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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 01/21/2026 has been entered. Claim 2 is amended, Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
The objection to Claim 2 is withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 01/21/2026.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shi et al. (CN 217641710 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Shi".
In regard to Claim 1, Shi et al. discloses a battery cell, comprising: a shell, the shell having an inner cavity, the shell having a first wall and an electrode assembly provided inside the inner cavity (Shi, Paragraph [2]). Shi et al. also discloses an insulating sheet structure (bottom covering sheet), at least a portion of the insulating structure being located between the electrode assembly and the first wall and a separation structure (bottom support sheet), the separation structure being provided between the electrode assembly and the first wall (Shi, Abstract).
Shi et al. further discloses one of the insulating structure and the separation structure being provided with at least two first through holes, the other being provided with second through holes respectively corresponding to the first through holes in a direction parallel to the first wall (Shi, Abstract). Shi et al. also discloses the cross- sectional area of the second through hole being equal to that of the first through hole provided correspondingly thereto, (Shi, Paragraph [12]), the plurality of second through holes comprising at least one alignment hole (Paragraph [12]). While Shi et al. discloses the cross-sectional area of the alignment hole being equal to and not greater than that of the first through hole provided correspondingly thereto, Shi et al. discloses the cross-sectional area of the alignment hole being greater than that of at least one of the second through holes (Shi, Paragraph [18]). Further, the function of the through holes in Shi et al. of aligning the pin (positioning structure) is consistent with the function of the through holes in the original specification (Original specification, Page 2 Lines 25-30).
In regard to Claim 2, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. Shi et al. also discloses the second through hole comprises at least one alignment hole and one positioning hole (Shi, Paragraph [19]), the cross-sectional area of the alignment hole is greater than that of the positioning hole (Shi, Paragraph [10]), and the cross-sectional area of the positioning hole is equal to that of the corresponding first through hole (Shi, Paragraph [17]). Shi et al further discloses the positioning hole is the same as the corresponding first through hole in shape, the cross-sectional area of the first through hole corresponding to the alignment hole is equal to that of the alignment hole, and the first through hole corresponding to the alignment hole is the same as the alignment hole in shape (Shi, Paragraphs [18-20]).
In regard to Claim 3, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 2. Shi et al. also discloses wherein at least one second through hole and the first through hole provided correspondingly thereto are both round holes, and the two round holes are equal in diameter (Shi, Paragraphs [18-20]).
In regard to Claim 5, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 3. Shi et al. also discloses wherein in a first direction the dimension of the alignment hole is greater than that of other second through holes, the first direction being parallel to a length direction of the first wall (Shi, Paragraph [37]).
In regard to Claim 6, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 5. Shi et al. also discloses wherein the plurality of first through holes are provided in spaced manner in the first direction and/or in a second direction and the dimension of the first through hole is equal to that of the second through hole corresponding thereto, the second direction being parallel to a width direction of the first wall (Shi, Paragraphs [16, 18]).
In regard to Claim 7, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 5. Shi et al. also discloses by geometrical definition, the first through hole has a first inner wall and a second inner wall distributed along the first direction, the alignment hole has a third inner wall and a fourth inner wall distributed along the first direction, as well as a fifth inner wall and a sixth inner wall distributed along the second direction, the first inner wall is the same as the third inner wall in shape, the second inner wall is the same as the third inner wall in shape, and the fifth inner wall and the sixth inner wall are each parallel to the first direction (Shi, Figure 1, Paragraphs [17, 20]), as the "waist shaped alignment hole" is equivalent to raceway shaped hole of the original specification (Original Specification, Page 51).
In regard to Claim 8, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 7. Shi et al. also discloses wherein at least one first through hole is a round hole, and the first inner wall, the second inner wall, the third inner wall, and the fourth inner wall are each an arc-shaped inner wall (Shi, Paragraph [19]).
In regard to Claim 9, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 7. Shi et al. also discloses in the first direction, a difference between the dimension of the alignment hole and the dimension of other second through holes is in a range of greater than 0 mm and less than or equal to 3 mm by disclosing a ratio of the alignment hole and the other second through holes is 1.5-3 (Shi, Paragraph [17]), thus if the second through hole was 1mm the alignment hole would be in the range of 1.5-3mm, which anticipates the claimed range.
In regard to Claim 13, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. Shi et al. also discloses wherein the separation structure is provided between the insulating structure and the first wall, the first through hole is provided in the separation structure, and the second through hole is provided in the insulating structure (Shi, Abstract).
In regard to Claim 19, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. Shi et al. also discloses wherein the insulating structure comprises an insulating film, the insulating film comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion is located between the electrode assembly and the first wall, the second portion is connected to the first portion, and the second portion is annular and encloses an outer periphery of the electrode assembly (Shi, Abstract).
In regard to Claim 20, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. Shi et al. also discloses a battery comprising the battery cell according to claim 1 (Shi, Abstract).
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.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 217641710 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Shi" as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mizuno et al. (US 20030104276 A1), hereinafter "Mizuno". Shi et al. and Mizuno et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery assembly and components.
In regard to Claim 4, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 3. Shi et al. also discloses the ratio of the size of the holes with respect to each other but is silent as to the dimension of the holes in millimeters.
Mizuno et al. discloses an insulating structure and a separation structure (electrode-drawing sheet) that comprises through holes to interact with an alignment pin that is inserted into the through hole and has a disclosed diameter of 2.6mm (Mizuno, Abstract, Paragraph [0049]), which falls within the claimed range and is designed by the skilled artisan to correspond to the size of the pin used for alignment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide through holes with a diameter in the range of 1-20mm as taught in Mizuno as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of success and as doing so amounts to nothing more than routine optimization of the dimensions based on design incentives.
In regard to Claim 12, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. While Shi et al. discloses the relationship of the first holes as being at least two arranged vertically in the width direction which is centered in the structure (Shi, Figure 1, Paragraph [16]) it fails to explicitly disclose a center distance of two symmetrical first through holes is C1, a length of the first wall is L, and then C1= (L - 10 mm, L - 60 mm).
Mizuno et al. discloses an insulating structure with through holes that is 28.9mm x 5.4mm with through holes of 2.6mm diameter which would yield a C1 =2.6mm≤C1<18.9mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide central spacing of the symmetrically distributed through holes disclosed in Shi et al. and provide the through holes spaced in the configuration taught in Mizuno as doing so would amount to nothing more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 217641710 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Shi" as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shao et al. (CN 218731178 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Shao". Shi et al. and Shao et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery assembly and components.
In regard to Claim 10, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. While Shi et al. discloses the relationship of the first holes as being at least two arranged vertically in the width direction which is centered in the structure (Shi, Figure 1, Paragraph [16]), it fails to explicitly disclose wherein in the second direction, the first through hole is located in a middle region of the insulating structure or the separation structure.
Shao et al. discloses an insulating structure for a battery comprising through holes arranged in the second direction, wherein the first through hole is located in a middle region of the insulating structure (Shao, Figure 1 (120)) which are arranged there to correspond to the alignment pins (location columns) (Shao, Paragraph [15]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide first holes in the middle region of the insulating or separating structure as doing so would be obvious to try for the skilled artisan when the alignment pins are also centered and as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of the placement of through holes for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to Claim 11, Shi et al. in view of Shao et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 10. Shi et al. discloses the relationship of the first holes as being at least two arranged vertically in the width direction which is centered in the structure, and thus discloses in the second direction, distances between the first through hole and side walls, on both sides, of the shell are equal (Shi, Figure 1, Paragraph [16]).
In regard to Claim 18, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. While Shi et al. discloses the separation structure and insulating structure having first and second through holes, Shi uses a plurality of through holes. Shao et al. discloses the use of only two holes in the separation structure and insulating structure to facilitate 2 location columns (pins) (Shao, Paragraph [45], Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide only two holes in each layer when only two pins are used for assembly as taught in Shao et al. as doing so would amount to nothing more than a variation of the amount of through holes for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 217641710 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Shi" as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shen et al. (CN 212461873 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Shen". Shi et al. and Shen et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery assembly and components.
In regard to Claims 14-15, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. While Shi et al. discloses the bottom support sheet (separation structure) comprises a plate body wherein the plate body comprises a first surface provided perpendicular to a thickness direction of the plate body and the first through hole is provided in the plate body in run- through manner along the thickness direction of the plate body (Shi, Paragraphs [2, 10]) however, it fails to explicitly disclose a support block.
Shen et al. discloses a preferred embodiment wherein a separation structure comprises a plurality of support blocks (lug boss) and the support blocks are each provided with a third through hole in the same shape and size along a thickness direction of the support block, the third through holes are provided correspondingly to the first through holes, and the third through holes are communicated with the first through holes (Shen, Figure 2 (17), Paragraphs [9-11]). Shen teaches the benefits of this configuration to improve the integration degree of the power battery system, simplify the production process and improve the efficiency (Shen, Paragraph [15]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a support block as taught in Shen et al. utilizing the through holes in the support block and corresponding separation structure as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Shen and as doing so would amount to nothing more than applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
In regard to Claim 16, Shi et al. in view of Shen et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 15. While Shi et al. discloses the separating structure it fails to explicitly disclose a support block. Shen et al. discloses a plurality of support blocks wherein the at least one lateral edge of the support block is provided flush with at least one lateral edge of the plate body (Shen, Figure 2 (17)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (CN 217641710 U - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Shi" as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Li et al. (WO2021223596A1 - Machine Translation), hereinafter "Li". Shi et al. and Li et al. are analogous prior art to the claimed invention because they pertain to the same field of endeavor, namely battery assembly and components.
In regard to Claim 17, Shi et al. discloses the battery cell according to claim 1. While Shi et al. describes spacing of the through holes it is silent as to their position in relation to a pressure relief structure. Li et al discloses a pressure relief structure in the first wall (Li, Paragraph [23]) and has the benefit of ensuring the safe use of the power battery, indirectly simplifying the structure of the battery cover, and reducing the production of the entire power battery cost (Li, Paragraphs [5-7]). Further the pressure relief is centered in a position that when applied to the first wall of Shi et al. it would by definition be configured wherein the first through hole and the pressure relief structure are provided in spaced manner in the length direction of the first wall (Li, Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide a pressure relief structure on the first wall as taught in Li et al. and spacing the holes accordingly as doing so would give the skilled artisan the reasonable expectation of achieving the benefits taught in Li et al. and as doing so would amount to nothing more than the use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to Claim 1, the limitation discussed in the arguments is that in particular, the cross-sectional area of the second through hole being greater than or equal to that of the first through hole provided correspondingly thereto. While the skilled artisans of Shi et al. contemplate varying the hole size between the first and second through holes for purposes of alignment they also disclose that it is known to provide through holes wherein the cross-sectional area of the second through hole is equal to that of the first through hole provided correspondingly thereto, which amounts to nothing more than a variation of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces, as the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH MAX OTERO whose telephone number is (571)272-2559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F Generally 7:30-430.
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, Nicole Buie-Hatcher can be reached at (571) 270-3879. 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.
/K.M.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/NICOLE M. BUIE-HATCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725