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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on July 9, 2024, October 8, 2024, and September 25, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 8 and 17 include a typographical error where the reference character for the mounting hole is listed as 221, but the correct reference character is 211. 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.
Claims 11 and 13-14 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. Claims 11 and 13-14 each recite the limitation “the secondary battery”, but Claim 10, on which these claims depend, defines a plurality of secondary batteries. Accordingly, there is a singular/plural mismatch.
Claims 17-18 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. Claims 17-18 recite the limitation "the secondary battery" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim – it being noted that claim 10 defines a “battery pack”, not a “secondary battery”.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (US Pub. No. 2016/0351862) in view of Fan (CN 114583344; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yun teaches a rechargeable battery 100 (claimed secondary battery) comprising a cell, an end cover assembly comprising a cap plate 20 (taken to be the claimed cell lid), positive electrode terminal 21 (taken to be the claimed electrode post), and connecting portion 511 (taken to be the claimed connecting plate), the positive terminal passes through terminal hole H1, the claimed electrode post and cell are connected by the claimed connecting plate, a case 15 in which the cell is mounted, and the end cover assembly covers the cell case (paragraphs [0045]-[0062]; figures 1-2), and the cell case has a plurality of recess portions 73 arranged at intervals along a height direction formed at a boundary position of the case in a side wall of the case, and the recess is recessed in a direction adjacent to the cell (paragraphs [0077]-[0078]; figures 1 and 6). Yun does not specifically disclose that the lid and case are made of an insulating material. Fan teaches using a plastic material for the battery shell (claimed case) and battery cover plate (claimed cell lid) (machine translation at page 5, ninth paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plastic insulating material for the battery case and lid as taught by Fan in the battery of Yun in order to reduce the possibility of accidental short circuit and/or increase the safety of the battery module (see Fan machine translation at page 5, ninth paragraph).
Regarding claims 10-12, Yun teaches a battery module 200 (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make such a module into a battery pack by adding an upper and bottom case cover in order to protect the batteries) (paragraphs [0082]-[0090]; figure 8), where the module comprises a plurality of the battery set forth above.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, it is noted that the claim is directed to a method of manufacturing the battery. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” MPEP at 2113 citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Regardless, Yun teaches welding the cap plate and case together (paragraph [0051]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Yun teaches that the electrode post comprises a rivet terminal 21a (taken to be the claimed main body) and flange 21b, the flange is arranged along a circumferential direction of the main body and protrudes along a radial direction of the main body, the main body passes through the terminal hole H1 (claimed mounting hole), the flange abuts against an insulating member 61 next to the cell lid, and the end cover assembly comprises a member 31 (claimed sealing member) which is sleeved on the main body and located between the flange and the cell lid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to not use an insulating member 61 and have the flange abut the cell lid in the battery of Yun in view of Fan, because the lid of such a combination is insulating, and thus no insulating member between these portions is needed.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Fan as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of He (US Pub. No. 2022/0102787).
Regarding claims 4-5, Yun does not specifically disclose the ratio of the length, width, and height. He teaches using a ratio L/H (claimed H:L) of 4-21 (paragraph [0082]), completely encompassing the range of claim 5, and teaches a ratio L/D (claimed H:W) of 50-120 (paragraph [0085]), resulting in a range of L:W of 2.4 (50/21) to 30 (120/4), overlapping the claimed range of claim 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use dimensions as taught by He in the battery of Yun (combined) in order to improve the space utilization of the housing and/or make the battery pack safer and more reliable (see He at paragraphs [0082] and [0085]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Fan as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Yoon (KR2009-0110478; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Yun does not specifically disclose the type of insulating material. Yoon teaches polyamide, polycarbonate, and polyimide as materials used as an insulating material for a battery case (machine translation at page 4, fifth and sixth paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an insulating material as taught by Yoon as the insulating material of the battery of Yun (combined) in order to easily manufacture a battery with higher output capacity while being lighter and thinner than the same battery standard (see Yoon machine translation at page 4, third paragraph).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun in view of Fan as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN-219180634-U; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 9, Yun does not specifically disclose a riveting member and a limiting groove. Zhang teaches using a metal pressing plate 30 that can be fixed by riveting (taken to be the claimed riveting member) which extends into a limiting groove 93 of an electrode pole 92 (claimed electrode post) (machine translation at page 10, second to last paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a riveting member extending into a limiting groove as taught by Zhang in the battery of Yun (combined) in order to ensure large-rate charging and discharging of the over-current capability (see Zhang machine translation at page 10, third to last paragraph).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafner (US Pub. No. 2017/0201077) in view of Yun (US Pub. No. 2016/0351862) and Fan (CN 114583344; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claims 19-20, Hafner teaches an energy storage container (title) comprising a housing 40 (taken to be the claimed cabinet), an inverter 35 (paragraph [0029]), and a battery management system comprising batteries that are not particularly limited (paragraph [0050]). Hafner does not specifically disclose the structure of the battery module. Yun teaches a battery module 200 (it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make such a module into a battery pack by adding an upper and bottom case cover in order to protect the batteries) (paragraphs [0082]-[0090]; figure 8), where the module comprises a plurality of a rechargeable battery 100 (claimed secondary battery) comprising a cell, an end cover assembly comprising a cap plate 20 (taken to be the claimed cell lid), positive electrode terminal 21 (taken to be the claimed electrode post), and connecting portion 511 (taken to be the claimed connecting plate), the positive terminal passes through terminal hole H1, the claimed electrode post and cell are connected by the claimed connecting plate, a case 15 in which the cell is mounted, and the end cover assembly covers the cell case (paragraphs [0045]-[0062]; figures 1-2), and the cell case has a plurality of recess portions 73 arranged at intervals along a height direction formed at a boundary position of the case in a side wall of the case, and the recess is recessed in a direction adjacent to the cell (paragraphs [0077]-[0078]; figures 1 and 6). Hafner (combined) does not specifically disclose that the lid and case are made of an insulating material. Fan teaches using a plastic material for the battery shell (claimed case) and battery cover plate (claimed cell lid) (machine translation at page 5, ninth paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a plastic insulating material for the battery case and lid as taught by Fan in the energy storage container of Hafner in order to reduce the possibility of accidental short circuit and/or increase the safety of the battery module (see Fan machine translation at page 5, ninth paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 September 10, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights