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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10 are pending.
Claim 8 has been canceled.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed on November 5th, 2025 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of March 10th, 2025
The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of claim 8 are moot because claim 8 has been cancelled.
The 103 rejections of claims 1 and 6 over Sabrowsky (US 2020/0083497) in view of Takashi (JP 2005-353512) are maintained.
The 103 rejections of claims 3-5 and 7 over Sabrowsky and Takashi and further in view of Zhu are maintained.
The 103 rejection of claim 10 over Sabrowsky and Takashi and further in view of Kaun (US 2003/0013007 A1) are maintained.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 contains limitations that contain the phrase “in a plan view”. In this Office Action, the “plan view” will be the view taken of the battery from the up/down direction. See the example below using Fig. 5 of the instant application:
PNG
media_image1.png
506
651
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 contains a limitation wherein “the exposed portion exposed at the distal end has a flat surface together with the distal end.” Through its dependence on claim 6, it implicitly contains the limitation of “wherein the exposed portion is expanded downward from the distal end and includes a bent portion that is bent to cover a horizontal portion of a bottom surface of the distal end”. It is not immediately clear how the present application contains an embodiment where the exposed portion can bend around and cover the distal end while simultaneously sharing a flat surface with the distal end. Figure 5 shows this well. The shaded element 31 and 31a represents the exposed portion of the gasket and it surrounds the white element that is the distal end. As seen in the annotated figure below (a cutout from Fig. 5), the exposed portion shares flat surfaces with the distal end while it simultaneously covers the distal end.
PNG
media_image2.png
192
266
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabrowsky (US 2020/0083497 A1) and further in view of Takashi (JP 2005353512 A). Sabrowsky’s original drawings involve the distal end and the exposed portion at the top of the battery, but rotating the figures 180 degrees shows that Sabrowsky’s disclosure in view of Takashi reads on the applicant’s claimed invention. This Office Action will show the figures in their original state, for the sake of ease in reading the figures’ numbers that correspond to different parts of Sabrowsky’s and Takashi’s disclosures. Additionally, since Sabrowsky’s disclosure treats his “upper can” and “lower can” according to his figures’ original orientations, their orientations are effectively flipped in this Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Sabrowsky teaches a button-type secondary battery (10, Fig. 1, [0031]), that has a lower can (104, Fig.1) having a first sidewall (104, Fig. 1) in a vertical direction along a circumference of a first flat portion (enclosed in the rectangle in Fig. 1. Sabrowsky continues to teach an upper can (102) having a second sidewall in the vertical direction along a circumference of a second flat portion (enclosed by the oval in Fig. 1). Sabrowsky continues to teach an electrode assembly, mounted in an inner space between the upper and lower can, in which a negative electrode, separator, and positive electrode are layered and wound [0030]. Sabrowsky teaches that the negative electrode may be connected to the lower can, and the positive electrode may be connected to a tab that is connected to the upper can ([0030], [0034]).
Sabrowsky continues to teach a gasket (an insulating piece, 200, 202, and 204 in Fig. 1) between the first and second sidewalls to prevent the upper and lower cans from contacting each other [0045]. Sabrowsky continues to teach a second sidewall that comprises a distal end that is bent to surround an edge configured to connect the first flat portion to the first side wall (Fig. 1). Sabrowsky continues to teach a gasket/insulating piece that extends to be disposed between the distal end and the first flat portion (200, Fig. 1). Sabrowsky continues to teach an exposed portion (see Fig. 1 below) that protrudes to the outside through the distal end that is disposed on the end of the gasket, wherein the exposed portion is below the first flat portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
672
901
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sabrowsky, however, does not teach a gasket with an exposed portion that protrudes to the outside of the distal end and is bent to cover a portion of the bottom surface of the distal end. Takashi teaches that the gasket comprises a flange wall (26) that is bent around a side wall and “serves as a cover portion” that covers a portion of the “peripheral side wall (12)…and prevents a short circuit between the open upper end portion 12a and the negative electrode terminal 30 (page 4, fifth paragraph). See Takashi’s Fig. 1 below:
PNG
media_image4.png
326
339
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Based on Takashi’s teaching, it would be an obvious modification to extend the gasket of Sabrowsky’s disclosure such that it covers the sidewall to prevent a short circuit. The newly amended claim limitation of where “a bent portion” is bent to cover the horizontal portion of the bottom surface of the distal end requires that the gasket wrap further around the distal end of modified Sabrowsky. Takashi’s motivation of covering the sidewall in order to prevent a short circuit also serves as a motivation to further extend the gasket around the sidewall such that there is a bent portion that covers the bottom surface of the distal end. See the annotated figure below that depicts both the location of the bent portion (the extension of the gasket) as well as how the bent portion, first flat portion, and second flat portion are all overlapping vertically in a plan view.
PNG
media_image5.png
556
900
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Sabrowsky’s battery by extending the gasket’s exposed portion, also creating a bent portion, to cover both the top and bottom sides of the distal end to prevent a short circuit.
Regarding claim 6, as seen in the annotated figure below, the exposed portion shares a flat surface with the distal end.
PNG
media_image6.png
326
339
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabrowsky and Takashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu (CN 106129274 A).
Regarding claim 3, modified Sabrowsky teaches a sidewall with a body portion, but is silent on an expansion portion. Zhu is analogous art because both Zhu and modified Sabrowsky teach batteries. Zhu teaches a part of a sidewall that has a greater diameter than is larger than another part of the sidewall (Fig. 2) that would correspond to Sabrowsky’s body portion. This wider diameter would allow for greater ease of inserting one can into the other [00036]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add the expansion portion to modified Sabrowsky’s battery to make it easier to assemble.
PNG
media_image7.png
259
622
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, modified Sabrowsky is silent on an inclined portion, but Zhu teaches an inclined portion having an inclined cross-sectional shape that results in a gradually increasing diameter (9, Fig. 2). Zhu continues to teach that this protrusion in the side wall “enables the upper cover to better cooperate with the lower cover” [00019], when inserting the upper can into the lower can to form the enclosure in which the electrodes are housed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings of Sabrowsky and Zhu to create a battery with an inclined portion in the side walls so that it would be easier to insert the upper can into the lower can.
PNG
media_image8.png
247
525
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Sabrowsky teaches a curved connection point between the expansion portion and the distal end as seen in the figure below.
PNG
media_image9.png
665
902
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Sabrowsky teaches a protrusion that is the same height as the distal end disposed on the first flat portion. See annotated figure below.
PNG
media_image10.png
665
902
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabrowsky and Takashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaun (US 2003/0013007 A1). Modified Sabrowsky teaches a single battery, but is silent on the possibility of connecting multiple batteries together. Kaun is analogous art to Sabrowsky and Takashi because all teach batteries. Kaun teaches that batteries “can be coupled together electronically in parallel or in series” [0031]. Kaun also teaches a need for an increased energy capacity [0023]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings of modified Sabrowsky and Kaun to electrically connect multiple button-type secondary batteries to achieve an increased energy capacity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 5th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the gasket of Takashi is not bent to cover a horizontal portion of the bottom surface of a distal end. However, as demonstrated in the rejection above, Takashi’s motivation to use the gasket to protect/insulate the sidewall provides a motivation to further extend the gasket around the sidewall as claimed.
Furthermore, the rejection set forth in this application displays how the gasket does overlap the horizontal portion of the distal end, the first flat portion, and the second flat portion as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/RYAN K. BLACKWELL-RUDASILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722