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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Aoki et al (US 2018/0301672 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki discloses a cylindrical battery corresponding to the claimed power storage device ([0038]), where the cylindrical battery contains a battery case in a bottomed cylindrical case ([0040]). Aoki also discloses that the battery case accommodates an electrode group ([0040]) and that the opening of the battery case is sealed by a sealing body ([0040]).
It is further disclosed by Aoki that the sealing body includes two separate layers ([0015]). These layers are the second metal layer (corresponding to the claimed sealing plate) and a first metal layer (corresponding to the claimed reinforcing plate) ([0015]). It is even further disclosed by Aoki that the first metal layer is disposed on the second metal layer, including on an outer peripheral side (Figures 1-2; [0015] – [0018] and [0036]) and that the first metal layer is joined with the second metal layer at a boundary that is along a thickness of the sealing plate (Figures 1-2; [0015] – [0018] and [0036]).
Aoki also teaches that the metal composing the first metal layer has a rigidity higher than the metal constituting the second metal layer ([0015] and [0037]).
Regarding claim 2, Aoki discloses the cylindrical battery discussed above in claim 1. Aoki further discloses that the second metal layer includes a first region on an outer periphery (Figure 1; [0036]) and that there is second region thinner than the first region disposed on an outer periphery of the first region (Figure 1; [0024] and [0036]). Annotated figure 1 below demonstrates the interpretation of each region in Aoki.
PNG
media_image1.png
541
928
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Aoki additionally discloses that the first metal layer is disposed on the second region and that an inner edge of the first metal layer is joined to the first region so that the inner edge is positioned on an inner side of the first metal layer (Figure 1; [0036]).
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.
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 2018/0301672 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Aoki discloses the cylindrical battery discussed above in claim 2. While Aoki does disclose that the battery case includes an opening ([0068]), it is not expressly stated that part of the casing has been swaged. Aoki does, however, state that an opening end of the battery case is bent inward and caulked to the sealing body (Figure 2; [0069]). One of ordinary art would reasonably infer that the bent and caulked end of the battery case would constitute the swaged part, since both perform the same function of closing the battery casing (MPEP 2144.01). Accordingly, Aoki renders obvious the claimed swaged part.
Aoki further discloses that the inner edge of the first metal layer is positioned on an inner side in the radial direction with respect to the end of the battery case that has been bent and caulked (Figure 2; [0067] and [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Aoki discloses the cylindrical battery discussed above in claim 2. While Aoki does not expressly state that the second metal layer is configured for corrosion resistance, Aoki does state that the second metal composing the second metal layer may be composed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy ([0022]). In the specification of this application, applicant states that aluminum is a preferable metal to select for the composition of a sealing plate due to its corrosion resistance to an electrolytic solution ([0041]). Applicant also expressly discloses aluminum for the composition of the claimed sealing plate ([0030]). The courts have found that when the claimed product and prior art product are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (MPEP 2112.01). When the second metal layer of Aoki is composed of aluminum, it can be understood that the second metal layer has been configured for corrosion resistance. Accordingly, Aoki renders obvious the claimed corrosion resistance recitation.
Regarding claim 6, Aoki discloses the cylindrical battery discussed above in claim 3. Aoki further discloses that an outer edge of the first metal layer is positioned farther out than its inner edge in a radial direction with respect to the bent and caulked tip of the battery case (Figure 2; [0036] and [0069]). Annotated figure 2 below demonstrates the interpretation of the inner and outer edges of the first metal layer of Aoki.
PNG
media_image2.png
573
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki et al (US 2018/0301672 A1) in view of Kohira et al (US 2017/0110699 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Aoki discloses the cylindrical battery discussed above in claim 2. Aoki further discloses that the first metal layer is joined with the second metal layer at the first region along a laminating direction of both layers (Figures 1-2; [0018] and [0036]). Aoki even further discloses that the metal layers are joined together by rolling them at a pressure ([0018]), which is roll bonding. While roll bonding is a type of pressure welding, it cannot be definitively stated that it would leave a welding mark. Therefore, Aoki does not explicitly disclose the presence of a welding mark.
Kohira, also drawn to battery art (abstract), similarly discloses a cylindrical battery with a sealing member ([0008] – [0009]). Kohira further discloses the sealing member comprises a valving element and a support element ([0011] – [0013]), where the support element joined to the valving element through laser welding ([0042]). Kohira also teaches that laser welding produces a weld spot at the boundary of components that are being welded together ([0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art to have used the teachings of Kohira to utilize laser welding in the joining of the first metal layer and the second metal layer at the first region of Aoki instead of roll bonding. Both laser welding and roll bonding methods are utilized to join components together along a boundary. Using laser welding instead of roll bonding would have amounted to nothing more than the simple substitution of one welding method for one another for the predictable result of joining components together [MPEP 2143 (I)(B)]. Accordingly, Aoki in view of Kohira renders obvious the claimed welding mark recitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB T LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1723. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 4 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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/J.T.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1746
/MICHAEL N ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights