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(b)
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 1-8 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.
The “winding electrode group” structure of Claim 1 is not clearly defined.
Claim 1 recites “an electrode plate” on lines 2-3, and then recites “a current collector plate joined, in a welded part, to each of a plurality of ends of electrodes plates” on lines 4-5. It is not clear whether the claimed “winding electrode group” comprises an electrode plate having a plurality of ends (i.e., the first electrode plate 6 and first electrode core members 12, OR the second electrode plate 8 and second electrode core members 14), or more than one electrode plate, wherein each electrode plate has a plurality of ends (i.e., the first electrode plate 6, first electrode core members 12, second electrode plate 8, AND second electrode core members 14). Since Claim 1 further requires a current collector plate be joined to an electrode plate, it is also unclear whether the structure has one current collector plate (i.e., current collector plate 20 OR 22) or two current collector plates (i.e., current collector plates 20 AND 22):
PNG
media_image1.png
620
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
18/695,633 – Annotated Figs. 1A
For the purpose of this action, Claim 1 will be examined as comprising one electrode plate having a plurality of ends, consistent with either the first electrode plate 6 and first electrode core members 12, OR the second electrode plate 8 and second electrode core members 14. Should Applicant desire to claim both electrode plates, ends, and current collector plates (which is supported by the instant invention), please amend the claim(s) accordingly. Claims 2-8 are also rejected, as they depend upon Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
The welded part(s) of Claim 1 is/are not clearly defined.
Claim 1 recites “a welded part” on line 4, and then recites “of a plurality of welded parts” on line 6 of the claim. Although the claim recites only a single welded part on line 4, a single welded part does not join a plurality of ends of electrode plates. The structure of Claim 1, supported by instant Figs. 4A and 7A, comprises a plurality of welded parts (welded part 84), wherein each welded part joins one of the plurality of electrode plate ends (first electrode core members 12) to the current collector (member 82 of first current collector plate 20). See Examiner’s annotations to Fig. 7A:
PNG
media_image2.png
474
455
media_image2.png
Greyscale
18/695,633 – Annotated Fig. 7A
For the purpose of this action, Claim 1 will be examined as having “a current collector plate joined by a plurality of welded parts,” wherein each welded part joins one of the plurality of ends of electrodes plates to the current collector. Please amend Claim 1 to comprise a plurality of welded parts, or clarify the claim language to establish a welded part is provided for each of the electrode plate ends. Claims 2-8 are also rejected, as they depend upon Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
The welded parts of Claim 2 are not clearly defined.
Claim 2 recites “the welded part joined to the end on the innermost circumference and the welded part joined to the end on the outermost circumference are disposed at positions shifted in the winding direction.” Claim 2 is not clear if the welded parts correspond to the “two welded parts adjacent in the radial direction” of Claim 1, or if they are in addition to the two welded parts recited by Claim 1 (and therefore not required to be adjacent in the radial direction). Since the instant invention teaches a plurality of welds in between the innermost and outermost welds, a welded part adjacent to an innermost welded part would not be the weld located at an outermost circumference. See Examiner’s annotations to Fig. 5B:
PNG
media_image3.png
530
916
media_image3.png
Greyscale
18/695,633 – Annotated Fig. 5B
For the purpose of this action, Claim 2 will be examined under the interpretation that the welded parts are not required to correspond to the “two welded parts adjacent in the radial direction” of Claim 1. This interpretation is supported by ([0030-0031]) and all drawings of the instant invention. Claim 6 is also rejected, as it depends upon Claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, the Claim 2 limitations “the end on the innermost circumference” and “the end on the outermost circumference” lack proper antecedent basis. For the purpose of this action, each “end” recited in Claim 2 is assumed to correspond to one of “a plurality of ends of electrode plates” (analogous to the first electrode core members 12) recited by Claim 1. Claim 6 is also rejected, as it depends upon Claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Horiba, JP H1064511 A.
Regarding Claim 1, Horiba discloses a cylindrical battery ([0003-0008]) comprising:
a winding electrode group formed by stacking and winding a separator and an electrode plate (wound electrode group 2 includes electrodes and a separator [0008, 0016], Fig. 2); and
a current collector plate joined, in a welded part, to each of a plurality of ends of electrode plates arranged in a radial direction of the electrode group (positive electrode terminals 4 welded to the battery electrode column provided on lid [0009], radial configuration [0004], Fig. 2),
wherein, of a plurality of welded parts, two welded parts adjacent in the radial direction are disposed at positions shifted in a winding direction intersecting the radial direction (the current collection terminals are not arranged on the same radius on the circumference, but are slightly offset [0004], current collection terminals are welded [0006], Annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image4.png
632
494
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Horiba – Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 2, Horiba discloses all limitations as set forth above. Horiba discloses the welded part joined to the end on the innermost circumference and the welded part joined to the end on the outermost circumference are disposed at positions shifted in the winding direction (terminals are slightly offset [0004], Annotated Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
638
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Horiba – Annotated Fig. 2
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Horiba discloses all limitations as set forth above. Horiba discloses the plurality of welded parts are arranged along an arc (the current collection terminals are not arranged on the same radius on the circumference, but are slightly offset [0004-0008], see arc shape in Fig. 2).
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.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urano et al.,
US 20180202947 A1.
Regarding Claim 3, Horiba discloses all limitations as set forth above. Horiba discloses a direction connecting two welded parts adjacent in the radial direction, see Annotated Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image6.png
638
588
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Horiba – Annotated Fig. 2
Horiba does not disclose the remaining limitations of Claim 3. These limitations are taught by Urano. Urano teaches ends of a cylindrical lithium ion battery may be inspected for defects using an x-ray ([0045, 0074]). Urano teaches in order to identify a defect on an end of the cylindrical container 6, the inclination angle ϕ can be changed, and the container 6 rotates around a central axis C during the x-ray imaging process ([0067-0077, 0111], Figs. 5,6,17-18). Urano teaches the limitation “a central axis is inclined with respect to an irradiation direction of the X-ray” (see central axis C and X-RAY arrow positions in Figs. 5B and 6A).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the cylindrical battery disposed for x-ray inspection, wherein a central axis of winding is inclined with respect to an irradiation direction of the x-ray, as taught by Urano, in the battery of Horiba, in order to identify defects on an end portion of the cylindrical battery.
Regarding the limitations “disposed for x-ray inspection” and “a direction connecting two welded parts adjacent in the radial direction is perpendicular to the irradiation angle of X-ray in an irradiation angle range of X-ray,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the structure of modified Horiba teaches this limitation. Horiba discloses a direction connecting two welded parts adjacent in the radial direction (see Annotated Fig. 2 above), and Urano teaches the container 6 rotates around a central axis C during the x-ray imaging process ([0067-0074], Figs. 5-6). It is the Examiner’s position that the x-ray inspection of Urano, which rotates the container 6 around the central axis C, is capable of obtaining the claimed orientation during normal operation. See Urano Fig. 5B and Examiner’s annotations to Urano Fig. 6A:
PNG
media_image7.png
336
318
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
712
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Urano – Fig. 5B (L) and Annotated Fig. 6A (R)
Regarding Claim 4, Horiba discloses all limitations as set forth above. Horiba discloses a direction connecting the welded part joined to the end on the innermost circumference and the welded part joined to the end on the outermost circumference, see Annotated Fig. 2:
PNG
media_image9.png
628
876
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Horiba – Annotated Fig. 2
Horiba does not disclose the remaining limitations of Claim 4. These limitations are taught by Urano. Urano teaches ends of a cylindrical lithium ion battery may be inspected for defects using an x-ray ([0045, 0074]). Urano teaches in order to identify a defect on an end of the cylindrical container 6, the inclination angle ϕ can be changed, and the container 6 rotates around a central axis C during the x-ray imaging process ([0067-0077, 0111], Figs. 5,6,17-18). Urano teaches the limitation “a central axis is inclined with respect to an irradiation direction of the X-ray” (see central axis C and X-RAY arrow positions in Figs. 5B and 6A).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the cylindrical battery disposed for x-ray inspection, wherein a central axis of winding is inclined with respect to an irradiation direction of the x-ray, as taught by Urano, in the battery of Horiba, in order to identify defects on an end portion of the cylindrical battery.
Regarding the limitations “disposed for x-ray inspection” and “a direction connecting the welded part joined to the end on the innermost circumference and the welded part joined to the end on the outermost circumference is perpendicular to the irradiation angle of X-ray in an irradiation angle range of X-ray,” these limitations are considered intended use and are given weight to the extent that the prior art is capable of performing the intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the structure of modified Horiba teaches this limitation. Horiba discloses a direction connecting the welded part joined to the end on the innermost circumference and the welded part joined to the end on the outermost circumference (see Annotated Fig. 2 above), and Urano teaches the container 6 rotates around a central axis C during the x-ray imaging process ([0067-0074], Figs. 5-6). It is the Examiner’s position that the x-ray inspection of Urano, which rotates the container 6 around the central axis C, is capable of obtaining the claimed orientation during normal operation. See Examiner’s annotation to Urano Fig. 6A in Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Horiba discloses all limitations as set forth above. Horiba discloses the plurality of welded parts are arranged along an arc (Horiba, the current collection terminals are not arranged on the same radius on the circumference, but are slightly offset [0004-0008], see arc shape in Horiba Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETHANY C GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)272-2475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 0800 - 1730 MT.
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. 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.
/BETHANY C GARCIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights