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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending;
Claims 3, 5, and 8-20 are withdrawn;
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are amended.
Status of Rejections and Objections Pending Since the Office Action of 10/20/2025
The claim objections of claims 1 and 4 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 112(b) rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment;
The 102(a)(1) and 103 art rejections of claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regards to the argument that the outer sleeve of Zhang would be unable to contract due to the disclosure of “an outer sleeve [to be] a plastic sleeve” in Zhang, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be led to use an elastic material, the examiner respectfully disagrees. While Zhang does disclose an outer sleeve of a plastic material, Zhang also explicitly discloses an outer sleeve of an elastic material ([0008]; [0029]). In contrast, Zhang does not disclose plastic deformation of the outer sleeve. Given the disclosure of elasticity, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the expansion of the outer sleeve would not reach the elasticity limit/yield point to reach plastic deformation by Zhang’s explicit disclosure of an elastic material.
In regards to the argument concerning the expander of Zhang being unable to be removed due to being uniform in shape, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Remarks state that the “nature of the wedged shaped expander allows the expander to be inserted and removed in the mandrel.” In addition, the claims as filed 12/18/2025 disclose that the wedge shaped expander is inclusive of a conical shaped shim. Zhang discloses that the steel pipe, interpreted as the expander, includes one or two conical shaped ends (Zhang [0033]) . As such, the expander of Zhang is not uniform in shape.
In regards to the argument Zhang not teaching a mechanism for removal of the expander, and therefore someone of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to remove the expander without another mechanism, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “the cylindrical mandrel is configured to expand and contract through insertion of retraction of the a wedge shaped expander…” is considered a functional limitation. With the disclosure that the outer sleeve, interpreted as the mandrel, is elastic ([0008]; [0029]), the mandrel would inherently be able to contract upon the removal of the steel pipe interpreted as the expander. Further, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that the expander could be removed such as when the battery is not in operation, in a similar manner to the originally filed disclosure of the instant application that discloses that the cell diagnostic, wherein the compression of the cell is increased or decreased (instant specification [0014]; [0036]) is completed while the battery is not in use (instant specification [0036]).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the limitation “the a wedge shaped expander” in line 10 that should be corrected to “the wedge shaped expander” or similar;
Claim 2 includes the limitation “the a wedge shaped expander” in line 3 that should be corrected to “the wedge shaped expander” or similar;
Claim 4 includes the limitation “the a wedge shaped expander” in line 2 that should be corrected to “the wedge shaped expander” or similar;
Claim 6 includes the limitation “the a wedge shaped expander” in lines 3-4 that should be corrected to “the wedge shaped expander” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 all include the limitation of “wedge shaped expander.” There is insufficient support for this limitation of the claim in the application as originally filed. The originally filed application includes language to describe the shape of the expander such as “shim.” Further, fig. 3 of the originally filed application shows support for a conical shaped shim. It is unclear to the examiner where the support for a wedge shaped expander is in the originally filed disclosure. As such, claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are rejected. Claim 7 is rejected based on its dependency on claim 1.
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 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN-216120432-U), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches an expanding battery mandrel cell, comprising: a cylindrical mandrel ([0029] figs. 1-2 outer sleeve 2) comprising at least one slit along a length of the cylindrical mandrel ([0029] a fracture slit; figs. 1-2); a plurality of electrodes and a plurality of electrolytes wrapped around a cylindrical mandrel to form the expanding battery mandrel cell ([0001] cylindrical battery; [0034] uniform contact with the electrode group; it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art that an electrode group would inherently include electrodes and electrolytes); and a wedge shaped expander ([0033] one or both ends of the steel pipe, interpreted as the expander, are cone heads) inserted within the cylindrical mandrel ([0029]; [0034]; figs. 1-2 stainless steel tube 1), forcing the cylindrical mandrel to uniformly expand in a radial direction and forcing the plurality of electrodes and the plurality of electrolytes to compress against each other and to press against an inner wall of the expanding battery mandrel cell (figs. 1-2; [0034] uniform contact with the electrode group), wherein the cylindrical mandrel is configured to expand through insertion or retraction of the a wedge shaped expander altering internal compression of the plurality of electrodes and the plurality of electrolytes in response to aging of the expanding battery mandrel cell ([0002] over time charging and discharging process causes side reactions and brittleness of the electrodes; [0006] issues from aging/over time are solved by the expanding core bone and cylindrical battery).
The limitation of “the cylindrical mandrel is configured to expand and contract through insertion or retraction of the expander altering internal compression of the plurality of electrodes and the plurality of electrolytes in response to aging of the expanding battery mandrel cell” is a functional limitation. While intended use recitations and other types of functional language cannot be entirely disregarded. However, in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Zhang teaches that the outer sleeve, interpreted as the mandrel, is elastic ([0034]; [0008]), and therefore the cylindrical mandrel of Zhang is capable of being contracted in response to removal of the expander. “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40, 100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971) ("where the Patent Office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on"). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Zhang also teaches that the cylindrical mandrel is inside of a cylindrical can ([0001] cylindrical battery would include a cylindrical housing/can), wherein the cylindrical can is configured to allow the a wedge shaped expander to be inserted within the cylindrical mandrel (figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Zhang also teaches that the a wedge shaped expander is a shim, the shim is conical in shape, and the conical shaped shim forces the cylindrical mandrel to expand towards the inner wall of expanding battery mandrel cell ([0033] one or both ends of the steel pipe, interpreted as the expander, are cone heads; figs. 1-2 the stainless steel pipe 1 expands the outer sleeve/mandrel 2; [0034] uniform contact with the electrode group).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied in claim 1 above, further in view of Sase (JP-H1167263-A).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Zhang fails to teach that each end of the cylindrical mandrel comprises a plurality of slits along a majority of the length of the cylindrical mandrel, allowing the cylindrical mandrel to expand in a radial direction when the a wedge shaped expander is inserted within the cylindrical mandrel.
Sase is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandrels. Sase teaches that each end of the cylindrical mandrel comprises a plurality of slits along a majority of the length of the cylindrical mandrel (fig. 5; pg. 3, paragraphs 9-11 multiple sawtooth-shaped slits 9 on the battery center pin 1, interpreted as the mandrel).
Zhang and Sase are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandrels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the battery mandrel of Zhang and replace the one slit with the plurality of slits of the mandrel in Sase. Doing so would allow for superior explosion-proof operation as, in the case when the battery is crushed, the sawtooth of the slits breaks through at multiple places and short-circuits the positive and negative electrodes immediately, avoiding battery detonation (Sase pg. 3, paragraph 11; pg. 4, [0017]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, as applied in claim 1 above, further in view of Campbell et al. (US-5823031-A), hereinafter Campbell.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Zhang fails to teach a first structure and a second structure pressed against opposite ends of the cylindrical mandrel, creating an outward bowing of the cylindrical mandrel, the outward bowing creates compression of the plurality of electrodes and the plurality of electrolytes.
Campbell is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandrels. Campbell does teach a first structure and a second structure pressed against opposite ends of the cylindrical mandrel, creating an outward bowing of the cylindrical mandrel (Abstract; a radially expanding mandrel for bulge-forming the tube; figs. 4-6; col. 7, lines 15-34; the mandrel 50 is sandwiched between two compression plates 54 and 56 on either end; col. 9, lines 10-21; the mandrel being pressed between the compression plates 54 and 56 causes the mandrel 50 to radially expand and bulge outward).
Zhang and Campbell are both considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of mandrels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang and add the first and second structure pressed against opposite ends of the cylindrical mandrel of Campbell. Doing so would allow for bowing outward of the cylindrical mandrel, allowing for the compression of the plurality of electrodes and the plurality of electrolytes in Zhang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230261247 A1 teaches a cylindrical battery including a center pin inserted into a core of the battery, wherein the center pin includes an elastic body ([0009]). The elastic body may be curved outward in the radial direction by axial compression of the upper and lower supports ([0016]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-0164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET.
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.
/M.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/NIKI BAKHTIARI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights