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 . The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
The objection to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 18 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 5-7 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite is withdrawn.
Claim 12 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.
The term “close” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” 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. Particularly, it is unclear how near the at least two side plates must be to the accommodating space in order to be considered “close” and thus within the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 merely recites the intended use for the battery of claim 14, upon which claim 19 depends. The sole purpose of a battery cell is to provide electrical power to a load. The explicit recitation of this well-known and only purpose of a battery cell fails to provide any further limitation to the claimed device. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 14, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2012/084247 A), hereinafter “Yoshihiro,” is withdrawn because Applicant amended claim 1 and canceled claims 8 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro in view of He et al. (US 2023/0411740 A1), is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro in view of Yong et al. (US 2023/0231247 A1) is withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 12-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshihiro discloses a battery cell case comprising:
at least two independently formed side plates, in this case the upper and lower lids (p. 3, Fig. 1, ref. nos. 12a & 12b), that are sequentially formed and connected along a circumferential direction of a case to form a hollow tubular structure, in this case the upper and lower surfaces are connected by the side surfaces (S18 & S19, p. 5, Fig. 1, ref. nos. 12ay, 12by, 12az, & 12bz);
wherein a first opening is formed at one end of the tubular structure, in this case the opening that is closed by the side surface portion (p. 5, Fig. 1, ref. no. 12d); and
the case further comprises a first end cover connected to the at least two side plates and that covers the first opening, in this case the side surface portion (p. 5, Fig. 1, ref. no. 12d).
Yoshihiro does not disclose that the first end cover’s thickness is greater than that of the at least two side plates. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have selected appropriate sizes, including thickness, for each of the battery case components in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning battery case. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the first end cover to be greater than that of the at least two side plates in order to have yielded the predictable result of a functioning battery case.
Regarding claim 3, Yoshihiro further discloses that the tubular structure is rectangular (see Fig. 1, ref. no. 12).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshihiro further discloses that the two adjacent side plates of the at least two side plates are welded in the circumferential direction of the case (S19, p. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshihiro further discloses that the at least two side plates each comprise:
a main body portion in this case the upper and lower surfaces (p. 3, Fig. 1, ref. nos. 12ax & 12bx), and two bending portions that are respectively connected to two ends of the main body portion along a first direction and are bent relative to the main body portion, in this case the pairs of side surfaces (pp. 3-4, Fig. 1, ref. nos. 12ay, 12az, 12by, & 12bz);
the main body portions of the two side plates are opposite to each other along a second direction (see Fig. 1, ref. nos. 12ax & 12bx); and
the two bending portions of one of the two side plates are respectively connected to the two bending portions of the other of the other of the two side plates (S19, p. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshihiro further discloses the first, second, and third directions that are perpendicular to each other (see annotated Fig. 1, below), but is silent as to the dimensions of the various components along those directions relative to each other. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have sized the battery case components appropriately to make it suitable for its purpose of safely containing a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made d1 ≥ 2xd2 in order to have yielded a suitable battery case.
Regarding claim 7, Yoshihiro is silent as to the dimensions of the main body portion. However, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood to have sized the battery case components appropriately to make it suitable for its purpose of safely containing a battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made 100 mm ≤ d1 ≤ 1,000 mm in order to have yielded a suitable battery case.
PNG
media_image1.png
730
912
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Yoshihiro further discloses that the first end cover is welded to the at least two side plates, in this case the side surface portion is joined to the upper and lower lids by laser welding (S19, p. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshihiro further discloses that a part of the first end cover is accommodated in an accommodating space enclosed by the tubular structure and an outer peripheral surface of the first end cover abuts against side surface of the at least two side plates, in this case the side surface portion is joined to the upper and lower lids by laser welding (S19, p. 6, Fig. 1, ref. nos. 12a, 12b, & 12d).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshihiro further discloses that the first end cover is completely accommodated in the accommodating space, in this case the side surface portion (see Fig. 5, ref. no. 12d) is welded to the upper and lower lids (S19, p. 6) resulting in the side surface portion being “completely accommodated.”
Regarding claim 14, Yoshihiro further discloses a battery cell (p. 3, Fig. 1, ref. no. 11).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshihiro discloses a battery cell comprising:
the case according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1, above);
wherein a second opening is formed at an end opposite to the one end, in this case the opening covered by the other side surface portion (p. 3, Fig. 1, ref. no. 12c);
a second end cover connected to the at least two side plates and covering the second opening, in this case the other side surface portion (p. 3, Fig. 1, ref. no. 12c);
an electrode assembly accommodated in the case, in this case the battery cell has a positive electrode layer, a negative electrode layer, and a solid electrolyte layer disposed between the positive and negative electrodes (p. 3, Fig. 1, ref. no. 11).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshihiro further discloses a plurality of battery cells (p. 12).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshihiro further discloses that the battery cell provides electrical energy, such as to electric and hybrid vehicles (p. 2).
The rejection of claims 2, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro in view of Wang et al. (US 2025/0158178 A1), hereinafter “Wang,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshihiro is silent as to the thicknesses t1 of the at least two side plates. However, Wang teaches a housing that has a side wall thickness corresponding to 0.2 mm ≤ t1 ≤ 0.6 mm (¶ [0041], Fig. 10). Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Lastly, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing side plates according to 0.1 mm ≤ t1 ≤ 0.3 mm would have provided enhanced housing strength and structural stability (¶ [0042]), thereby facilitating improved battery cell operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the at least two side plates to correspond to .1 mm ≤ t1 ≤ 0.3 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery cell operation and safety.
Regarding claim 11, Yoshihiro is silent as to the thickness t2 of the first end cover. However, Wang teaches a housing cover that has a thickness corresponding to 0.3 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 0.8 mm (¶ [0041], Fig. 3, ref. no. 31A). Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Lastly, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a first end cover with a thickness according to 0.4 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 1 mm would have provided enhanced housing strength and structural stability (¶ [0042]), thereby facilitating improved battery cell operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the first end cover to correspond to 0.4 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 1 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery cell operation and safety.
Regarding claim 16, Yoshihiro is silent as to the thickness of the second end cover. However, Wang teaches a housing cover that has a thickness corresponding to 0.3 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 0.8 mm (¶ [0041], Fig. 3, ref. no. 31A). Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. M.P.E.P. § 2144.05. Lastly, a claimed device is not patentably distinct from a prior art device where the only difference is a recitation of relative dimensions. See M.P.E.P. § 2144.04 IV. A. Here, one having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that providing a first end cover with a thickness according to 0.4 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 0.8 mm would have provided enhanced housing strength and structural stability (¶ [0042]), thereby facilitating improved battery cell operation and safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have made the thickness of the first end cover to correspond to 0.4 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 0.8 mm in order to have facilitated improved battery cell operation and safety.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro in view of Zhou et al. (CN 215988965 U, relying on US 2024/0079693 A1 for English translation), hereinafter “Zhou,” is maintained as set forth below.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshihiro does not disclose the pressure relief port and pressure relief mechanism. However, Zhou teaches a battery comprising:
a pressure relief port, in this case the pressure relief hole (¶ [0092], Fig. 7, ref. no. 8), surrounded by a stress relief groove, in this case the second concave portion (¶ [0106], Fig. 7, ref. no. 233); and
a pressure relief mechanism covering the pressure relief port, in this case the reinforcing mechanism (¶ [0092], Fig. 8, ref. no. 9).
One having ordinary skill in the art would have realized that providing such a pressure relief port and mechanism would have allowed pressure within the battery to be relieved when it exceeded safe levels (see e.g., Abstract), thereby facilitating improved battery safety. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have provided a pressure relief port and mechanism in order to have facilitated improved battery safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9, and 11-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J CHMIELECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5 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, 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.
/SCOTT J. CHMIELECKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights