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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the instant application has specific differences from the cited references as follows:
Kanetani teaches the groove minimum diameter portion 13 is formed above the reduced diameter end portion 12 having a tapered shape and a step is formed on the side circumferential surface of the body part below the groove minimum diameter portion 13 (Remarks pp. 7).
Kanetani teaches that in order to obtain improve airtightness and the like without performing the diameter reduction process after the sealing process the diameter immediately below the groove portion is not larger than the outer diameter of the body of the outer can while in the claimed invention the diameter of the portion immediately below the groove portion is the same as the diameter of the main body of the can, i.e. there is no step on the side circumferential surface of the body part (Remarks pp. 6-7)
In response to argument a-b, the arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Claim 1 does not require that the exterior housing can has no step on the side circumferential surface. Claim 1 merely requires “a groove formation step of subjecting a diameter reduction portion having a tapered shape to groove formation processing to form a grooved part after the insulating plate insertion step”. Further, this limitation is met by Enomoto in view of Kanetani and Liu. Specifically, Kanetani teaches that the outer can is reduced in diameter by inserting it into a tapered cylindrical mold up to the portion not housing the electrode group ([0017]). Kanetani teaches a groove roller of a specified shape is pressed against the reduced diameter portion of the outer can ([0018]). Kanetani further teaches that a groove-making roller is pressed against the upper insulting plate 10 at the portion where the diameter has been reduced to make a groove ([0027]). Kanetani teaches that the symbol 12 is the “reduced diameter end portion” ([0026]; emphasis added). In Kanetani Figures Fig. 3-4 annotated below, the diameter reduction portion is considered to be the portion of the can circled, having a length E. This diameter reduction portion, which is subjected to a groove formation step, has a tapered area shown with a square.
PNG
media_image1.png
756
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enomoto et. al. (US 20030035993 A1) hereinafter "Enomoto" in view of Kanetani et al. (JP 2007066835 A) hereinafter "Kanetani" in further view of Liu et al. (US 20190296270 A1) hereinafter "Liu". Documents cited on the IDS filed on 06/14/2022 and 02/12/2024. Reference is made to previously provided translation.
Regarding claim 1, Enomoto teaches a method of manufacturing a cylindrical battery, the cylindrical battery comprising: an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode and a negative electrode are wound with a separator interposed therebetween ([0018]; [0011] “cylindrical battery case”, “an electrode body”, “positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator”); an insulating gasket (abstract; [0013]; [0020] “elastic body is preferably made of any of ethylene propylene rubber, polyethylene, polypropylene and fluororesin”); an electrolyte ([0011]); a bottomed cylindrical exterior housing can that houses the electrode assembly and the electrolyte ([0011]; [0014] “caps at both ends”, the bottom cap forms the bottom of the housing); and a sealing assembly that is fixed to an opening end of the exterior housing can by caulking (par. [0015] “caulked portions to execute sealing”), wherein the opening end that houses the sealing assembly has an outer diameter which is 91% to 95% of the outer diameter of the body part (Tables 2 and 3 Examples 7-8 & 11-12; [0011]; [0016]; [0012])1, the method comprising: an electrode assembly insertion step of inserting the electrode assembly into the exterior housing can ([0018]). Enomoto teaches wherein a diameter of the body portion is 50mm ([0016] “a difference between Rbody(mm) and Rtop(mm), ΔR preferably fulfills relationship of ΔR ≤5mm and the Rbody and the ΔR preferably fulfill relationship of ΔR/ Rbody x 100 ≤ 10%”).
Enomoto does not teach wherein an outer diameter of a body part of the exterior housing can that houses the electrode assembly is 20 mm or more and 21mm or less, and where the method comprises a diameter reduction step of reducing the outer diameter of the opening end after the electrode assembly insertion step; and an insulating plate insertion step of inserting an insulating plate into the exterior housing can, and arranged on the electrode assembly, after the diameter reduction step; and a groove formation step of subjecting a diameter reduction portion having a tapered shape to groove formation processing to form a grooved part after the insulating plate insertion step.
However, Kanetani teaches a method of forming a cylindrical battery ([0022]) wherein the battery comprises a positive electrode and a negative electrode wound with a separator interposed therebetween; an insulating plate on the electrode assembly; an electrolyte; and a sealing plate ([0023]). Kanetani further teaches wherein the method comprises an electrode assembly insertion step of inserting the electrode assembly into the exterior housing can; a diameter reduction step of reducing the outer diameter of the opening end after the electrode assembly insertion step ([0017]-[0022]); and an insulating plate insertion step of inserting the insulating plate into the exterior housing can after the diameter reduction step ([0026]-[0027]; [0022]-[0026]); and a groove formation step of subjecting a diameter reduction portion having a tapered shape to groove formation processing to form a grooved part after the insulating plate insertion step (Fig. 3-4 annotated below; the diameter reduction portion is considered to be the portion of the can circled, having a length E; [0017]-[0018]; [0026]-[0027]). Kanetani teaches that in a cylindrical battery obtained by the method described an outer diameter of the body of the exterior can is the maximum outer diameter and the volumetric efficiency of the electrode group is improved ([0031]). Kanetani further teaches there is no need to perform processing to reduce the outer diameter of the sealing portion, good sealability is maintained and the safety mechanism is not impaired ([0031]). Kanetani teaches that the manufacturing method taught produces a cylindrical battery with excellent dimensional stability ([0031]). Kanetani teaches where an outer diameter of the can has a diameter of 18mm ([0024]).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
516
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method taught by Enomoto by including a diameter reduction step of reducing the outer diameter of the opening end after the electrode assembly insertion step; an insulating plate insertion step of inserting an insulating plate into the exterior housing can, and arranged on the electrode assembly, after the diameter reduction step and a groove formation step to form a grooved part after the insulating plate insertion step as taught by Kanetani.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the method taught by Enomoto by including a diameter reduction step of reducing the outer diameter of the opening end after the electrode assembly insertion step; an insulating plate insertion step of inserting an insulating plate into the exterior housing can, and arranged on the electrode assembly, after the diameter reduction step and a groove formation step to form a grooved part after the insulating plate insertion step as taught by Kanetani to improve volumetric efficiency, reduce the need to additional processing, improve sealability, and maintain safety component integrity ([0031]).
Enomoto in view of Kanetani does not teach wherein an outer diameter of a body part of the exterior housing can that houses the electrode assembly is 20 mm or more and 21 mm or less.
However, Liu teaches a method of making a cylindrical battery comprising providing a housing having an open end and a closed end where an open end includes an uneven rim pattern, providing a gasket in the open end, and performing a crimping operation to define a neck region of the housing and engage the gasket ([0004]; [0027]). Liu teaches wherein the cylindrical battery has a diameter between 19 mm and 23 mm ([0023]; [0025]). Fig. 1 and 9 of Liu depict a battery wherein the head portion has a smaller diameter than the body (Fig. 1 and 9).
Enomoto, Kanetani, and Liu all teach varying cylindrical battery sizes wherein the outer diameter of an opening end or head portion is smaller than a body portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the battery taught by Enomoto in view of Kanetani by setting the diameter of the body portion to 19 mm and 23 mm as taught by Liu.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the battery taught by Enomoto in view of Kanetani by setting the diameter of the body portion to 19 mm and 23 mm as taught by Liu with a reasonable expectation of success since varying sizes of cylindrical batteries are known in the art. Modification in battery size are within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) (See MPEP 2144.04).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the diameter of the body portion within the range taught by Liu to reach the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP §2144.05).
While Enomoto in view of Kanetani and Liu does not explicitly discuss the relative dimensions of the insulating plate, as pointed out in the Arguments presented 09/12/2025, Fig. 4 of relied upon Kanetani shows an insulating plate having an outer diameter that is the same as the outer diameter of the opening end of the exterior housing can (Fig. 4 Kanetani; Arguments p. 7). The examiner notes that claim 1 does not provide any values for the “larger than” limitation, such that a portion a nanometer larger would satisfy the claims such that manufacturing tolerances would be included in the recited limitation. Therefore, the structure taught by Enomoto in view of Kanetani and Liu meets the limitation of claim 1.
Further, in Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FELICITY B. ALBAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-6:30.
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, Matthew Martin can be reached at 571-270-7871. 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.
/F.B.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/MATTHEW T MARTIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1728
1 Example 11 from Table 3: ΔR=Rbody-Rtop=2.5 and ΔR/Rbody=5%=0.05. Given these equations, calculations show Rtop=45 and Rbody = 47.5. Therefore Rtop is 95% of Rbody.
Prosecution Insights