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 .
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation " the second edge part " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-12, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 7927734 (Kim).
Regarding claims 1-3 , Kim teaches a battery unit comprising a housing can 22 (col. 4, line 15-20 and Fig. 2), a cap assembly 200 having a cap cover 210 (col. 4, line 20-30 and Fig. 2]), a reinforcing ring 220 installed at the upper end of the can 22 where the cap assembly 200 is housed (col. 4,line 60- col. 5, line 2), wherein the at least a portion of the ring, at least a portion of the upper end of the can and the edge of cap assembly are crimped together to form a crimping structure (col.2, line 38-56, col.7, line 20-25 and Fig. 2).
Kim does not teach the crimping structure turned outwards, however, case law has held that reversal of parts are considered routine expedients: In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 II.A.
Kim further teaches that the reinforcing means may be provided along an inner surface of the can 22 (col.4, line 60-65), which renders it obvious the reinforcing ring being located between an inner side of the crimping structure and the cap assembly.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kim illustrates a cross section of the reinforcing ring along a plane passing through the central axis of the battery unit is a quadrangle.
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches the ring has a portion overlapping with the can which is bent inward with respect to the can 22 from the outer surface of the can 22 during the beading process (Fig. 3 and 4), and the ring has a portion located between the inner side of the crimping structure and the cap assembly (Fig. 2) .
Regarding claim 7, Kim teaches that the ring is a solid ring (claim 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 11 , Kim illustrates that a surface of the ring is parallel to an inner surface of the crimping structure, a second surface is parallel to the cap cover, and a third surface of the ring that intersect with the second surface (Fig. 2, 220).
Kim does not teach the claimed range of an included angle, however, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the included angle in order to obtain a workable product.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Kim illustrate a rounded transition between the two surfaces in the crimping structure (Fig. 2), which meets the presence of a fillet. As to the claimed radius of the fillet, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the radius of the fillet in order to obtain a workable product.
Regarding claim 12, Kim illustrates a length of the first surface in a first direction is greater than a length of the inner surface of the crimping structure in the same direction which is parallel to the first surface and perpendicular to an intersection line of the first surface and the second surface. (Fig. 2, 220).
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches that the housing comprises a body part 22 and a second edge part 22, which is close to the opening of the can (col.5, line 10-20 and Fig. 3-4), which is also wound into the crimp (Fig 2 and Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Kim does not wound outwards, however, case law has held that reversal of parts are considered routine expedients: In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) (Prior art disclosed a clock fixed to the stationary steering wheel column of an automobile while the gear for winding the clock moves with steering wheel; mere reversal of such movement, so the clock moves with wheel, was held to be an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 II.A. Consequently, the presence of a converging part and a winding part of the two edges of the Can in an outward wound structure, as well as the ring in contact with the inner surface of the converging part of the Can.
Regarding claim 19, Kim teaches the overall outer shape of the can 22 is made hollow, cylindrical metal material with a top opening (col 4, line 15-20 and Figs. 2-4).
Kim does not teach two caps, however, case law has held that duplication of parts are considered routine expedients: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). See MPEP 2144.04 II.B.
Regarding claim 20, Kim teaches a battery comprises the battery unit. Kim does not teach a plurality of the battery units, however, case law has held that duplication of parts are considered routine expedients: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04 II.B.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-12, 15-17 and 19- 20 in view of US2020/0091469A1 (Sodeyama).
The teachings of Kim are set forth above.
Kim further teaches that the ring is made of the same metal as that of the can (col.4, line 65- col.5, line 3).
Kim does not expressly disclose the claimed metal material.
Sodeyama teaches that battery can and battery reinforcing member contains one or more of metal materials such as iron, aluminum and their alloys ([0036] and ([0061]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ aluminum and alloys of Sodeyama as the battery can , therefore the reinforcing ring material of Kim since it has been held that it is prima facie obviousness to use a known material based on its suitability for its intended use, in the instant case, a battery can and reinforcing material. See MPEP 2144.06(II) and 2144.07; In re Fout, 675 F2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); Sinclair & Carroll Co v Interchemical Corp, 325 US 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945); In re Leshin, 227 F2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc v Ag-Bag Corp, 857 F2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed Cir 1988).
As to the deformation characteristics of claim 13, since Kim and Sodeyama teach the same reinforcing member of the same metal material in substantially similar configuration as the instantly claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable basis to expect that he claimed deformation effects would naturally arise and be achieved by the reinforcing ring of Kim and Sodeyama in the similar configuration.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as applied to claims 1-12, 15-17 and 19- 20 in view of US 2009/0311583A1 (Wu).
The teachings of Kim are set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches that a stepped part extending toward the central axis of the housing is provided so that the maximum distance from the crimping structure to the central axis of the housing is not greater than that of the housing member to the central axis
Kim does not teach the presence of a sealant.
Wu teaches a sealing member may be coated with a sealant to further enhancing sealing properties ([0051]).
At the time the invention was made it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to fill a sealant of Wu in the sealing assembly of Kim. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teachings of Wu that to do so would provide enhanced sealing ([0051]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIQUN LI whose telephone number is (571)270-7736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am -4:00 pm.
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at 571-2721302. 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.
/AIQUN LI/Ph.D., Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
Prosecution Insights