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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 2023-184923, filed on October 27, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities: the description of. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. US 2023/0187792 A1 (Hereafter referred to as "Kim").
Regarding Claim 1: Kim teaches a laminate type battery (Abstract) comprising: an electrode body (120, [0031]); and a laminate film that covers and encloses the electrode body (140, [0037]), wherein the laminate film includes a film body that covers four surfaces of the electrode body (140, Fig. 2) having a rectangular parallelepiped shape (140, Fig. 2), and two lid members that cover two remaining side surfaces of the electrode body respectively (170 & 180, [0044]), and each of the lid members has a concave shape that is constituted by one bottom plane and four wall planes (Figs. 2 or 5), an inside surface of the concave shape at the bottom plane facing the side surface of the electrode body (Figs. 2 or 5), and outside surfaces of the concave shape at the wall planes are fused with the film body (190, [0049]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2023-0187792 A1 in view of Kobayashi et al. US 2022-0216548 A1 (Hereafter referred to as "Kobayashi").
Regarding Claim 2: Kim teaches multiple lid members with a parallelepiped shape ([0044]; Figs. 2 or 5).
Kim does not teach having the outside surface of the bottom plane of the lid members face the side of the electrode body.
Kobayashi teaches a lid member with a bottom plane and four wall planes, where the outside surface of the lid member’s bottom plane is facing the side of the electrode body (Fig. 1; Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the orientation of the lid coverings of Kim to the orientation of the lid covering of Kobayashi, by rotating the lid members 180 degrees, with the expected outcome of making the cell smaller and more mountable (Kobayashi: [0022]).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. US 2023-0187792 A1 in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2022-0216548 A1) and further in view of Tsukuda et al. US 9147870 B2 (Hereafter referred to as Tsukuda).
Regarding Claim 3: Kim in view of Kobayashi teaches the laminated battery of claim 2.
Kim and Kobayashi do not teach folding the fusion members to the inside of the concave lid members.
Tsukuda does teach a lid member with one bottom plane and four wall planes, where the wall plane fusion members are folded to the inside of the concave lid members (Figs. 15A & 15B; Col. 5, Lines 1-4; Col. 16, Lines 30-45).
It would be obvious to one having obvious skill in the art to modify the properly oriented lid members of Kim in view of Kobayashi with the folding of Tsukuda for the purpose of better battery sealing (Tsukuda: Col. 2, Lines 26-30).
Regarding Claim 4: Kim in view of Kobayashi teaches the laminated battery of claim 2.
Kim and Kobayashi do not teach the wrapping of the film body around the walls of the lid members such that fusion portions are also inside the walls of the lid members.
Tsukuda does teach the wrapping of the film body around the walls of the lid members such that fusion portions are also inside the walls of the lid members (Figs. 15A & 15B; Col. 5, Lines 1-4; Col. 16, Lines 30-45).
It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the properly oriented lid members of Kim in view of Kobayashi with the film wrapping and fusing to the inside of the walls of the lid members of Tsukuda for the purpose of better sealing (Tsukuda: Col. 2, Lines 26-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Suzawa et al. JP 2016-134199 A: Suzawa teaches two lid members in figure 3B, where items 107 are the lid members whose base surfaces are facing toward the electrode body (105-106 & 101-102)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN ALDEN KURTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1924. The examiner can normally be reached PTA Full Time.
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.
/J.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights