DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 7-8 recite “at a center of the barrel part being a center in an axial direction”. The portion of “being a center” should be removed to recite “at a center of the barrel part in an axial direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190207265 A1 (Kim ‘265) in view of Non-Uniform Circumferential Expansion of Cylindrical Li-Ion Cells—The Potato Effect (Hemmerling 2021 – copy provided with the IDS filed 12/22/2025).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kim ‘265 teaches a cylindrical secondary battery (a cylindrical battery casing 100; [0035] & Fig. 1) comprising:
an exterior housing can having a cylindrical barrel part and one end sealed with a bottom plate (the battery casing 100 has a cylindrical battery part at a side surface 101 with a bottom end of the battery casing 100 sealed by a lower surface 120; [0035] & Fig. 1); and
an electrode assembly disposed inside the barrel part (an electrode assembly 130 is accommodated in the battery casing 100; [0037] & Fig. 2), wherein
a positive electrode plate and a negative electrode plate are wound via a separator in the electrode assembly (the electrode assembly 130 is a jelly-roll type having a structure in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are wound with a separator interposed therebetween; [0004] & [0012]).
Kim ‘265 further discloses a buffer space 103 between an isolation wall 102 and the side surface 101 of the battery casing 100 ([0035] & Fig. 1). The buffer space 103 accommodates deformation of an electrode assembly when the electrode assembly is expanded ([0035] & Fig. 1). The buffer space 103 may be configured such that a gap W1 defined from the isolation wall 102 with respect to the side surface 101 is in a range of 80 to 110% based on the amount of change in thickness before and after expansion of the electrode assembly 130 ([0038] & Fig. 3). As shown in Fig. 4, the electrode assembly 230 is expanded such that a change in an outer diameter of a central portion thereof is largest with respect to the height direction of the electrode assembly 230 ([0040]).
As presently claimed, the proportion of the outer diameters at the center of the barrel part relative to the outer diameters on the bottom end of the barrel part may be 100% (1/1). As shown in Fig. 2, when the electrode assembly is not expanded, the outer diameters at the center of the barrel part and the outer diameters at the bottom end of the barrel part are equal. Accordingly, the proportion of the outer diameters at the center to the outer diameters at the bottom is 100%.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Kim ‘265 does not disclose that the outer diameter at the center of the barrel part periodically changes relative to a circumferential angle, and a period of change in the outer diameter at the center of the barrel part relative to the circumferential angle is greater than or equal to 0.4π and less than or equal to 1.0π, wherein the period of change in the outer diameter at the center of the barrel part relative to the circumferential angle is greater than or equal to 0.4π and less than or equal to 0.6π.
Hemmerling 2021 discloses that cylindrical lithium ion cells do not expand uniformly (abstract). Depending on the position and orientation of the cell coil, there are different zones of expansion and contraction (abstract). Fig. 4b shows the change of the radius of the respective position over the circumference of the battery cell where, in particular, expansion occurs at those locations where the packing of the jelly roll is significantly tighter than normal and contraction occurs mostly at locations where the jelly roll is significantly looser, which ultimately leads to a potato-shaped cell form (Fig. 5).
Therefore, the periodic change of the outer diameter at the center of the barrel part relative to a circumferential angle is rendered obvious, because Hemmerling 2021 teaches that there are different zones of expansion and contraction depending on the position and orientation of the cell coil, resulting in a change of radius over the circumference of the cell.
Accordingly, the structure of claims 1 and 2 are rendered obvious by the disclosure of Kim ‘265 in view of Hemmerling 201.
Further, in Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (See MPEP § 2144.04).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190207265 A1 (Kim ‘265) in view of Non-Uniform Circumferential Expansion of Cylindrical Li-Ion Cells—The Potato Effect (Hemmerling 2021 – copy provided with the IDS filed 12/22/2025), and further in view of US 20190288336 A1 (Park ‘336) and US 20150132625 A1 (Miyata ‘625).
Regarding claim 3, Kim ‘265 teaches the cylindrical secondary battery according to claim 1, wherein
the negative electrode plate has a band-shaped core (a negative electrode having a long sheet shape; [0004] of Kim ‘265), but does not expressly disclose a mixture layer formed on the core,
the mixture layer is composed of including an active material containing graphite and Si material, and
a proportion of the graphite in the active material is greater than or equal to 50 mass% and less than or equal to 94 mass%, a proportion of the Si material in the active material is greater than or equal to 6 mass% and less than or equal to 50 mass%, a density of the mixture layer is greater than or equal to 1.3 g/cc and less than or equal to 1.75 g/cc.
Park’ 336 discloses a lithium secondary battery of a cylindrical type, for example ([0127]). The negative electrode of the lithium secondary battery may include a negative electrode active material containing a metal and a carbonaceous negative active material ([0097]). The negative electrode active material containing a metal may include at least one of silicon, silicon-carbon composite, and silicon oxide ([0098]). The silicon oxide or the silicon-carbon composite may be used as a combination with a carbonaceous material ([0104]). The negative electrode active material composition may be prepared as a mixture ([0108]). For example, about 12 wt% of a silicon-carbon composite and about 85 wt% of graphite, and about 3 wtr% of a binder may be combined as a mixture ([0104]). The negative electrode may have an electrode density of about 1.5 g/cc or greater ([0112]).
Therefore, the 85 wt% of graphite is within the claimed proportion between 50 mass% and 94 mass%, the 12 wt% of silicon-carbon composite is within the claimed proportion between 6 mass% and 50 mass%, and the electrode density of 1.5 g/cc or greater overlaps with the claimed range between 1.3 g/cc and 1.75 g/cc.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Kim ‘265 also does not disclose a material of the exterior housing can is Fe, and a thickness of the exterior housing is greater than or equal to 0.18 mm and less than or equal to 0.33 mm.
Miyata ‘625 discloses a cylindrical battery case 15 ([0026]). It is preferable that the battery case be made of iron and the thickness of a tubular portion of the battery case is 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm ([0017]).
Therefore, the material of the exterior housing being Fe with a thickness between 0.18 mm and 0.33 mm is rendered obvious by Miyata ‘625, because Miyata ‘625 discloses a battery case made of iron with a thickness of 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm, which overlaps with the claimed range.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/720,101 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other, because the claimed subject matter of claims 1-3 in the present application overlap in scope with the claimed subject matter of claims 1-3 in the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR H KRONE whose telephone number is (571)270-5064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST.
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, NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at 571-270-3879. 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.
/TAYLOR HARRISON KRONE/Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/JONATHAN CREPEAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725
Prosecution Insights