the reference does not expressly disclose a first insulating plate between the electrode assembly and a bottom surface of the case.
Min discloses a secondary battery comprising an insulating member 500 positioned between the bottom of the battery case 300 and the bottom of the electrode assembly 200 (see Figure 2).
As Kim is not limited to any specific examples of the configuration for a secondary battery and as an insulator provided between the bottom of the battery case and the bottom of the electrode assembly was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Min above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an insulator between the bottom of the battery case and the bottom of the electrode assembly similar to the top of the electrode assembly in the device of Kim. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the second insulating plate comprises a first hole (32a) that passes between a top surface and a bottom surface of the second insulating plate, and the extension part does not overlap the first hole on a plane (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the cap assembly comprises:
a cap-up of which a central portion protrudes outward (31a);
a safety plate (32) below the cap-up and having a vent part (32a); and
a cap-down (38) below the safety plate and having a gas discharge hole through which a top surface and a bottom surface of the cap-down pass ([0045]; see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the extension part does not overlap the first hole and the gas discharge hole (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an end of the extension part is spaced a first distance from a side part of the case, the first hole is spaced a second distance from the side part of the case, and the gas discharge hole is spaced a third distance from the side part of the case, wherein the first distance is less than each of the second distance and the third distance (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2013/0078503) in view of Jo et al. (CA 3233300).
Regarding claim 17, Kim discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reinforcement part is made of at least one resin material ([0055]), but the reference does not expressly disclose the at least one resin material is of thermoplastic polyimide (TPI), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyarylate (PAR), polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polysulfone (PSU), polyethersulfone (PES), polyetherimide (PEI), polybenzimidazole (PBI), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), bakelite, polyamide-imide (PAI), or fiber reinforced plastic (FRP).
Jo discloses the use of an insulating tape to surround the electrode assembly inside the can, where the insulating tape can be selected from a resin material such as PET (page 5).
As Kim is not limited to any specific examples of resin material for the reinforcement part and as a resin such as PET as the reinforcement part in a battery was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by Jo above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected any suitable resin material, including PET in the device of Kim. Said combination would amount to nothing more than the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo et al. (CA 3233300).
Regarding claim 13, Jo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reinforcement part has a thickness between 100 and 500 microns (page 11) and that it is desired to reduce the thickness of the reinforcement part to prevent unnecessary occupation of the space between the side of the electrode assembly and the battery can, such that when the thickness of the reinforcement part decreases, the size of the electrode assembly can be increased and the capacity of the battery cell can be increased, such that the inclusion of the reinforcement part also minimizes the space between the battery can and the electrode assembly to reduce vibrations (page 12), but the reference does not expressly disclose the reinforcement part has a thickness less than that of the case.
As the capacity of the battery and the longevity of the battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the reinforcement part, with said capacity of the battery and the longevity of the battery both increasing as the thickness of the reinforcement part is decreased, the precise thickness of the reinforcement part in comparison to that of the case would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed relationship between the thickness of the reinforcement part and the thickness of the case cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the reinforcement part in the apparatus of Jo to obtain the desired balance between capacity of the battery and the longevity of the battery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 15, Jo discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the reinforcement part has a thickness between 100 and 500 microns (page 11) and that it is desired to reduce the thickness of the reinforcement part to prevent unnecessary occupation of the space between the side of the electrode assembly and the battery can, such that when the thickness of the reinforcement part decreases, the size of the electrode assembly can be increased and the capacity of the battery cell can be increased, such that the inclusion of the reinforcement part also minimizes the space between the battery can and the electrode assembly to reduce vibrations (page 12), but the reference does not expressly disclose a thickness of the reinforcement part is in a range of 5% or more and 50% or less of a thickness of the case.
As the capacity of the battery and the longevity of the battery are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting said thickness of the reinforcement part, with said capacity of the battery and the longevity of the battery both increasing as the thickness of the reinforcement part is decreased, the precise thickness of the reinforcement part in comparison to that of the case would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed relationship between the thickness of the reinforcement part and the thickness of the case cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the thickness of the reinforcement part in comparison to the thickness of the case in the apparatus of Jo to obtain the desired balance between capacity of the battery and the longevity of the battery (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited arts disclose or reasonably suggest an end of the extension part is to be inclined to be adjacent to the cap assembly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights