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 .
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 “weld bead” of claim 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The examiner thinks it is shown in figure 7 but has not been labelled.
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 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 11 – 14 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.
Claims 11, 12, and 14 recite the limitation "the welding portion" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 12.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 101763449 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-449).
As to claim 1, KR-449 teaches a cylindrical secondary battery comprising lithium-ion electrolyte, a corrosion resistant material, a cap assembly, and an electrode assembly (see abstract, Par 3). Due to the nature of a cylindrical structure, there would inevitably be a terminal hole or holes at the ends of the side portions, the side portion is also analogous to the can and said can extends downward from the upper surface portion (see 130 and 310 in Figs. 1 and 2). KR-449 also teaches a cap assembly coupled to the end potion of the can (see Fig. 2) as well as a corrosion resistant material on a part of the cap assembly (see “cap assembly” 400 in Par 23 and Fig. 2). The crimped portion is also the terminal portion of the can, so this is where the anti-corrosive material is applied as well (see annotated Fig.2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
245
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 1 above. KR-449 also teaches an upper beading portion of the can where the beading portion is concavely formed and separate from the crimping portion applied to the cap assembly. (see 340, 310 and 400 in Par 20 and Fig. 2)
As to claim 3, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 1 above. KR-449 also teaches gaskets inserted between the top cap, which is analogous to the cap plate and cap assembly, and the side portion (see “gasket” 600, “can” 310 and “cap assembly” 400 in Fig. 2). The gasket is placed between the cap assembly and the crimped side portion.
As to claim 10, KR-449 teaches a corrosion resistant material coating layer that is formed on the surface of a metal part in contact with an electrolyte. This coating can be a mixture of a solvent and a corrosion resistant substance to form a liquid having a fluidity (see Pars 41 and 42).
As to claim 15, KR-449 teaches a cylindrical secondary battery comprising lithium-ion electrolyte, a corrosion resistant material, a cap assembly, and an electrode assembly (see abstract, Par 3). Due to the nature of a cylindrical structure, there would inevitably be a terminal hole or holes at the ends of the side portions, the side portion is also analogous to the can and said can extends downward from the upper surface portion (see 130 and 310 in Figs. 1 and 2). KR-449 also teaches a cap assembly coupled to the end potion of the can and is electrically insulated from the can (see Fig. 2) as well as a corrosion resistant material on a part of the cap assembly (see “cap assembly” 400 in Par 21 and Fig. 2). The crimped portion is also the terminal portion of the can, so this is where the anti-corrosive material is applied as well.
As to claim 17, KR-449 teaches a corrosion resistant material coating layer that is formed on the surface of a metal part in contact with an electrolyte. This coating can be a mixture of a solvent and a corrosion resistant substance to form a liquid having a fluidity (see Pars 41 - 43).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 4 – 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101763449 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-449) and further in view of KR 101483703 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-703)
As to claim 4, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 1 above. However, KR-449 does not teach the application of the anticorrosive material to the end portion of the crimping portion.
KR-703 teaches a secondary battery that includes: an electrode assembly including a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode; A battery case for accommodating the electrode assembly; An electrolyte solution impregnated with the electrode assembly and injected into the battery case; A beading portion formed at an open upper end of the battery case; And a cap assembly coupled to an open upper end of the battery case and seated in the beading portion, wherein the beading portion includes a polymer coating layer for preventing corrosion of the battery case (see Abstract and Pg 5 Par 3). The corrosion resistant material applied to the inner or outer surface of the bead (see “polymer coating” 700 and “bead” 400 in Pg 5 Par 3 and Figs. 3 and 4). The beading process causes elongation of the metal material which in turn causes cracking from mechanical stress that accelerates the corrosion of the battery case (see Par 12). The bead portion of the can is also the end portion of the crimping portion (see Figs. 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the anti-corrosive material to the beaded portion of KR-449 which is an end of the crimping portion to provide the protection against corrosion occurring at a location of applied mechanical stress as taught by KR-703.
As to claim 5, KR-449 and KR-703 are applied for the same reasons as claim 4 above. Additionally, KR-703 teaches a corrosion resistant material covering the bead, the end portion of the crimping portion and being in contact with the end portion of the gasket. (see 700, 400 and 150 in Fig. 3 and 4).
As to claim 6, KR-449 and KR-703 are applied for the same reasons as claim 4 above. KR-703 also teaches a corrosion resistant material covering the bead, the end portion of the crimping portion and being in contact with the end portion of the gasket. (see 700, 400 and 150 in Fig. 3 and 4). Furthermore, since the cap plate would be in contact with the gasket, a portion of it would inevitably be in contact with the anti-corrosive material due to the nature of the crimped portion forcing contact between the can, gasket and cap plate.
As to claim 16, KR-703 teaches an anti-corrosive material applied to a beaded portion to provide protection again corrosion that would occur due to the mechanical damage the beading process causes to the material of the can. A cut surface is one that has undergone a degree of mechanical stress. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of KR-449 through application of the anti-corrosive material to such a region, as taught by KR-703, to protect against corrosion that could be caused to any cracking caused by the mechanical stress applied to the material of the can.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101763449 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-449) and further in view of Kim Myung Seob et al (KR-20230143784-A hereinafter referred to as Kim).
As to claim 7, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 1 above. KR-449 does not teach the cap plate being welded to the side portion.
Kim teaches cylindrical secondary battery in which a gap between a cap plate and a cylindrical can is sealed by welding, so that a separate gasket for sealing is not required, thereby reducing the overall layer height of the battery and increasing the capacity per layer height (see Abstract). Kim also teaches a crimping portion of the cylindrical can that is bend in the inner direction of the cap plate and welded to it. This resulted in the cap plate being electrically and mechanically coupled (see “crimping portion” 114, “cylindrical can” 110, and “cap plate” 160 in Pars 35 and 34 and Figs. 2 and 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify a cylindrical battery taught by KR-449 by welding the cap plate to the side portion to obtain the benefit of reducing the overall height of the cell and increasing the capacity per layer height as taught by Kim.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101763449 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-449) and further in view of KR 101483703 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-703) and Kim Myung Seob et al (KR-20230143784-A hereinafter referred to as Kim).
As to claim 8, KR-449 and Kim are applied for the same reasons as claim 7 above. KR-703 is applied for the same reasons as claim 4 above. Kim further teaches that the end portion of the cylindrical can is bent in the direction of the cap plate to form the crimping portion. Then the cap plate and crimping portion are welded (see “end portion” 110, “cap plate” 160, and “crimping portion” 114 in Par 39). Kim does not teach the application of anti-corrosive material to the end portion of the side portion.
KR-703 teaches an anti-corrosive material applied to a beaded portion to provide protection again corrosion that would occur due to the mechanical damage the beading process causes to the material of the can. Welding is a technique that applies significant mechanical and thermal stress to the material to be welded. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the arts to modify the combined teachings of KR-449 and Kim with an anti-corrosive material applied to the end portion of the side portion as this is where the weld would be and it would protect said portion against corrosion due to the mechanical stress caused by the welding process as taught by KR-703.
As to claim 9, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 7 above. KR-703 also teaches the welded portion is welded to the cap plate and applying the anti-corrosion material to the welded portion to obtain the benefits taught by KR-703 it would be inevitable that said anti-corrosion material would be applied to the end portion of the cap plate and the end portion of the side portion since these two are joined via welding.
Claims 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101763449 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-449) and further in view of Moroshita (US-20230116400-A1).
As to claim 11, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 10 above. KR-449 does not teach a rib or protrusion extending from at least one surface of an outer end portion of the side portion.
Moroshita teaches a busbar that includes a joining surface to which a voltage detection line is to be joined, and a restriction part provided on at least the periphery of the joining surface that is configured to restrict the spreading of a corrosion inhibitor that covers the joining surface (see Abstract). Moroshita also teaches a protrusion serving as a restriction part around a joining surface which can restrict the spreading of corrosion inhibitor coated to the joining surface to the outside of the protrusion (see “restriction part” 44, “joining surface” 38 in Par 53 and Figs 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B). The need to restrict the flow of liquid anti-corrosive material is a known problem in the arts and Moroshita provides a solution to this problem by applying a protruding barrier to restrict the ability of the liquid anti-corrosive material to spread beyond the intended area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of KR-449 with those of Moroshita to solve the problem of anti-corrosive material potentially spreading beyond the intended area through a joining surface.
As to claim 12, KR-449 and Moroshita are applies for the same reasons as claim 11 above. Additionally, the protrusion hs a height greater than zero to prevent some spreading of the anti-corrosion material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the height through routine experimentation in order to determine an optimal height that will provide the desired corrosion prevention of corrosion spread and the applicants claimed height requirement would have been obvious through routine experimentation.
As to claim 13, KR-449 and Moroshita are applied for the same reasons as claim 12 above. Additionally, due to the cylindrical nature of the battery disclosed by the applicant, the welding portion would also be circular in shape. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the protrusion to have a circular ring shape to provide the protection against potential spreading of the anti-corrosive material, as taught by Moroshita, around the full circumference of the battery.
Claims 14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101763449 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-449) and further in view of Wu Hua-bin et al (CN 116864879 A hereinafter referred to as Wu).
As to claim 14, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 10 above. KR-449 does not teach a cap plate that includes a groove concavely formed from a surface adjacent to the welding portion.
Wu teaches an upper cover assembly and a battery, the upper cover assembly comprises: a cover plate for mounting on the shell, wherein the cover plate comprises a first convex part, the inner side of the edge of the first convex part is formed with a connecting hole; a sealing piece plugged in the connecting hole; wherein the sealing element is formed with a clamping groove, the inner wall of the clamping groove is tightly attached to the first convex part, so that the cover plate and the sealing element seal the opening of the shell (see Abstract). The sealing member is formed with a clamping groove, and the inner wall of the clamping groove closely fits the first protruding portion, so that the cover plate and the sealing member seal the opening of the housing (see Pg 2 Par 5 and Figs. 3, 5 and 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of KR-449 with those of Wu to form a cylindrical battery containing a liquid anti-corrosive material that utilizes a cap plate with a concavely formed groove to have a stronger coupling and seal of the cap plate.
As to claim 18, KR-449 is applied for the same reasons as claim 15 above. KR-449 does not teach an upper assembly where the upper cover comprises a concave groove meant to couple with a protrusion. Wu teaches an upper cover assembly and a battery, the upper cover assembly comprises: a cover plate for mounting on the shell, wherein the cover plate comprises a first convex part, the inner side of the edge of the first convex part is formed with a connecting hole; a sealing piece plugged in the connecting hole; wherein the sealing element is formed with a clamping groove, the inner wall of the clamping groove is tightly attached to the first convex part, so that the cover plate and the sealing element seal the opening of the shell (see Abstract). The seal includes a connected coupling cap and a sealing portion, and the coupling cap and the sealing portion form a In the clamping groove, one end of the coupling cap is in contact with an end of the first protruding part away from the housing (see “seal” 20, “coupling cap” 21, “sealing portion” 22, and “protruding part” 11 in Pg 5 Par 7 and Figs. 3, 5 and 6).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the battery of KR-449 with a coupling groove, as taught by Wu, to the form a superior seal of the upper terminal to the can. Forging is a known method that can be applied to the construction of parts for assembly. It would have been further obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select from known methods a method by which to form the coupling groove.
As to claim 19, KR-449 and Wu are applied for the same reasons as claim 18 above. A coupling groove used to seal two individual components together is a known feature in the art and any coupling groove would be configured to have a specific depth of the groove and height of the protrusion. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the depth of the concave groove and thickness of the upper surface portion to values that enable proper sealing through routine experimentation.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 101763449 B1 (hereinafter referred to as KR-449) and further in view of Wu Hua-bin et al (CN 116864879 A hereinafter referred to as Wu) and Jung Hyun Ki at al (WO 2023149610 A1 hereinafter referred to as Jung).
As to claim 20, KR-449 and Wu are applied for the same reasons as claim 19 above. KR-449 and Wu do not teach a rivet terminal electrically insulated from the can and electrically connected to an electrode plate.
Jung teaches a cylindrical secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly, positive and negative electrode plates, a cylindrical can, and a rivet terminal electrically connected to the positive plate (see Abstract). The rivet also is in contact with a gasket that insulates it from contact with the cylindrical can so that the rivet is only electrically connected to the positive plate (see “rivet terminal” 150, “gasket” 111b, and “positive plate” 130 in Abstract and Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of KR-449 and Wu to obtain a cylindrical battery with an upper portion further secured by a coupling groove that utilizes a rivet terminal to have a direct electrical connection to the positive electrode plate while being insulated from the can as taught by Jung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from this examiner
should be directed to WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1910. The examiner can be normally reached M-W 10:00am – 10:00pm, T 10:00am – 2:00pm. 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, Michael Barr can be reached at (571)272-1414. 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 more information about filing 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.
WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/WILLIAM JOHI WINCHESTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
