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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 4, and 11-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 4, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ni et al. (CN 202887989 U).
Regarding claim 4, Ni et al. disclose an electric double layer capacitor (abstract) comprising:
a bare cell (3);
a case (2) configured to accommodate the bare cell (3);
a first internal terminal (4) disposed above the bare cell (3);
a second internal terminal (5) disposed below the bare cell;
a first external terminal (1) coupled to the first internal terminal (4); and a welding coupling part (14) melted to couple an edge of the first internal terminal (4) and a lower part of the first external terminal (1).
Regarding claim 11, Ni et al. disclose the second internal terminal (5) is tightly fitted into the case (2).
Regarding claim 12, Ni et al. disclose the case (2) includes: a bottom part (bottom);
a sidewall part (@ 2) disposed on an edge of the bottom part; and
a pressing part (@204) disposed below the sidewall part and protruding from an inner circumferential surface of the sidewall part (@ 2).
Regarding claim 14, Ni et al. disclose the second internal terminal (5) includes: a second plate facing a lower surface of the bare cell (3);
a tightly fitted part (see annotated fig. below) disposed on an edge of the second plate; and
a case contact part (see annotated fig. below) that is coupled to the tightly fitted part and brought into contact with the case (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
213
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni et al. (CN 202887989 U) in view of Bendale et al. (US 2003/0086239).
Regarding claim 13, Ni et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the pressing part includes: an inclined part that is formed to increase in length of the inclined part protruding from the inner circumferential surface of the sidewall part as the inclined part extends downward from a top side of the bare cell toward a bottom side of the bare cell; and a fixing part disposed between the inclined part and the bottom part, the fixing part pressing and fixing the second internal terminal.
Bendale et al. disclose a casing (5), wherein the casing (5) comprises a pressing part (70) that includes, an inclined part (70) that is formed to increase in length of the inclined part protruding from the inner circumferential surface of the sidewall part as the inclined part extends downward from a top side of a bare cell (25) toward a bottom side of the bare cell (25); and a fixing part disposed between the inclined part and the bottom part, the fixing part pressing and fixing cell (25).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the device of Ni et al. so that a pressing part includes: an inclined part that is formed to increase in length of the inclined part protruding from the inner circumferential surface of the sidewall part as the inclined part extends downward from a top side of the bare cell toward a bottom side of the bare cell; and a fixing part disposed between the inclined part and the bottom part, the fixing part pressing and fixing the second internal terminal, since such a modification would further secure the element with the casing.
Claim(s) 15-16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ni et al. (CN 202887989 U) in view of Kim et al. (EP 2980818)
Regarding claim 15, Ni et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the tightly fitted part is formed bent toward the case contact part at the edge of the second plate.
Kim et al. disclose a tightly fitted part (136c) that is formed bent toward the case contact part (@ A) at the edge of a second plate (136a).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filing date of the invention to form the double layer capacitor of Ni et al. so that the tightly fitted part is formed bent toward the case contact part at the edge of the second plate, since such a modification would form an electric double layer capacitor using a simplified process that reduces cost and improves productivity.
Regarding claim 16, Ni et al. disclose an insulating part (7 or material above 7) disposed on an edge of the first external terminal (6).
Ni et al. disclose the claimed invention except for the case includes a beading part protruding toward the first internal terminal, and the beading part supports the insulating part and supports the first external terminal through the insulating part.
Kim et al. disclose an insulating part (not illustrated - [0045]) disposed on an edge of the first external terminal (150), wherein the case (110) includes a beading part (B) protruding toward the first internal terminal (146), and the beading part (B) supports the insulating part [0045] and supports the first external terminal (150) through the insulating part [0045].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the capacitor of Ni et al. so that the case includes a beading part protruding toward the first internal terminal, and the beading part supports the insulating part and supports the first external terminal through the insulating part, since such a modification would further secure the external terminal to the case.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-1985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM-2:30 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, Timothy Dole can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/ERIC W THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2848
ERIC THOMAS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2848