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 § 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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chai et al. (CN 113258124; see English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Chai discloses a secondary battery (10) comprising:
an electrode assembly (12);
a case (housing 11) configured to accommodate the electrode assembly (see Figure 4);
a current collector plate (14) welded to each of the electrode assembly and the case ([0088]); and
a cap plate (13) disposed on the current collector plate to seal the case ([0088]; see Figure 4).
Regarding claim 2, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the current collector plate comprises:
an electrode welding part welded to the electrode assembly (first connection portion 141 that is welded to the electrode assembly 122 between the two tabs; [0129]; see Figures 5 and 8);
a rigid reinforcement part (corner of the current collector plate 14) provided outside the electrode welding part (see Figure 5); and
a case welding part (second connection portion 142) provided outside the rigid reinforcement part so as to be welded to the case ([0128] and [0129]).
Regarding claim 3, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the electrode welding part further comprises a through-hole (143) provided in an area corresponding to a center of the cap plate (see Figure 8).
Regarding claim 6, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the case welding part is bent from the rigid reinforcement part to the cap plate (see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the case welding part is welded to a beading part of the case (119) (it is disclosed the current collector plate 14 is welded to the shell 11 from the inside, which would include the beading part 119; [0166]; see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses an insulating gasket (15) disposed between the case welding part and the cap plate ([0094]; see Figure 5).
Regarding claim 9, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses the current collector plate has an outer diameter greater than that of the electrode assembly (see Figure 4).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al. (CN 113258124; see English machine translation) in view of Janmey (US 2004/0043286).
Regarding claim 4, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a pressure release mechanism 16 on the end cover 13 (see Figure 4), but the reference does not expressly disclose the rigid reinforcement part or the case welding part has a thickness greater than that of the electrode welding part.
Janmey discloses a seal member 28 comprising a thicker perimeter wall 34 compared to the diaphragm region 40 where venting is to be taking place ([0018]; see Figures 2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rigid reinforcement part and the case welding part that is on the periphery of the current collector plate to be thicker than the electrode welding part that is towards the center where venting takes place in the device of Chai, as taught by Janmey, so that venting through the current collector plate out of the pressure release mechanism is better facilitated if the current collector plate is thinner and more flexible.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chai et al. (CN 113258124; see English machine translation) in view of Tyler et al. (US 2014/0234676).
Regarding claim 5, Chai discloses all the claim limitations as set forth above, and further discloses a pressure release mechanism 16 on the end cover 13 (see Figure 4), but the reference does not expressly disclose a vent notch provided along a boundary between the electrode welding part and the rigid reinforcement part.
Tyler discloses an electrochemical cell, wherein the collector electrode (70) comprises vent notches (92 and 79) along a boundary between the electrode welding part (90) and the edge of the collector electrode (see Figures 7 and 8), such that in the event that venting is required from the bottom of the housing, the current collector will be able to flex to allow gas to escape ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a vent notch along a boundary between the electrode welding part and the edge of the current collector plate (read upon the rigid reinforcement part) in the device of Chai, as taught by Tyler, where a flexible current collector plate allows the cell element to remain substantially fixed within the cell housing during deployment of a vent and helps isolate the vent from shock and vibration during handling and assembly and during use of the cell, where having increased flexibility offers a more robust design of the vent ([0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA CHERN whose telephone number is (408)918-7559. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 AM-5:30 PM PT.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/CHRISTINA CHERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights