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 § 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation of JP2018006112A (Nakamura) in view of English translation of JP2018107054 [Iizuka] .
Claim 1, Nakamura teaches a power storage cell [abs] comprising: a case; an electrode assembly; an insulating film; and an electrolyte solution, wherein the case [#11] accommodates the electrode assembly [#12 ;0015], the insulating film [#13; 0044], and the electrolyte solution [not shown; 0015], the electrode assembly has an upper surface, a lower surface, and a peripheral surface , the peripheral surface connects the upper surface with the lower surface, the peripheral surface includes a first region and a second region, the first region is covered with the insulating film, the second region is not covered with the insulating film, the second region extends from the upper surface to reach the lower surface, and the second region is smaller in area than the first region [please refer to the annotated figure below which depicts the claimed features]. It is noted, Nakamura does not explicitly illustrate the a liquid inlet hole is provided on a side of the case facing the upper surface. Iizuka teaches a secondary battery and teaches the liquid injection hole as structurally claimed [#11; 0034-0036]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nakamura in view of Iizuka and have the injection hole as claimed as this is a common structural element in this field of endeavor and would be an obvious structural element incorporated into a battery. The prior art can be modified or combined to reject claims as prima facie obvious as long as there is a reasonable expectation of success. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2143.02).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2, Nakamura teaches the power storage cell according to claim 1, wherein the power storage cell further includes an insulating member [#50 i.e. insulating cover -0039], and the insulating member is placed on the case at a position facing the second region.
Claim 3, modified Nakamura teaches wherein the second region is placed below the liquid inlet hole [please refer to claim 1].
Claim 4, Nakamura teaches wherein the power storage cell further includes an insulating tape [#50; 0039], the second region is bounded on both sides in a circumferential direction of the peripheral surface, by the first region, and the insulating tape extends to link one side of the first region to the other side, straddling the second region [0041; The first insulating portion 51 straddles the electrode bonding portion 32 a of the positive electrode conductive member 32 and the electrode bonding portion 42 a of the negative electrode conductive member 42. In addition, the first insulating portion 51 is interposed between the electrode junction portions 32 a, 42 a and the lid 11].
Claim 5, Nakamura teaches wherein the insulating film has a belt-like shape [as it is seen in annotated fig above in claim 1; the insulating film surrounds the surfaces which is synonymous to a belt like shape; 0049].
Claim 6, Nakamura teaches wherein the insulating film is wrapped on the peripheral surface [depicted in claim 1; 0044, 0046, 0049].
Claim 7, Nakamura teaches wherein the insulating film has a length direction and a width direction, the width direction is orthogonal to the length direction, and a size of the insulating film in the length direction is smaller than a circumferential size of the peripheral surface [depicted in claim 1].
Claim 8, Nakamura teaches wherein the electrode assembly has a cubic outer shape, and the electrode assembly is of stack type [fig. 1; 0015].
Claim 9, Nakamura teaches wherein the peripheral surface consists of the first region and the second region [depicted in claim 1].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARIKA GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)272-9907. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. 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.
/S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights