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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, 16, and 17 in the reply filed on August 10, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified Groups I and II are not patentably distinct inventions. This is not found persuasive because this appears to be reasoning related to U.S. restriction practice, which is not relevant to the instant application filed in the national phase under 371. Insomuch as the linking technical feature of claim 1 is not found to be allowable over the prior art, said linking technical feature is maintained to fail in making a contribution over the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurita (JP 2018206758 A; of record in IDS filed February 9, 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Kurita teaches a battery 10 comprising a charge/discharge body including an electrode including an electrode tab; a cover that faces a side section of the charge/discharge body, from which the electrode tab projects, and covers and insulates the charge/discharge body; and a container that houses the charge-discharge body covered by the cover and has conductivity, wherein the cover includes: a main body section that covers the side section of the charge-discharge body; an insertion section formed in a cut-out shape including an opening at an outer edge of the main body section, the electrode tab being inserted into the insertion section; and a wall section that extends in a direction further away from the side section than the main body section and separates an inner surface of the container and the insertion section (Figs. 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 2, Kurita shows that the wall section extends along a side edge of the electrode together with the electrode tab (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 3, Kurita shows that the main body section is separated from the side section of the charge-discharge body (Figure 10).
Regarding claim 4, Kurita shows that the wall/edge portion of the tab cover is physically separated from the cutout/insertion section (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Kurita shows that a pair of the wall sections is formed, and the insertion section is configured by a space between the pair of wall sections (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 6, Kurita shows that the wall section is adjacent to the insertion section (Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Kurita shows that the cover further includes, between the main body section and the side section of the charge/discharge body, a side surface section stretching to the main body section and facing an outer circumferential surface of the charge/discharge body (Figs. 10 and 11).
Regarding claim 16, Kurita shows main body section of the cover as a separate component from the side section of the charge/discharge body (Fig. 10).
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(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (JP 2018206758 A; of record in IDS filed February 9, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above.
Kurita teaches a battery according to instant claim 1, as shown above.
Regarding claim 7, the relative sizes of the width of the insertion section and the length of the wall section of the cover in a direction away from the side section of the charge/discharge body is considered to amount to an obvious matter of design choice, absent a showing of criticality.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (JP 2018206758 A; of record in IDS filed February 9, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurita et al (US 2020/0144583; of record in IDS filed February 9, 2024 and hereinafter referred to as Kurita ‘583).
Kurita teaches a battery according to instant claim 1, as shown above.
While the depictions of Kurita show a single electrode tab, use of a plurality of tabs is conventionally known, as can be seen from the Figures of Kurita ‘583 (e.g., Figs. 1-3).
As such and regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to utilize the system of Kurita with a battery having a plurality of electrode tabs, wherein the plurality of tabs would be inserted in the associated insertion sections.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurita (JP 2018206758 A; of record in IDS filed February 9, 2024) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato et al (JP 2016207353 A; of record in IDS filed February 9, 2024).
Kurita teaches a battery according to instant claim 1, as shown above.
Kato teaches a battery wherein, in order to prevent shorting between an electrode body and a case main body, a bag-like insulating film 90 is disposed between the electrode body 40 and the case main body 52 (par. 14).
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling of the claimed invention to utilize such a bag-like insulating film disposed between the electrode body and case main body of Kurita, in order to prevent short circuit of the batter, as taught by Kato. Such an insulating film would constitute the claimed additional cover.
Regarding claims 11-13 and 17, it is noted that Kurita does not expressly discuss the electrolyte liquid injection hole; however, because Kurita does teach a secondary battery that necessitates an electrolyte, the presence and use of such an electrolyte injection hole in the system of Kurita is considered to be prima facie obvious, if not otherwise inherently necessitated.
Kato, in a similar invention directed toward secondary batteries (title), teaches that when injecting a liquid electrolyte, there is a problem in that when the liquid electrolyte directly hits the electrode body, a mixture layer is peeled off due to the strong pressure of the liquid electrolyte, and thus, through holes 62 and 162 and connection parts 63 and 163 and flow-direction adjustment parts 64 and 164 are provided at a position corresponding to the liquid injection hole in a base plate provided inside the battery. As such, it is possible to prevent the liquid electrolyte, which has a high flow speed, from directly hitting the electrode body (pars. 10, 11, 15-20, and Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 11-13 and 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling of the claimed invention to provide such through holes, connection parts, and flow-direction adjustment parts in the third insulating cover 60c of Kurita at a position corresponding to the liquid injection hole in order to avoid the liquid electrolyte coming into direct contact with the tab-side end face 12a of the electrode assembly, as taught by Kato.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W SLIFKA whose telephone number is (571)270-5830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-5:30 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, Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/Colin W. Slifka/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights