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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I: claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, 15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, and 15 are objected to because of the lack of consistency of the phrasing of side plates such as “at least two side plates,” “two side plates,” “the side plates,” “each other side plates,” “the side plate,” “the other side plate,” and “two adjacent side plates” throughout the claim set (claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12, and 15). The examiner recommends choosing one phrasing as much as possible and if the singular form is needed to be precise for clarity.
Line 1 of claim 18 recites “a plurality of the battery cell,” however this is not grammatically correct, the examiner recommends amending the claim to read “a plurality of battery cells each comprising the battery cell”. 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 5-7 and 15-17 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the side plates" in line 2, line 5, line 7, and line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is currently worded so that “the side plates” may be referring to “two side plates” in line 1 of claim 4 or “at least two side plates” of line 1 of claim 1. Currently the claim may even be interpreted so that “at least two side plates” of line 1 of claim 1 and “two side plates” of line 1 of claim 4 are not necessarily the same structure. The examiner recommends amending “two side plates” to “the at least two side plates comprise two side plates” and “each of the side plates” to “each of the two side plates” or something similar.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the other end" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recommends amending the claim to read “an end opposite the one end.”
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-10, 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2012/084247 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshihiro et al. teaches a battery cell case (see e.g. battery cell container 12 in Para. 18 and Fig. 1), comprising at least two side plates (see e.g. lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b in Para. 19 and Fig. 1), wherein each of the side plates is formed independently (see e.g. lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b are independently formed and separate in Fig. 1), and the at least two side plates are sequentially arranged and connected along a circumferential direction of the case to enclose a hollow tubular structure (see e.g. lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b, as seen in Fig. 1, when connected to form the container as noted in Para. 18 and shown in Fig. 2-3, would connect around the battery along an outer circumference of the case and form a tubular structure that fits the battery 10).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 1, wherein the tubular structure is a rectangular tubular structure or a cylindrical tubular structure (see e.g. lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b in Fig. 1 will connect, as noted in Para. 18-19, to form a rectangular tubular structure of which the battery 10 resides).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 1, wherein two adjacent side plates are welded in the circumferential direction of the case (see e.g. the side surface 12ay of the lower lid 12a and the side surface 12by of the upper lid 12b are joined by laser welding, and the side surface 12az of the lower lid 12a and the side surface 12bz of the upper lid 12b are joined in Para. 33 and shown in Fig. 1. These welds are formed along an outer circumference of the case).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 1, wherein the case comprises two side plates (see e.g. lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b in Para. 19 and Fig. 1);
each of the side plates comprises a main body portion and two bending portions (The lower lid 12a comprises lower surface 12ax and a pair of side surfaces 12ay and 12az manufactured by bending the lower lid 12a in Para. 21. The upper lid 12b comprises upper surface 12bx and a pair of side surfaces 12by and 12bz manufactured by bending the upper lid 12b in Para. 21) the two bending portions are respectively connected to two ends of the main body portion along a first direction and are bent relative to the main body portion (see e.g. Annotated Fig. A in which the bending portions are connected to the sides of the respective lower surface 12ax and upper surfaces 12bx and bent relative to it along a first direction);
the main body portions of the two side plates are opposite to each other along a second direction (see e.g. Annotated Fig. A of the lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b opposite each other vertically along the second direction), and the first direction intersects with the second direction (see e.g. Annotated Fig. A of the first and second direction in intersecting directions); and
the two bending portions of one of the side plates are respectively connected to the two bending portions of the other side plate (see e.g. the side surface 12ay of the lower lid 12a and the side surface 12by of the upper lid 12b are joined by laser welding, and the side surface 12az of the lower lid 12a and the side surface 12bz of the upper lid 12b are joined in Para. 33 and shown in Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
847
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A. Annotated Fig. A of Fig. 1 of Yoshihiro et al.
Regarding claim 8, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 1, wherein a first opening is formed at one end of the tubular structure (see e.g. annotation of Annotated Fig. A of the first opening formed when the upper lid 12b and lower lid 12a connect to form the tubular structure part of the container); and
the case further comprises a first end cover (see e.g. side surface 12c in Para. 18 and Fig. 1), and the first end cover is connected to the at least two side plates and covers the first opening (see e.g. the side surface portion 12c is joined by laser welding with the lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b in Para. 33 and the result based on Fig. 1 and hermetic sealing noted in Para. 33 would be that the side surface 12c covers the opening formed between the lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 8, wherein the first end cover is welded to the at least two side plates (see e.g. the side surface portion 12c is joined by laser welding with the lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b in Para. 33).
Regarding claim 10, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 8, wherein a thickness of the first end cover is greater than a thickness of the side plates (see e.g. the thickness of the side surface of a container can be made thicker than the thickness of the upper surface and lower surface of a container in Para. 13. The side surface as noted later in Para. 18 include side surface 12c which maps to the first end cover. The upper lid 12a and lower lid 12b in Para. 19 maps to the side plates).
Regarding claim 14, Yoshihiro et al. teaches a battery cell (see e.g. the battery 10 includes a battery cell 11 in Para. 19), comprising the case according to claim 1 (see e.g. the battery container 12 in Para. 18-19, Fig. 1, and the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshihiro et al. teaches a battery cell (see e.g. the battery 10 includes a battery cell 11 in Para. 19), comprising:
the case according to claim 8 (see e.g. the battery container 12 in Para. 18-19, Fig. 1, and the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein a second opening is formed at the other end of the tubular structure (see e.g. annotation of Annotated Fig. A of the second opening opposite the first opening formed when the upper lid 12b and lower lid 12a connect to form the tubular structure part of the container); and
a second end cover connected to the at least two side plates and covering the second opening (see e.g. the side surface portion 12d is joined by laser welding with the lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b in Para. 33 and the result based on Fig. 1 and hermetic sealing noted in Para. 33 would be that the side surface 12d covers the opening formed between the lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b); and
an electrode assembly accommodated in the case (see e.g. the battery cell 11 comprises multiple electrode layers in Para. 20 of which the battery cell resides within the container in Para. 18 and Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 18, Yoshihiro et al. teaches a battery (see e.g. battery 10 in Para. 18), comprising a plurality of the battery cell according to claim 14 (see e.g. the battery comprises a battery cell 11 in Para. 18 of which there may be a plurality of accommodated in the container in Para. 64. See the battery cell 11 in Para. 18-19, Fig. 1, and the rejection of claim 14 above).
Regarding claim 19, Yoshihiro et al. teaches an electrical apparatus (see e.g. electric vehicle in Para. 66), comprising the battery cell according to claim 14 (see e.g. the battery cell 11 in Para. 18-19, Fig. 1, and the rejection of claim 14 above), wherein the battery cell is for providing electrical energy (see e.g. the battery cell functions to provide electrical energy as discussed in Para. 2 and 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2012/084247 A) as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 5, wherein a dimension of the main body portion in the first direction is d1, a dimension of the bending portion in a third direction is d2, d1 ≥ 2 * d2, and any two of the first direction, the second direction, and the third direction are perpendicular to each other (see e.g. Annotated Fig. B where d1 appears at least twice the size of d2 and the first direction and second directions are perpendicular to each other).
PNG
media_image2.png
730
912
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B. Annotated Fig. B of Fig. 1 of Yoshihiro et al.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2012/084247 A) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of He et al. (US 2023/0411740 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 6.
Yoshihiro fails to explicitly teach wherein d1 satisfies the following relationship: 100 mm ≤ d1 ≤ 1000 mm.
However, He et al. teaches in the abstract, Para. 43, and Fig. 1-3, a height b of the case body for a battery may be in the range of 50 mm to 200 mm which will be suitable for most types of batteries and that the sizing may be flexibly determined according to the demands of the battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the battery case of Yoshiro et al. that maps to D1 to be in the range of 50 mm to 200 mm, as taught by He et al., in order to meet the demands of the battery and because it is considered a typical battery size. This overlaps the claimed range in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05). Additionally, the examiner notes changes to size and shape of the prior art, particularly the dimensions, is an obvious modification absent evidence to the contrary (See MPEP 2144.04 Part IV A).
Claims 2, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2012/084247 A) as applied to claims 1, 10, and 15 respectively above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2025/0158178 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 1,
Yoshihiro et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness t1 of the side plates satisfies the following relationship: 0.1 mm ≤ t1 ≤ 0.3 mm.
However, Wang et al. teaches housing 10 has a thickness t1 greater than or equal to 0.2 mm and less than or equal to 0.6 mm in Para. 41 and Fig. 10. Wang et al. teaches that when the thickness of the cover plate 31 is greater than the thickness of the housing 10, it enhances strength and structural stability of the cover plate and avoids fractures of the welding points between the housing and cover plate in Para. 42.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the side plate or upper lid and lower lid of Yoshihiro et al. to have a thickness between 0.2 and 0.6 mm, as taught by Wang et al., in order to improve strength and structural stability of the cover plate and avoid welding point fractures as noted in Para. 42 of Wang et al..
0.2 ≤ t1 ≤ 0.6 overlaps the claimed range 0.1 mm ≤ t1 ≤ 0.3 mm in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 10.
Yoshihiro et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness t2 of the first end cover satisfies the following relationship: 0.4 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 1 mm.
However, Wang et al. teaches the cover plate main body 31A has a thickness t2 greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 0.8 mm in Para. 41 and Fig. 3 of position A of Fig. 1. Wang et al. teaches that when the thickness of the cover plate 31 is greater than the thickness of the housing 10, it enhances strength and structural stability of the cover plate and avoids fractures of the welding points between the housing and cover plate in Para. 42.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first end cover or side surface 12c of Yoshihiro et al. to have a thickness between 0.3 and 0.8 mm, as taught by Wang et al., in order to improve strength and structural stability of the cover plate and avoid welding point fractures as noted in Para. 42 of Wang et al..
0.3 ≤ t2 ≤ 0.8 overlaps the claimed range 0.4 mm ≤ t2 ≤ 1 mm in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the battery cell according to claim 15.
Yoshihiro et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein a thickness t3 of the second end cover satisfies the following relationship: 0.4 mm ≤ t3 ≤ 0.8 mm.
However, Wang et al. teaches the cover plate main body 31A has a thickness t2 greater than or equal to 0.3 mm and less than or equal to 0.8 mm in Para. 41 and Fig. 10 of position C of Fig. 1. Wang et al. teaches that when the thickness of the cover plate 31 is greater than the thickness of the housing 10, it enhances strength and structural stability of the cover plate and avoids fractures of the welding points between the housing and cover plate in Para. 42.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second end cover or side surface 12d of Yoshihiro et al. to have a thickness between 0.3 and 0.8 mm, as taught by Wang et al., in order to improve strength and structural stability of the cover plate and avoid welding point fractures as noted in Para. 42 of Wang et al..
0.3 ≤ t2 ≤ 0.8 overlaps the claimed range 0.4 mm ≤ t3 ≤ 0.8 mm in a manner which provides a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2012/084247 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yong et al. (US 2023/0231247 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the case according to claim 8, wherein at least part of the first end cover is accommodated in an accommodating space enclosed by the tubular structure (see e.g. Fig. 1-5 where the side surface 12c as noted in Fig. 1 cannot be seen when the battery 10 is constructed in Figs. 2 and 3. Fig. 2 shows from a top-down viewpoint that only 12b can be seen. Thus, one would reasonably expect that the side surface 12c to be accommodated within an accommodating space formed by the tubular structure of lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b).
Yoshihiro et al. fails to explicitly teach an outer peripheral surface of the first end cover abuts against side surfaces of the side plates close to the accommodating space.
However, Yong et al. teaches a battery case in Para. 54, the abstract, and Fig. 1 where a cover part 2360 has a width corresponding to the side parts 2340a and 2340b of the battery case or can and is coupled between the pair of sides parts such that it extends and comes into contact with inner surfaces of the pair of sides parts, achieving secure sealing and is then welded in Para. 56-57 and Fig. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the side surface 12c of Yoshihiro et al. to extend and come into contact with the inner surfaces of the lower lid and the upper lid of the battery case of Yoshihiro et al. before being welded, as taught by Yong et al., in order to achieve secure sealing as noted in Para. 56 of Yong et al..
Regarding claim 13, Yoshihiro et al. in view of Yong et al. teaches the case according to claim 12, wherein the first end cover is completely accommodated in the accommodating space (see e.g. Fig. 1-5 where the side surface 12c as noted in Fig. 1 cannot be seen when the battery 10 is constructed in Figs. 2 and 3. Fig. 2 shows from a top-down viewpoint that only 12b can be seen. Thus, one would reasonably expect that the side surface 12c to be fully accommodated within an accommodating space formed by the tubular structure of lower lid 12a and upper lid 12b).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihiro et al. (JP 2012/084247 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhou et al. (CN 215988965 U). US 2024/0079693 is being used as a translation.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshihiro et al. teaches the battery cell according to claim 15.
Yoshihiro et al. teaches holes 15 of the side surface portion 12d are through which terminals 13 and 14 are passed and formed in the side surface portion 12d in Para. 23 and Fig. 1-4.
Yoshihiro et al. fails to explicitly teach wherein the second end cover is provided with a pressure relief port and a stress relief groove surrounding the pressure relief port; and the battery cell further comprises a pressure relief mechanism, and the pressure relief mechanism is installed on the second end cover and covers the pressure relief port.
However, Zhou et al. teaches a pressure relief mechanism 8 on an end cover 23 of a battery cell that covers the pressure relief through hole 221a as noted in the abstract, Para. 94-95, and Fig. 7-8. A second concave portion 233 surrounds the pressure relief through hole 221a, and acts to support the reinforcing mechanism 9 in Fig. 7-8 and Para. 106. One can note the feature resides between the electrode terminals 221 in Fig. 4 and Para. 90. The pressure relief mechanism 8, reinforcing mechanism 9 and end cover 23 design ensures safety of the battery cell in case of thermal runaway and reduces the risk of premature actuation, and strengthens the end cover 23 in Para. 98-99.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the side surface 12d of Yoshihiro et al., a cover that comprises terminals, to include the pressure relief mechanism, reinforcing mechanism and related cover design, as taught by Zhou et al., to ensure safety of the battery cell in case of thermal runaway and reduces the risk of premature actuation, and strengthen the end cover as noted in Para. 98-99 of Zhou et al..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0335739 A1 teaches folding battery case
US 20230327263 A1 teaches U-shaped battery shell
US 20180183033 A1 teaches bending plates that bend along the x-axis
JP 2014059954 A teaches bending portions that form a case
CN 208797071 A teaches U-shaped casing. This was cited in the IDS filed 9/16/2025.
CN 213546479 U teaches U-shaped casing
CN 105470413 A teaches two bent casing halves that come together with a lid to form the housing. This was cited in the IDS filed 9/16/2025.
CN 214227061 U teaches U-shaped casing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE J METZGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (1st week) or Monday - Friday (2nd week) 7:30am-5:00am - 9-day biweekly schedule.
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, Tong Guo can be reached at 571-272-3066. 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.
/KATHERINE J METZGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1723
/TONG GUO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723