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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed October 28th 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-13, & 19-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 14 was cancelled by the Applicant. Claims 16-18 remain withdrawn. The previous 112(b) rejection of Claims 13 & 14 is withdrawn. The arguments to the 103 rejections of the claims in view of Wong are were fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments. The arguments to the rejections of the claims in view of Chami were fully considered but were not persuasive, therefore the rejections were maintained. New rejections follow.
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 1-8, 10-13, & 19-20 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 weak structure is arranged on one of the C-shaped connecting portions at the one of the two ends and clamps the second end cap”. It is unclear if the weak structure is supposed to clamp the second end cap, or if the C-shaped connecting portion is supposed to clamp the second end cap. The claim as written indicates that the subject of the verb “clamps” is the “weak structure”, however it is not clear how the weak structure could perform this function. Additionally, as noted in the instant specification, the Examiner notes that it appears the Applicant is meaning for the C-shaped connecting portion to clamp the second end cap [0017, 0053, 0067], however the claim is not presently written in a clear manner so as to indicate this structural limitation, thus the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 & 10-13, as they depend from Claim 1, are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a connecting piece disposed in the casing and configured to be connected to the first end cap or be connected to the first end cap and the second end cap”, and the claim also recites “where the connecting piece is connected to the second end cap” which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim is considered indefinite because the latter limitation excludes the possibility that the connecting piece is connected only to the first end cap.
Claim 4 recites “the connecting piece is not connected to the second end cap”, however previously in Claim 1, it is recited “a connecting position where the connecting piece is connected to the second end cap”. Claim 4 is thus unclear and indefinite as the recited limitation of Claim 4 cannot be met because of the requirements of the previous Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 recites “the connecting piece is not in contact with the second end cap”, however previously in Claim 1, it is recited “a connecting position where the connecting piece is connected to the second end cap”. Claim 5 is thus unclear and indefinite as the recited limitation of Claim 5 cannot be met because of the requirements of previous Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner further notes that since the limitations recited in claims 4 & 5 directly contradict the requirement of claim 1, the examiner cannot reasonably interpret claim 4 & 5 and therefore claims 4 & 5 cannot be examined on the merits.
Claim 19, similar to Claim 1, recites “the weak structure is arranged on one of the C-shaped connecting portions at the one of the two ends and clamps the second end cap”. It is unclear if the weak structure is supposed to clamp the second end cap, or if the C-shaped connecting portion is supposed to clamp the second end cap. The claim as written indicates that the subject of the verb “clamps” is the “weak structure”, however it is not clear how the weak structure could perform this function. Additionally, as noted in the instant specification, the Examiner notes that it appears the Applicant is meaning for the C-shaped connecting portion to clamp the second end cap [0017, 0053, 0067], however the claim is not presently written in a clear manner so as to indicate this structural limitation, thus the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20, similar to Claim 1, recites “the weak structure is arranged on one of the C-shaped connecting portions at the one of the two ends and clamps the second end cap”. It is unclear if the weak structure is supposed to clamp the second end cap, or if the C-shaped connecting portion is supposed to clamp the second end cap. The claim as written indicates that the subject of the verb “clamps” is the “weak structure”, however it is not clear how the weak structure could perform this function. Additionally, as noted in the instant specification, the Examiner notes that it appears the Applicant is meaning for the C-shaped connecting portion to clamp the second end cap [0017, 0053, 0067], however the claim is not presently written in a clear manner so as to indicate this structural limitation, thus the claim is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites “and the weak structure is arranged on one of the C-shaped connecting portions of the casing”. Claim 20 is not dependent from another claim, and there is no previous mention or introduction of “C-shaped connecting portions of the casing”, thus there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner notes that the claim was interpreted as “arranged on a C-shaped connection portion of the casing”. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “the connecting piece is not connected to the second end cap”, however previously in Claim 1, it is recited “a connecting position where the connecting piece is connected to the second end cap”. Claim 4 contradicts previously recited Claim 1, from which Claim 4 depends, and therefore Claim 4 fails to limit the subject matter of Claim 1 and does not include all the limitations of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “the connecting piece is not in contact with the second end cap”, however previously in Claim 1, it is recited “a connecting position where the connecting piece is connected to the second end cap”. Claim 5 contradicts previously recited Claim 1, and therefore Claim 5 fails to limit the subject matter of Claim 1 and does not include all the limitations of Claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chami et al. US 2016/0301118 A1, and further in view of Kitoh et al. US 6,399,242 B2, Kim KR 2016/0043725 A, and Kim et al. US 2010/0159308 A1.
Regarding Claims 1 & 19, Chami discloses a battery cell comprising
A casing with openings at two ends in a first direction (“the casing comprises a cylindrical lateral jacket” [0030], Figure 6B Item 6 and 7)
A first end cap (“a bottom” [0030]) and second end cap (“a cover” [0030]) connected to the case and configured to the close the openings (“the casing comprising a cover, a bottom, and a jacket that is joined both to the bottom and to the cover” [0043], shown in Figure 6B)
PNG
media_image1.png
468
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6B
A connecting piece within the casing (central core [0053], Item 10 in Figures 8-9)
configured to be connected to the first end cap and the second end cap
As shown in Figures 8-9 Item 10, the central core is configured to connect to the end caps (see Chami Annotated Figures 6B-9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
690
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 6B-9
a connecting force between the connecting piece and the first end cap is greater than a connecting force between the connecting piece and the second end cap
Chami discloses that the connecting piece (central core) has one end suitable for a tight fit and another end comprising an internal thread for screwing [0056]. Thus, Chami discloses that the connecting force between the connecting piece and the first end is greater (another end with screw fit) than the connecting force between the connecting piece and the second end (one end with tight fit).
However, Chami fails to disclose C-shaped connecting portions as both ends of the battery.
Kitoh discloses a battery cell comprising
A casing with openings at two ends in a first direction (battery 30 in pipe 11 with two ends Figure 3)
A first end cap (lower cap 23 Figure 3) and second end cap (upper cap 16 Figure 3) connected to the case and configured to the close the openings (shown in Figure 3)
The casing (pipe 11) comprises C-shaped connecting portions at both ends of battery, as shown in Annotated Figure 3, that clamp the end caps, having a first edge and a second edge that are parallel in the first direction, and a side portion connecting the first edge and the second edge:
PNG
media_image3.png
680
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Kitoh discloses that a cylindrical battery with this configuration has increased safety in the battery’s internal pressure is increases and reduced risk of popping out the internal electric body [Column 6 Lines 37-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the ends of the battery of Chami to have C-shaped connecting portions as suggested by Kitoh to achieve a battery with increased safety.
Modified Chami fails to disclose specifically a “weak structure” at one of the two ends of the casing that is connected to the second end cap. Modified Chami further fails to specifically discloses that the first weak structure on the edge of the C-shaped connecting portions.
Kim ‘308 discloses a cylindrical battery cell comprising a cell casing with notches [0066], more specifically a notch located at the outer edge circumference of the casing [0067] at the second end (see Annotated Kim ‘308 Figures 1 & 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
847
871
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘308 Figures 1 & 3
Kim ‘308 discloses that a cylindrical battery cell with notches in this position has improved pressure dispersion [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to place the notch of Kim ‘308 on the outer edge circumference of the casing of modified Chami as suggested by Kim ‘308 to achieve a battery cell with improved pressure dispersion. Thus, modified Chami discloses a battery with a weak structure on the edge of one of the C-shaped connecting portions connected to the second end cap.
Modified Chami fails to disclose that there is a second weak structure in the side portion of the C-shaped connecting portion.
Kim ‘725 discloses a cylindrical battery with a casing that has a C-shaped connecting portion at one end (Figure 1), similar to Chami modified by Kitoh. Kim ‘725 further discloses a weak structure (notch) in the side portion of the C-shaped connection portion (notches 130 in crimp portion 120 Figure 4), as shown in Annotated Figure 4 below:
PNG
media_image5.png
532
856
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Kim ‘725 discloses that the notches in the C-shaped connecting portion of the casing enables smooth discharge of gas built up within the battery cell [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the notches of Kim ‘725 in the C-shaped connecting portions of modified Chami to provide a second weak structure on the side portion to achieve a battery with smoother gas discharge.
Thus, modified Chami discloses a weak structure only at the second end of the casing, as modified by Kim ‘308, wherein the weak structure comprises a first weak structure member on the second edge of the C-shaped connecting portions (circumference of the casing, as modified by Kim ‘308) and a second weak structure member on the side portion of the C-shaped connecting portions (as modified by Kim ‘725). Additionally, modified Chami therefore discloses that the connecting position where the connecting piece is connected to the second end cap (as mentioned above with respect to Chami) is surrounded by the weak structure.
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 19 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Regarding Claim 2, Chami discloses that the connection mode between the connecting piece (central core) and the first end cap (“cover”) is via thread for screwing and the connection mode between the connecting piece and the second end cap (“bottom”) is a tight fit [0056], and is thus different.
Regarding Claim 3, as mentioned regarding Claim 2, Chami discloses that the connecting piece (central core) and the first end cap (“bottom”) is connected via thread for screwing [0137] or bonded (“welded”) [0059], and the connection mode between the connecting piece and the second end cap (“cover”) is a tight fit [0147, 0149].
Regarding Claim 6, Chami discloses an electrode assembly received in the casing [0121]. Chami further discloses a first part of the connecting piece (central core) that is contained in the electrode assembly [0142] and a second part of the connecting piece (central core) that extends out of the electrode assembly towards the first end cap (shown in Annotated Figure 6B below).
PNG
media_image6.png
503
361
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Chami discloses a surface of the first end cap (“cover”) is formed with a receiving portion (“a central through-aperture” [0147], Figure 6B Item 90) that receives the second part of the connecting piece (central core): “This cover 9 comprises a central through-aperture 90 suitable for having the upper hollow end 11…fitted therein.” [0147]. Chami further discloses that the receiving portion (“a central through-aperture”) is in threaded connection or snap-fitted with a portion of the protruding portion of the connecting piece: “the hollow end 11 being fitted into the aperture 90 of the cover 9.” [0149].
Regarding Claim 8, modified Chami, with the modification of Kitoh, discloses that the end caps have the same structure (Figure 3 of Kitoh).
Regarding Claim 10, Chami discloses an electrode assembly received in the casing, as mentioned with regards to Claim 6, and further discloses a receiving hole that is formed at a center of the electrode assembly and the connecting piece is disposed in the receiving hole (“…consists in winding, by spooling, the cell C directly around a carrier 80…” [0133]). This is also illustrated in Figure 13.
Regarding Claim 11, Chami discloses an electrode assembly received in the casing, as mentioned with regards to Claim 6, and further discloses that connecting piece (central core) is fixedly connected to the electrode assembly (“winding, by spooling, the cell C directly around the hollow central core 10 according to the invention then in housing this wound sub-assembly in a rigid container 70” [0134]).
Regarding Claim 12, Chami discloses that the connecting piece (central core) is in interference fit with the electrode assembly, as described by the central core around which the electrode cell C is wound [0129].
Regarding Claim 20, Chami discloses a battery cell comprising
A casing with openings at two ends in a first direction (“the casing comprises a cylindrical lateral jacket” [0030], Figure 6B Item 6 and 7)
A first end cap (“a bottom” [0030]) and second end cap (“a cover” [0030]) connected to the case and configured to the close the openings (“the casing comprising a cover, a bottom, and a jacket that is joined both to the bottom and to the cover” [0043], shown in Figure 6B)
PNG
media_image1.png
468
359
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 6B
A connecting piece within the casing (central core [0053], Item 10 in Figures 8-9)
configured to be connected to the first end cap and the second end cap
As shown in Figures 8-9 Item 10, the central core is configured to connect to the end caps (see Chami Annotated Figures 6B-9 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
690
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figures 6B-9
the connecting piece being bonded to the first end cap, and the connecting piece being in interference fit with the second end cap, wherein a connecting force between the connecting piece and the first end cap is greater than a connecting force between the connecting piece and the second end cap
Chami discloses that the connecting piece has one end suitable for an interference fit (“tight fit”) and another end comprising an internal thread for screwing [0056] or bonded (“welded”) to the end cap [0059]. Thus, Chami discloses that the connecting force between the connecting piece and the first end is greater (another end being bonded) than the connecting force between the connecting piece and the second end (one end with interference fit).
However, Chami fails to disclose C-shaped connecting portions at both ends of the battery.
Kitoh discloses a battery cell comprising
A casing with openings at two ends in a first direction (battery 30 in pipe 11 with two ends Figure 3)
A first end cap (lower cap 23 Figure 3) and second end cap (upper cap 16 Figure 3) connected to the case and configured to the close the openings (shown in Figure 3)
The casing (pipe 11) comprises C-shaped connecting portions at both ends of battery, as shown in Annotated Figure 3, that clamp the end caps, having a first edge and a second edge that are parallel in the first direction, and a side portion connecting the first edge and the second edge:
PNG
media_image3.png
680
810
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Kitoh discloses that a cylindrical battery with this configuration has increased safety in the battery’s internal pressure is increases and reduced risk of popping out the internal electric body [Column 6 Lines 37-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the ends of the battery of Chami to have C-shaped connecting portions as suggested by Kitoh to achieve a battery with increased safety.
Modified Chami fails to disclose specifically a “weak structure” at one of the two ends of the casing that is connected to the second end cap, arranged on the C-shaped connecting portion.
Kim ‘308 discloses a cylindrical battery cell comprising a cell casing with notches [0066], more specifically a notch located at the outer edge circumference of the casing [0067] at the second end (see Annotated Kim ‘308 Figures 1 & 3 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
847
871
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Kim ‘308 Figures 1 & 3
Kim ‘308 discloses that a cylindrical battery cell with notches in this position has improved pressure dispersion [0017].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to place the notch of Kim ‘308 on the outer edge circumference of the casing of modified Chami as suggested by Kim ‘308 to achieve a battery cell with improved pressure dispersion. Thus, modified Chami discloses a battery with a weak structure on one of the C-shaped connecting portions connected to the second end cap. Additionally, modified Chami therefore discloses that the connecting position where the connecting piece is connected to the second end cap (as mentioned above with respect to Chami) is surrounded by the weak structure (as modified by Kim ‘308).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chami et al. US 2016/0301118 A1, Kitoh et al. US 6,399,242 B2, Kim KR 2016/0043725 A, and Kim et al. US 2010/0159308 A1 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Wong et al. US 2020/0212405 A1.
Regarding Claim 13, modified Chami, as mentioned with regards to Claim 1, discloses a weak structure, which is a first weak structure. However, Chami is silent as to a second weak structure in the first end cap and a third weak structure in the second end cap.
Wong discloses a battery cell comprising a housing with an open end and a closed end, wherein an end cap (terminal 126 Figure 1) is secured in the open end [0026, 0032]. Wong discloses that a central rod is secured to one end [0039], and a notched/scoring pattern included in the end cap (terminal) at the open end [0036-0037] that is configured to “rupture along the scoring pattern in response to a predetermined threshold pressure within the battery cell” [0038].
Wong discloses that including the scored region near the end of the battery allows for separation of the cap from the rest of the battery and thus breaks the electrical connection and alleviates the pressure within the battery [0038, 0055]. Wong further discloses that the scoring pattern allows for a failure point for the pressure release while allowing for other components of the battery to remain in their position [0057].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Chami’s battery cell to include the scoring pattern of Wong in each of the end caps (as modified by Kitoh as mentioned above with regards to Claim 1) to achieve a battery with the safety feature of a weak point where pressurized gas can be released without destruction to the overall battery.
Thus, modified Chami, which has identical end caps as modified by Kitoh, with the modification of Wong’s scoring pattern, discloses a second weak structure in the first end cap and a third weak structure in the second end cap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the claims in view of Wong were considered but are moot as Wong is no longer relied upon to teach the claim limitations.
Applicant argues that Chami discloses that the tight fit of the central core relates to its attachment to a mandrel. Examiner respectfully points out that while Chami does disclose that the central core is described to have a tight fit to a mandrel for spooling the cell [0055], Chami also discloses that the central core has a tight fit with the ends [0056]. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANNA E GOULD whose telephone number is (571)270-1088. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/A.E.G./
Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 23 January 2026
Prosecution Insights