DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement has been made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 USC 119 (a-d). The certified copy has been filed on 03/26/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed 07/07/2025 have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 03/26/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contents more than 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 3, and 5-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2014102935 to Matsudo (Matsudo, machine translation) as evidenced by CN 101901882 to Cai.
Regarding claim 1, Matsudo discloses a polished aluminum sheet for a lithium battery, comprising: an aluminum sheet body (14, Fig. 1,2, para 17)), provided with an explosion-proof hole (32, Fig. 8, para 45) suitable for mounting an explosion-proof valve (18, Fig. 8, para 45)) therein; a first reinforcing portion (24, Fig. 1; 24,27 Fig.8)), protruding or recessed from one surface of the aluminum sheet body (14) and continuously or discontinuously surrounding the explosion-proof hole (32), the first reinforcing portion being spaced apart from the explosion-proof hole (32), and a second reinforcing portion (25/28 Fig. 8), protruding or recessed from the other surface of the polished aluminum sheet body (1) and continuously or discontinuously surrounding the explosion-proof hole (32), the second reinforcing portion (25) being spaced apart from the explosion-proof hole (32).
Regarding the limitation “ polished”: firstly since instant Application does not expressly disclose any roughness characteristics of the aluminum sheet body nor any polishing steps said body interpreted polished. Second: in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. aluminum sheet body , does not depend on its method of production, i.e. polishing. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Additionally, a use of the polished aluminum sheets for top cover plates in battery cases well known in the art as evidenced by Cai and, interpreted inherently present. MPEP 2112 V states that "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference."
Alternatively, since the criticality of use the polished aluminum sheet body- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such feature in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such polished aluminum sheet body serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Matsudo, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the polished aluminum sheet body as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Matsudo discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and incorporated therein. Regarding the limitation: wherein the first reinforcing portion and the second reinforcing portion are formed by synchronous stamping: In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product, i.e. reinforcing , does not depend on its method of production, i.e. stamping. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 5, Matsudo discloses the first reinforcing portion and/or the second reinforcing portion are/is elliptical (para 44).
Regarding claim 6, Matsudo discloses wherein the first reinforcing portion) and/or the second reinforcing portion are four independent strip structures, and the four strip structures surround the explosion-proof hole (32) and are distributed and spaced apart from each other (parts 30 and 32 Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 7, Matsudo discloses a top cover, comprising: the polished aluminum sheet for the lithium battery an explosion-proof valve (18), mounted in an explosion-proof hole (19, Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Matsudo discloses a lithium battery (para 47).
Regarding claim 9, Matsudo discloses the first reinforcing portion and/or the second reinforcing portion are/is elliptical (para 44).
Regarding claim 10, Matsudo discloses the first reinforcing portion and/or the second reinforcing portion are/is elliptical (para 44).
Regarding claim 11, Matsudo discloses the first reinforcing portion and/or the second reinforcing portion are/is elliptical (para 44).
Regarding claim 12, Matsudo discloses wherein the first reinforcing portion) and/or the second reinforcing portion are four independent strip structures, and the four strip structures surround the explosion-proof hole (32) and are distributed and spaced apart from each other (parts 30 and 32 Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 13, Matsudo discloses wherein the first reinforcing portion) and/or the second reinforcing portion are four independent strip structures, and the four strip structures surround the explosion-proof hole (32) and are distributed and spaced apart from each other (parts 30 and 32 Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Matsudo discloses wherein the first reinforcing portion) and/or the second reinforcing portion are four independent strip structures, and the four strip structures surround the explosion-proof hole (32) and are distributed and spaced apart from each other (parts 30 and 32 Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Matsudo discloses a top cover, comprising: the polished aluminum sheet for the lithium battery an explosion-proof valve (18), mounted in an explosion-proof hole (19, Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, Matsudo discloses a top cover, comprising: the polished aluminum sheet for the lithium battery an explosion-proof valve (18), mounted in an explosion-proof hole (19, Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 17, Matsudo discloses a top cover, comprising: the polished aluminum sheet for the lithium battery an explosion-proof valve (18), mounted in an explosion-proof hole (19, Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Matsudo discloses a top cover, comprising: the polished aluminum sheet for the lithium battery an explosion-proof valve (18), mounted in an explosion-proof hole (19, Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 19, Matsudo discloses a top cover, comprising: the polished aluminum sheet for the lithium battery an explosion-proof valve (18), mounted in an explosion-proof hole (19, Fig. 1, Fig. 8).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over JP 2014102935 to Matsudo (Matsudo, machine translation) as evidenced by CN 213212238 to Cai.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Matsudo discloses the invention as discussed above as applied to claim 1 and 3 respectively and incorporated therein. Matsudo does not expressly disclose wherein a distance between the first reinforcing portion and/or the second reinforcing portion and the explosion-proof hole is in a range from 1 mm to 5 mm and wherein a width of a protrusion formed by stamping is in a range from 1 mm to 5 mm, and a width of a groove is in a range from 2 mm to 6 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to arrange structural elements within suitable distances based on Fig. 1,2 and 8, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (MPEP 2144.04 (VI-
C)).
Alternatively, since the criticality of positioning the first reinforcing portion and/or the second reinforcing portion and the explosion-proof hole in a range from 1 mm to 5 mm, and making a width of a protrusion formed by stamping is in a range from 1 mm to 5 mm, and a width of a groove is in a range from 2 mm to 6 mm- a position claimed by Applicant is not supported by any showing of criticality of such placement in the instant specification, nor did Applicant stated that such placement serves any specific purpose or performs any specific function other that the function disclosed in Cai, it would have been obvious top those skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to place the mentioned structural elements within claimed ranges as an obvious design choice, and as such it does not impact the patentability of claims 2 and 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER USYATINSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-7703. The examiner can normally be reached IFP.
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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1292. 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.
/Alexander Usyatinsky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights