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, 10, and 11 are pending.
Claims 2, 8, and 9 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claim 11 has been added.
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed on June 23rd, 2026, has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action April 7th, 2026
The 103 rejection of claims 1 and 6 over Sabrowsky (US 2020/0083497) in view of Takashi (JP 2005-353512) is maintained, albeit modified in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejection of claims 3-5 and 7 over Sabrowsky and Takashi and further in view of Zhu is maintained, albeit modified in view of the Applicant's amendment.
The 103 rejection of claim 10 over Sabrowsky and Takashi and further in view of Kaun (US 2003/0013007 A1) is maintained, albeit modified in view of the Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 23rd, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the gasket of Sabrowsky, modified by Takashi, does not disclose or render obvious an arrangement of where the claimed gasket expands downward from a distal end of an upper can, where the gasket is bent to cover a horizontal portion of the surface of the distal end, or in a way where the gasket overlaps said horizontal portion, first flat portion, and second flat portion in a plan view. Firstly, slightly modifying the shape of the gasket such that it covers all of these portions of the battery is patentably indistinct design choice that depends on the exact orientation of the battery. Alternatively, increasing the size of the gasket such that it covers more aspects of the battery may further protect the battery from short circuiting. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the arrow in the annotated figure below, all three portions do overlap in a plan view.
PNG
media_image1.png
694
942
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Applicant also states that Takashi does not disclose the distal end having a “horizontal portion”. Generally speaking, the distal end has a portion that is substantially close to horizontal and one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize a significant structural difference between the prior art and the claimed limitations. They would recognize that bending the distal end ever so slightly such that it is noticeably horizontal is an obvious modification that amounts to a design choice.
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.
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 1, 3-5, 7, and 10 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 1 recites the limitation "the flat portion" in lines 25 and 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of this Office Action, the ”flat portion” will be interpreted as the previously recited first flat portion or the second flat portion. Claims 3-5, 7, and 10 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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, 6, and 11 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_image2.png
672
901
media_image2.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_image3.png
326
339
media_image3.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_image4.png
556
900
media_image4.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.
Sabrowsky continues to disclose a protrusion that protrudes downward relative to the first flat portion. See the annotated figure below:
PNG
media_image5.png
694
942
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sabrowsky does not explicitly disclose that the bent portion is lower than the bottom surface of the distal end of the second sidewall and lower that the protrusion of the lower can, but this would be an obvious design choice/modification of modified Sabrowsky. Increasing the size of the bent portion (whether length or thickness) to accommodate a specific battery design would result in the bent portion being lower than both of those previously recited elements. Alternatively, increasing the size of the gasket will help to further protect the battery from a short circuit. 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 increase the size of the bent portion of the gasket such that it is lower than both the bottom surface of the distal end of the second sidewall of the upper can and lower than the protrusion of the lower can.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, 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_image2.png
672
901
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sabrowsky continues to teach a downward protrusion that is below the first flat portion. See the figure below:
PNG
media_image6.png
694
942
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Sabrowsky also does not teach an exposed portion that is expanded such that the end of the second side wall, the exposed portion of the gasket, and the downward protrusion define a continuous flat surface. 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). Therefore, increasing the size of the gasket (whether through increasing its thickness or extending its length) serves to protect the battery from short circuiting. In this case, designing the exact shape and size of the gasket such that it creates a continuous surface with other portions of the battery is an obvious design choice. 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 increase the size of the exposed portion of the gasket such that it forms a continuous surface with the distal end of the second sidewall and the protrusion of the lower can. Similarly, designing the protrusion such that it has the same height as an outer surface of the distal end of the gasket and a bottom surface of the distal end of the second sidewall (as required by claim 11) is an analogous design choice that affects the gasket’s size to better protect the battery. Therefore, increasing the size of the protrusion such that it has the same heigh as an outer surface of the distal end of the gasket and a bottom surface of the distal end of the second sidewall while maintaining the continuous flat surface of the gasket and the other battery portions is an obvious design modification that has the goal of preventing a short circuit.
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.
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
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights