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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “other respective parts” in claims 3-4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “other respective parts” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In such a device, any configuration of the cut tubular body, cut first plate member, and the cut second plate member can make up the subsequent case bodies, since the specification is silent as to how those case bodies are formed after the cutting step.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0361783 A1), and in further view of Chan (KR 102436682 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Matsuura discloses a method of manufacturing a battery case capable of accommodating an electrode assembly (Matsuura, Par. [0010] – [0020]), and comprising:
a case body in a bottomed tubular shape having a bottom portion and an opening located opposite to the bottom portion (Matsuura, Fig. 2C, case body 10 with opening 18. In light of the specification, tubular is interpreted as a hollow-bodied solid);
and a lid portion closing the opening (Matsuura, Par. [0057] – [0058]),
the method comprising:
preparing a tubular body having a first opening end and a second opening end that are respectively located at opposite sides in one direction (Matsuura, Fig. 2A-2B, tubular body 20 in Fig. 2B with two opening ends is prepared by folding flat sheet 20 in Fig. 2A);
closing the first opening end with a first plate member (Matsuura, Fig. 2B-2C, first plate member 30 closing first opening end to form closed end 16(30));
closing the second opening end with a second plate member (Matsuura, Fig. 2B-2C, second plate member 40 closing second opening to form closed end 16(40));
in a state where the first opening end is closed with the first plate member and the second opening end is closed with the second plate member (Matsuura, Fig. 2B-2C, first opening end closed with first plate member 30; second opening end closed with second plate member 40),
and sealing the opening of the case body with the lid portion (Matsuura, Par. [0057] – [0058]).
Matsuura does not teach cutting the tubular body, the first plate member, and the second plate member along a plane parallel to the one direction, to obtain the case body having the opening formed by respective cut edges of the tubular body, the first plate member, and the second plate member. However, Chan discloses a method for manufacturing a case for a secondary battery by first forming a unit tubular body by cutting a tubular body extruded through a continuous process (Chan, Par. [0001] – [0009]; Fig. 1, showing tubular body 1 being cut to form unit tubular body 2). Thus, Chan teaches that a prismatic battery case may be cut after forming. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made this modification to provide a continuous process wherein these tubes are cut into unit tubes to thereby ensure consistently sized casings of the same shape (Chan, Par. [0005], [0007]).
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsuura teaches the method of manufacturing a battery case comprising all elements of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein the tubular body is prepared by extrusion molding. However, Chan teaches that the tubular body can be molded by extruding (Chan, Par. [0001]-[0009]). Chan recognizes that the tubular body can be shaped in different fashions, including both folding a metal sheet and molding by extruding, and that both are within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Chan, Par [0005] – [0015]). It also demonstrates that the result of either folding metal or extrusion molding would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted folding the sheet of metal of Matsuura with extrusion molding of Chan where the result of the substitution would predictably result in a tubular body.
Regarding claim 3, modified Matsuura teaches the method of manufacturing a battery case comprising all elements of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein a wherein a plurality of the case bodies are obtained, including a first case body made up of respective parts of the cut tubular body, the cut first plate member, and the cut second plate member, and a second case body made up of other respective parts of the cut tubular body, the cut first plate member, and the cut second plate member. However, Chan discloses a method for manufacturing a case for a secondary battery by first forming a unit tubular body by cutting a tubular body extruded through a continuous process (Chan, Par. [0001] – [0009]; Fig. 1, showing tubular body 1 being cut to form unit tubular body 2. If it is possible to obtain an individual case body by cutting the tubular body, then the other portion leftover after the cut can also be used as a case body.). Chan demonstrates that forming multiple case bodies from a cutting step would have been predictable. Courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the other parts of the cut tubular body in Chan to obtain a plurality of case bodies.
See MPEP 2144.04 [R-01.2024]: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 4, modified Matsuura teaches the method of manufacturing a battery case comprising all elements of claim 2 as discussed above, but does not disclose wherein a wherein a plurality of the case bodies are obtained, including a first case body made up of respective parts of the cut tubular body, the cut first plate member, and the cut second plate member, and a second case body made up of other respective parts of the cut tubular body, the cut first plate member, and the cut second plate member. However, Chan discloses a method for manufacturing a case for a secondary battery by first forming a unit tubular body by cutting a tubular body extruded through a continuous process (Chan, Par. [0001] – [0009]; Fig. 1, showing tubular body 1 being cut to form unit tubular body 2. If it is possible to obtain an individual case body by cutting the tubular body, then the other portion leftover after the cut can also be used as a case body.). Chan demonstrates that forming multiple case bodies from a cutting step would have been predictable. Courts have held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the other parts of the cut tubular body in Chan to obtain a plurality of case bodies.
See MPEP 2144.04 [R-01.2024]: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES PHILIP LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 8:00 AM – 6:00 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, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571) 270-7871. 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.
/CHARLES P LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights