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 . If status of the application as subject to 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 a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in the application and are presently examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. The references with a line through them have not been considered by the examiner because a translation of the documents were not provided.
Claim Objections
Claims 15 & 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 15 depends from claims 12-13. Claim 15 recites the following claim limitation, which is a repeat of the identical limitations of claims 12-13:
“a minimum distance from the hole wall of the first hole section to the first edge is D1, and a minimum distance from the hole wall of the hole section adjacent to the first hole section to the first edge is D2”
If claim 15 remains dependent on claims 12-13, then this duplicate claim limitation should be removed from claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Examiner suggests the following amendment for improved claim clarity: “a bottom wall; and a side wall
Regarding claim 18, Examiner suggests amending “claims 1” to “claim 1”.
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.
(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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, 11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN205657091U machine translation (Li).
Li teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
A battery cell (paragraphs 1 & 32: secondary battery), comprising:
a housing (paragraph 26; figures 1, 2, 4, & 7: shell 10), provided with a stepped hole (paragraph 27; figures 1, 3, & 8: hole 16) communicating with an inside of the housing, wherein the stepped hole (16) comprises a first hole section and a second hole section provided in a first direction, and the first hole section is located at one side of the second hole section away from the inside of the housing (Figure A below)
Figure A: Annotated Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image1.png
260
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li also teaches the following claim 1 limitations:
a pressure relief mechanism (paragraphs 26, 28, & 30; figure 5: explosion-proof valve 20) and a protective member (paragraphs 26 & 29-30; figure 5: protection film 30), provided in the second hole section and the first hole section respectively, wherein the protective member covers at least part of the pressure relief mechanism (Figure B below)
Figure B: Annotated Li Figure 5
PNG
media_image2.png
186
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitation of claim 2:
a hole diameter of the first hole section is larger than a hole diameter of the second hole section (Figure A above)
With regard to claim 3, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-2 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitations of claim 3:
the stepped hole further comprises: a third hole section, wherein the first hole section, the second hole section and the third hole section are arranged in the first direction, a hole diameter of the third hole section is smaller than the hole diameter of the second hole section, the pressure relief mechanism is provided in the second hole section and covers the third hole section, and the protective member is provided in the first hole section and covers the second hole section (Figures C-D below)
Figure C: Annotated Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image3.png
260
898
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure D: Annotated Li Figure 5
PNG
media_image4.png
188
845
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 7, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitation of claim 7:
in the first direction, a depth of the third hole section is H3, satisfying: 0.3mm≤H3≤2mm (Paragraph 2; figures 3 & 5: shell thickness = 0.6 mm. Li’s shell thickness is the same as H3.)
With regard to claim 8, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitation of claim 8:
the first hole section, the second hole section and the third hole section are continuously provided in the first direction (Figures A-B above)
With regard to claim 9, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitation of claim 9:
the stepped hole further comprises: a fourth hole section, wherein in the first direction, the fourth hole section is located between the first hole section and the second hole section, and a hole diameter of the fourth hole section is smaller than the hole diameter of the first hole section and larger than the hole diameter of the second hole section (Figure E below)
Figure E: Annotated Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image5.png
260
952
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitation of claim 11:
the housing (10) has a wall portion, the stepped hole is provided on the wall portion, and the first hole section penetrates through an outer surface of the wall portion (Figures F & G below)
Figure F: Annotated Li Figure 2 Figure G: Annotated Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image6.png
524
614
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
642
649
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 16, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 & 11 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitations of claim 16:
the housing comprises:
a casing (Figure H below), provided therein with an accommodation space (Figure H) configured for accommodating at least one electrode assembly, wherein one end of the casing is provided with an opening (Figure H) communicating with the accommodation space, the casing has the wall portion, and the stepped hole communicates with the accommodation space (Figure H; figures 1-5); and
an end cover, covering the opening (Figure H; figure 7)
Figure H: Annotated Li Figure 6
PNG
media_image8.png
861
603
media_image8.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 17, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3, 11, & 16 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitations of claim 17:
the casing comprises: a bottom wall; and a side wall, provided surrounding the bottom wall, wherein one end of the side wall in the first direction defines the opening, and the other end thereof opposite to the opening is connected to the bottom wall, wherein the wall portion is the bottom wall (Figure I below)
Figure I: Annotated Li Figure 2
PNG
media_image9.png
652
760
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
The claims are in bold font, the prior art is in parentheses.
Claims 4, 6, 10, 12-13, 15, & 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN205657091U machine translation (Li).
With regard to claim 4, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1-3 as discussed above. Li fails to teach the following claim 4 limitation:
in the first direction, a depth of the first hole section is H1, satisfying: 0.2mm≤H1≤0.6mm
Li’s protection film 30 [claimed protective member] is located in hole 144 [claimed first hole] (figures 3 & 5). Li fails to teach the 0.2mm≤H1≤0.6mm depth for the hole, or a thickness of the protection film 30. MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
Li provides the following guidance: The protection film 30 can be the same depth as the hole or can be recessed (paragraph 8). Li lists various materials for the protection film 30 (paragraph 30).
The general principles are that the protection film 30 must protect the underlying valve 20, but also burst if the valve 20 bursts (see Li abstract & paragraphs 2-7). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to select an appropriate thickness for Li’s protection film 30 in order to achieve these purposes, and to achieve the claimed range. Absent unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it is interpreted that the scope of the prior art teaches the claimed range.
Furthermore, Li provides a depth of 0.3 to 3 mm for the explosion-proof valve 20 (paragraph 28; figure 3: hole 140 thickness is 0.3 to 3 mm). As illustrated in figure 3, Li’s hole 140 thickness is about the same as hole 144 thickness. It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to apply Li’s teachings of hole 140 thickness to hole 144 thickness. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could achieve the claimed range with reasonable experimentation.
With regard to claim 6, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitation of claim 6:
in the first direction, a depth of the second hole section is H2, satisfying: 0.4mm≤H2≤0.8mm (paragraph 28; figure 3: hole 140 thickness, for the explosion-proof valve, is 0.3 to 3 mm)
Li’s 0.3 to 3 mm range overlaps the claimed 0.4 to 0.8 mm range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Li’s range overlaps the claimed range and no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Li’s range.
With regard to claim 10, Li teaches the limitations of claims 1-3 & 9 as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitation of claim 10:
in the first direction, a depth of the fourth hole section is H4, satisfying: 0.2mm≤ H4≤0.4mm (paragraph 29; figure 3: hole 142 depth is 0.1 to 5 mm)
Li’s 0.1 to 5 mm range overlaps the claimed 0.2 to 0.4 mm range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Li’s range overlaps the claimed range and no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Li’s range.
With regard to claim 12, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1-3 & 11 as discussed above. Claim 12 states:
a minimum distance from a hole wall of the first hole section to an edge of the wall portion is D1, which satisfies D1≥3mm
Li fails to explicitly mention this distance D1.
Li’s equivalent of the hole wall, the first hole section, the edge, and the wall portion are illustrated in Figure J & Figure K below. Li’s shell thickness is also illustrated in Figure J & Figure K below:
Figure J: Annotated Li Figure 2 Figure K: Annotated Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image10.png
462
541
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
576
578
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Li’s distance D1 is from the hole wall to the edge. Li teaches a shell thickness of 0.6 to 1.5 mm. Although Li doesn’t state that the drawings are to scale, it is clear that Li’s distance D1 is many times greater than Li’s shell thickness. Thus, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve the claimed D1≥3mm based on guidance provided by Li.
With regard to claim 13, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1-3 & 11-12 as discussed above. Claim 13 states:
a minimum distance from a hole wall of a hole section adjacent to the first hole section to the edge of the wall portion is D2, which satisfies: 0.5mm≤D2-D1≤3mm
Li’s distance D2-D1 is the distance between hole wall2 and hole wall1 in Figure L below:
Figure L: Annotated, Partial Li Figure 3
PNG
media_image12.png
248
332
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Hole wall13 is “a hole wall of a hole section adjacent to the first hole section” from claim 13. Hole wall12 is “a hole wall of the first hole section” from claim 12. The difference between hole wall2 and hole wall1 is H4 in claim 10. As discussed in the claim 10 rejection above, Li teaches that H4 is 0.1 to 5 mm.
Li’s 0.1 to 5 mm range overlaps the claimed 0.5 to 1.5 mm range. MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A) provides the law for this issue:
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)”
Given that Li’s range overlaps the claimed range, and no criticality is disclosed for the claimed range, the claimed range is an obvious variant of Li’s range.
With regard to claim 15, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1-3 & 11-13, as discussed above. Li also teaches the following limitations of claim 15 (Figure M below):
the wall portion comprises a first edge, a second edge, a third edge and a fourth edge connected in sequence, wherein the first edge and the third edge are provided oppositely in a width direction of the wall portion, the second edge and the fourth edge are provided oppositely in a length direction of the wall portion, and any two of the width direction of the wall portion, the length direction of the wall portion and the first direction are perpendicular to each other
Figure M: Annotated Li Figure 1
PNG
media_image13.png
576
580
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim 15 also states:
a minimum distance from the hole wall of the first hole section to the first edge is D1, and a minimum distance from the hole wall of the hole section adjacent to the first hole section to the first edge is D2
This is a repeat claim limitation from claims 12-13, and is discussed in the rejection of claims 12-13 above.
With regard to claim 18, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 18 states:
A battery, comprising a plurality of battery cells each according to claims 1.
Li fails to teach a plurality of the battery cells discussed under claim 1 above. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) provides guidance for this issue: “mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”.
Claim 18 is merely duplicating the same battery, and thus is not patentable without a new and unexpected result. There is no evidence in the present specification of unexpected results due to duplicating the same battery.
With regard to claim 19, Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 19 states:
An electrical apparatus, comprising at least one battery each according to claim 18.
Li fails to teach an electrical apparatus that uses the battery. It would have been obvious, however, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to use Li’s battery in an electrical apparatus, in order to find a practical application for Li’s battery.
Claims 5 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN205657091U machine translation (Li), as applied to claims 1-4 & 11-13, and further in view of “Sizing Pressure-Relief Devices” (Crowl).
With regard to claim 5, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 5 states:
a cross-sectional area of the first hole section is S, wherein when 50mm2≤S≤700mm2, 0.2mm≤H1≤0.6mm; and when 700mm2≤S≤1500mm2, 0.2mm≤H1≤0.4mm
As discussed under the claim 4 rejection above, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to achieve both of the following claim limitations, based on the teachings of Li:
0.2mm≤H1≤0.6mm or 0.2mm≤H1≤0.4mm
Li, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claim 5:
50mm2≤S≤700mm2 or 700mm2≤S≤1500mm2
Crowl is directed to sizing pressure-relief devices (title). Crowl teaches that pressure relief device area should be large enough to avoid high pressure inside of the equipment, resulting in equipment failure, but not too large because this will result in unnecessary cost (page 68, left column). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to select the claimed cross-sectional area, as taught by Crowl, based on avoiding equipment failure and unnecessary cost.
Regarding the combination of (a) 50mm2≤S≤700mm2 + 0.2mm≤H1≤0.6mm or (b) 700mm2≤S≤1500mm2 + 0.2mm≤H1≤0.4mm, the range 0.2mm≤H1≤0.4mm applies to both area ranges (a) and (b). This 0.2mm≤H1≤0.4mm range is obvious over Li, as discussed in the claim 4 rejection above, particularly because the guidance of Li, based on figure 3 and the depth of hole 140, overlaps both ranges.
With regard to claim 14, modified Li teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Claim 14 states:
a cross-sectional area of the first hole section is S, wherein when 50mm2≤S≤700mm2, 0.5mm≤D2-D1≤3mm; and when 700mm2≤S≤1500mm2, 0.5mm≤D2-D1≤1.5mm
As discussed under the claim 13 rejection above, Li teaches D2-D1 is 0.1 to 5 mm, which overlaps both of the claimed ranges for D2-D1.
Li, however, fails to teach the following limitations of claim 14:
50mm2≤S≤700mm2 or 700mm2≤S≤1500mm2
Crowl is directed to sizing pressure-relief devices (title). Crowl teaches that pressure relief device area should be large enough to avoid high pressure inside of the equipment, resulting in equipment failure, but not too large because this will result in unnecessary cost (page 68, left column). It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, to select the claimed cross-sectional area, as taught by Crowl, based on avoiding equipment failure and unnecessary cost.
Regarding the combination of (a) 50mm2≤S≤700mm2 + 0.5mm≤D2-D1≤3mm or (b) 700mm2≤S≤1500mm2 + 0.5mm≤D2-D1≤1.5mm, the range 0.5mm≤D2-D1≤1.5mm applies to both area ranges (a) and (b). This 0.5mm≤D2-D1≤1.5mm range is obvious over Li, as discussed in the claim 13 rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT WEST whose telephone number is 703-756-1363 and email address is Robert.West@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 am - 7 pm ET.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at 303-297-4684.
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.
/R.G.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights