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 .
Foreign Priority Documents
The Korean foreign priority document(s) 10-2024-0040792, submitted under 35
U.S.C. § 119 (a)-(d), was/were been received on August 20, 2024, and placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed June 23, 2025 & July 3, 2024 has/have been received and complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner, and an initialed copied is attached herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: no period. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the safety vent " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by XIAO et al. WO-223024121-A1.
With respect to claim 1, XIAO teaches a battery cell comprising: a case; an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 22; Fig. 4; At present, a battery cell generally includes a casing, an electrode assembly, and an end cap assembly; Description, paragraph 12); a cap assembly disposed on the case (cap; Fig. 13); and a protective layer disposed on the cap assembly (protective layer; Fig. 13) and on a side of the case (protective layer covers sides of the case with parts 261 & 262; Fig. 13), wherein the electrode assembly includes a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate, and a separator between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (electrode assembly 22; Fig. 4; At present, a battery cell generally includes a casing, an electrode assembly, and an end cap assembly; Description, paragraph 12; Examiner Note: all electrode assemblies include electrodes of opposing polarity with an interposing separator; the outer plates are shown in electrode assembly 22),
PNG
media_image1.png
623
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the protective layer comprises a support surface and a plurality of sides bent from the support surface (support surface 244 & side bent 26; Figs 7 & 18), and wherein the support surface comprises regions of different thicknesses (support surface 244 is thicker side bent 26; Figs 7 & 18).
FIG. 18
PNG
media_image2.png
352
945
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7
PNG
media_image3.png
534
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the instant claims are anticipated by XIAO.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIAO et al. WO-2023024121-A1 in view JI et al CN-210467930-U.
XIAO teaches a battery cell as described in the rejection recited hereinabove. With respect to claim 2, XIAO teaches a first terminal electrically connected to the first electrode plate (terminal 211 is connected to a corresponding electrode; Fig. 13; See conventional electrode/terminal connection in Fig. 4) and a second terminal electrically connected to the second electrode plate (terminal 211 is connected to a corresponding electrode; Fig. 13; See conventional electrode/terminal connection in Fig. 4), wherein the cap plate comprises a safety vent (safety vent on cap plate 20;Fig. 4; Examiner Note: Fig 4 is relied upon to show the interior of conventional prismatic batteries), and wherein the support surface comprises a hole overlapping the first terminal and the second terminal (first terminal and the second terminal holes; Fig. 13 ).
Fig. 13
PNG
media_image4.png
606
829
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, the side of the protective layer is disposed on the side of the case (protective layer has bent sides covering the case 23; Fig. 5 &Fig. 7). With respect to claim 5, the support surface comprises a first region and a second region (first and second regions; Fig. 18), wherein the first region is closer to the safety vent than the second region is to the safety vent (safety vent in the cap 20; Fig. 3; the safety vent is in the center of the cap; Fig. 3; Examiner Note: the first region is closer to the center and those closer to the safety vent: Figs. 3 & 13), and wherein a thickness of the first region is greater than a thickness of the second region (safety vent in the cap 20; Fig. 3; the safety vent is in the center of the cap; Fig. 3; Examiner Note: the first region is closer to the center and those closer to the safety vent: Figs. 3 & 13; thickness of the first region is greater than a thickness of the second region; Fig. 18 below).
Fig 18
PNG
media_image5.png
374
807
media_image5.png
Greyscale
XIAO does not teach or suggest: a groove overlapping the safety vent (claim 2); a length of the side of the protective layer is 10% to 50% of the width of the case (claim 3); a thickness of the protective layer is 0.1 mm to 3 mm (claim 4).
JI teaches that it is well known in the art to employ: a groove overlapping the safety vent (box cover 3 is provided with a vent groove; teaching claim 4; claim 2).
XIAO and JI are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating battery protective structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the vent groove overlapping the safety vent of JI, in the battery cell of XIAO, in order to vent excess gas. The skilled artisan recognizes that the vent in battery cells cannot be blocked by protective structures, and a release mechanism must be employed to prevent damage.
With respect to a length of the side of the protective layer is 10% to 50% of the width of the case (claim 3); it would have been obvious in the battery cell of XIAO in view of JI, as rearrangement of essential working parts of a device is prima facie obvious. More specifically, shifting the position of parts within a device will not render the device patentable if the position change does not alter the device’s operation. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). MPEP 2144.04. Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
With respect to a thickness of the protective layer is 0.1 mm to 3 mm (claim 4); it would have been obvious in the battery cell of XIAO in view of JI, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
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.
Claim(s) 6-11 & 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIAO et al. WO-2023024121-A1 in view JI et al CN-210467930-U, and further in view of YAO CN-210744042-U.
XIAO in view of JI teach a battery cell as described hereinabove. With respect to claim 6, the protective layer comprises a first protective layer disposed on the cap plate (first protective layer 24 disposed on the cap plate 21; Fig. 13 of XIAO). With respect to claim 7, a first terminal electrically connected to the first electrode plate (terminal 211 is connected to a corresponding electrode; Fig. 13; See conventional electrode/terminal connection in Fig. 4 of XIAO) and a second terminal electrically connected to the second electrode plate (terminal 211 is connected to a corresponding electrode; Fig. 13; See conventional electrode/terminal connection in Fig. 4 of XIAO), wherein the cap plate comprises a safety vent (safety vent on cap plate 20;Fig. 4; Examiner Note: Fig 4 is relied upon to show the interior of conventional prismatic batteries of XIAO), wherein the first protective layer comprises a first support surface and a plurality of first sides bent from the first support surface (support surface 4 and side bent 261 & 262; Fig 7 of XIAO below), wherein the first support surface comprises a first hole overlapping the first terminal and the second terminal (terminal holes 211; Fig 7 of XIAO below).
FIG. 7
PNG
media_image3.png
534
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a groove overlapping the safety vent (box cover 3 is provided with a vent groove; teaching claim 4 of JI). With respect to claim 13, XIAO teaches a case; an electrode assembly (electrode assembly 22; Fig. 4; At present, a battery cell generally includes a casing, an electrode assembly, and an end cap assembly; Description, paragraph 12); a cap assembly disposed on the case (cap; Fig. 13); and a protective layer disposed on the cap assembly (protective layer; Fig. 13) and on a side of the case (protective layer covers sides of the case with parts 261 & 262; Fig. 13), wherein the electrode assembly includes a first electrode plate, a second electrode plate, and a separator between the first electrode plate and the second electrode plate (electrode assembly 22; Fig. 4; At present, a battery cell generally includes a casing, an electrode assembly, and an end cap assembly; Description, paragraph 12; Examiner Note: all electrode assemblies include electrodes of opposing polarity with an interposing separator; the outer plates are shown in electrode assembly 22),
PNG
media_image1.png
623
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
XIAO teaches a first terminal electrically connected to the first electrode plate (terminal 211 is connected to a corresponding electrode; Fig. 13; See conventional electrode/terminal connection in Fig. 4) and a second terminal electrically connected to the second electrode plate (terminal 211 is connected to a corresponding electrode; Fig. 13; See conventional electrode/terminal connection in Fig. 4), wherein the cap plate comprises a safety vent (safety vent on cap plate 20;Fig. 4; Examiner Note: Fig 4 is relied upon to show the interior of conventional prismatic batteries), wherein the protective layer comprises an upper support part (support surface 4; Fig 7 of XIAO), a side support part (side bent 261 & 262; Fig 7 of XIAO) wherein the upper support part comprises a hole overlapping the first terminal and the second terminal (terminal holes 211; Fig 7 of XIAO) and a groove overlapping the safety vent (box cover 3 is provided with a vent groove; teaching claim 4 of JI).
XIAO does not teach or suggest: a second protective layer is disposed under the case (claim 6); the second protective layer comprises a second support surface and a plurality of second sides bent from the second support surface (claim 7); the second support surface comprises a second hole exposing a lower portion of the case (claim 7); the first protective layer is greater than a thickness of the second protective layer (claim 8); a length of the first side is longer than a length of the second side (claim 9); the first protective layer and the second protective layer comprise different materials (claim 10); the second hole comprises a plurality of spaced apart holes (claim 11); the side support connects the upper support and the lower support, and wherein the lower support part comprises a hole exposing a lower portion of the case (claim 13); a first side and a second side, wherein the size of the first side is larger than the size of the second side, wherein the side support comprises a first side support on the first side and a second side support on the second side, and wherein the first side support part is disposed to cover the entire first side (claim 14); the second side support part is disposed to cover the entire second side surface (claim 15).
YAO teaches that it is well know in thew art to employ: a second protective layer is disposed under the case (second protective layer 1; Fig. 1; claim 6); the second protective layer comprises a second support surface and a plurality of second sides bent from the second support surface (second protective layer & second sides bent; Fig. 1; claim 7); the second support surface comprises a second hole exposing a lower portion of the case (second hole; Fig. 1; claim 7); the side support connects the upper support and the lower support (side supports connect upper support 2 and lower support ; Fig. 1), and wherein the lower support part comprises a hole exposing a lower portion of the case (second hole; Fig. 1; claim 13); a first side and a second side, , wherein the side support comprises a first side support on the first side and a second side support on the second side ( first and second side supports; Fig. 1), and wherein the first side support part is disposed to cover the entire first side (first side support ; Fig. 1;claim 14); the second side support part is disposed to cover the entire second side surface (second side support; Fig. 1;claim 15).
PNG
media_image6.png
597
1376
media_image6.png
Greyscale
XIAO, JI and YAO are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating battery protective structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the second protective layer is disposed under the case taught by YAO, on the battery case of XIAO in view of JI, to increase protection of the battery on the bottom side. The skilled artisan recognizes all sides of the battery need protection, and the bottom is vulnerable to damage.
With respect to the first protective layer being greater than a thickness of the second protective layer (claim 8); it would have been obvious in the battery cell of XIAO, in view of JI and YAO, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to a length of the first side being longer than a length of the second side (claim 9); it would have been obvious in the battery cell of XIAO, in view of JI and YAO, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to the first protective layer and the second protective layer comprising different materials (claim 10); it would have been obvious in the battery cell of XIAO, in view of JI and YAO, as the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Furthermore, XIAO teaches protective layer of polyethylene terephthalate material. See Description paragraph 23. YAO teaches a nanometre silicon dioxide material. See teaching claim 3.
With respect to the second hole comprises a plurality of spaced apart holes (claim 11); it would have been obvious in the battery cell of XIAO, in view of JI and YAO, duplication of essential working parts of device is prima facie obvious. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to the size of the first side is larger than the size of the second side (claim 14); it would have been obvious in the battery cell of XIAO, in view of JI and YAO, as a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIAO et al. WO-2023024121-A1 in view JI et al CN-210467930-U, and further in view of CHEN et al CN-216085048-U.
XIAO in view of JI teach a battery cell as described hereinabove, including protective layers of polyethylene terephthalate material (PET). See Description paragraph 23.
XIAO does not teach: protective layer has a melting temperature of 500�C to 1200�C, wherein the protective layer has a thermal conductivity of 0.5 watt per meter-kelvin to 0.8 watt per meter-kelvin and wherein the protective layer has an elastic modulus of 1400 * 10-3 kgf/cm2 to 2100 * 10-3 kgf/cm2 (claim 13).
CHEN teaches the equivalence of PET and PPS (polyphenylene sulfide). See Example 1.
XIAO, JI and Chen are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating battery protective structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ PPS (polyphenylene sulfide) of Chen as the protection layer material of XIAO in view of JI, because these materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). MPEP 2144.06. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIAO et al. WO-2023024121-A1 in view JI et al CN-210467930-U, and further in view of YAO CN-210744042-U and even further in view of CHEN et al CN-216085048-U.
XIAO in view of JI and YAO teach a battery cell as described hereinabove, including protective layers of polyethylene terephthalate material (PET). See Description paragraph 23
XIAO does not teach: protective layer has a melting temperature of 500�C to 1200�C, wherein the protective layer has a thermal conductivity of 0.5 watt per meter-kelvin to 0.8 watt per meter-kelvin and wherein the protective layer has an elastic modulus of 1400 * 10-3 kgf/cm2 to 2100 * 10-3 kgf/cm2 (claim 16).
CHEN teaches the equivalence of PET and PPS (polyphenylene sulfide). See Example 1.
XIAO, JI, YAO and Chen are analogous art from the same field of endeavor, namely fabricating battery protective structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ PPS (polyphenylene sulfide) of Chen as the protection layer material of XIAO in view of JI and YAO, because these materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made. See In re Ruff, 256 F.2d 590, 118 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1958). MPEP 2144.06. Additionally, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
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.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over XIAO et al. WO-2023024121-A1 in view JI et al CN-210467930-U, and further in view of HYUN et al KR-20140063205-A.
XIAO in view of JI teach a battery cell as described hereinabove. See Description paragraph 23. With respect to claim 17, a housing fixing the battery cells (housing 5; Fig. 2 of XIAO). With respect to claim 18, XIAO teaches a housing to accommodate the battery modules (housing 5; battery modules 20; Fig. 2 of XIAO).
XIAO does not teach: a bus bar connecting adjacent battery cells; a protection circuit module connected to the bus bar (claim 17).
HYUN teaches that it is well known in the art to employ a bus bar connecting adjacent battery cells; a protection circuit module connected to the bus bar (connected for measuring an overcharge, overdischarge, and overheat temperature of the battery module; teaching claim 1; claim 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a bus bar connecting adjacent battery cells; and a protection circuit module connected to the bus bar of HYUN, in the battery cells of XIAO in view of JI, for measuring an overcharge, overdischarge, and overheat temperature of the battery module.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONIQUE M WILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1309. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Tiffany Legette, may be reached at 571-270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Monique M Wills/
Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
