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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the second to last line recites: “…the projection is equal to or large…”; this should read larger Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sodeyama (US20200091469A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sodeyama discloses the cylindrical battery [0032, fig. 1, Sodeyama, Sodeyama], comprising: an electrode assembly (20) in which a positive electrode (21) and a negative electrode (22) are wound with a separator (23) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0045, fig. 1];an electrolyte [0045, Sodeyama]; a bottomed cylindrical exterior housing can (11) that houses the electrode assembly and the electrolyte [0045-0047, fig. 1, Sodeyama]; a sealing assembly (14 and 31) that seals an opening of the exterior housing can [0197-0198, fig. 1, Sodeyama]; and an annular gasket (15) that is interposed between the exterior housing can and the sealing assembly [0198, fig. 1, Sodeyama], the sealing assembly being fixed by crimping to an opening end of the exterior housing can with the gasket interposed between the sealing assembly and the exterior housing can [0198, fig. 1, Sodeyama], wherein a projection projecting outward in a radial direction is formed on an outer peripheral face of the gasket [0075-0076, fig. 3 and 8, Sodeyama], the projection is formed below an upper face of the sealing assembly [fig. 3, Sodeyama], comes into abutment with an inner peripheral face of the opening end of the exterior housing can [fig. 8, Sodeyama], and the maximum diameter of the projection is equal to or large than an inner diameter of the exterior housing can [fig. 8, Sodeyama depicts the protrusion in abutment with the inner surface of the case. This reads on the claimed limitation].
PNG
media_image1.png
485
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 8, Sodeyama showing the gasket (15) having a protrusion in abutment with the exterior can.
Sodeyama discloses that the applied pressing force (F) is solely applied to the tip of the lid or top of the battery case and gasket (annotated fig. 3 below – F vector away from protrusion circled). As such, Sodeyama depicts a situation where only the top of the lid and gasket have pressure being applied to them while the protrusion remains untouched (“not compressed”) during crimping.
PNG
media_image2.png
454
538
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that the following claim limitation is a product-by-process claim limitation
PNG
media_image3.png
133
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specifically the limitation of “and is not compressed when the sealing assembly is crimped to the exterior housing can” is a product-by-process claim (emphasis added). That is to say the claim does not bar compression after crimping takes place or before crimping takes place. The claim does not necessarily require a final product without compression.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.", see MPEP 2113.
Crimping the exterior housing to the sealing assembly results in a final sealed/closed product capable of stable sealing and preventing the leakage of electrolyte and deterioration of electrochemical performance. The present art teaches of a final sealed/closed product capable of stable sealing and preventing the leakage of electrolyte and deterioration of electrochemical performance.
Finally, in an effort to expedite prosecution, should Sodeyama be interpreted so as not to teach that the protrusion is not compressed at all during crimping; it would have been obvious at the time of filing to one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure that during the crimping process absolutely no compression is applied to the protrusion because doing so allows for the battery lid and the gasket to be sealed to a higher effect; maintaining DT that is a difference between T1 and T2 where T1 is directly related to the protrusion size/lack of compression [0100, fig. 3 Sodeyama].
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 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon (US20080268336A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon discloses a cylindrical battery [0033-0034, fig. 1], comprising: an electrode assembly in which a positive electrode (113) and a negative electrode (112) are wound with a separator (114) interposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode [0031, fig. 1]; an electrolyte [0031]; a bottomed cylindrical (“open top”) exterior housing can (120) that houses the electrode assembly and the electrolyte [0031, fig. 1]; a sealing assembly (140) that seals an opening of the exterior housing can [0031, fig. 1]; and an annular gasket (160) that is interposed between the exterior housing can (120) and the sealing assembly (140) [0040, fig. 1], the sealing assembly being fixed by crimping (“clamping”) to an opening end of the exterior housing can with the gasket interposed between the sealing assembly and the exterior housing can [0011-0012], wherein a projection (165) projecting outward in a radial direction is formed on an outer peripheral face of the gasket [0042, fig. 2], the projection comes into abutment with an inner peripheral face of the opening end of the exterior housing can [0040-0041], and the maximum diameter of the projection is equal to an inner diameter of the exterior housing can (fig 2) [0040, 0051, Jeon describes how the protrusions contact the inner wall of the casing and that this contact allows for the rotation of the gasket to be prevented. This description of the protrusion being in contact with the casing and preventing rotation reads on the applicant’s claim language of the maximum diameter of the projection being equal to an inner diameter of the exterior housing can. If it wasn’t then the gasket would be free to rotate].
Jeon is explicitly silent to 1) the projection is formed below an upper face of the sealing assembly. 2) the projection is not compressed when the sealing assembly is crimped to the exterior housing can.
In regards to 1), Jeon depicts the protrusion on the side edge of the gasket [0040, fig. 2] but since drawings are not necessarily to scale or a true representation; Jeon does not explicitly state the projection is formed below an upper face of the sealing assembly.
However, because Jeon depicts the protrusion in the center of the side edge. One of ordinary skill would appreciate this suggests that when combined with Jeon’s figure 1 it would be obvious for the sealing assembly of the cylindrical battery wherein an upper surface of the sealing assembly is above the center of the gasket where the protrusion would be located.
PNG
media_image4.png
671
1076
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 showing that the center of the gasket (and protrusion) is lower than an upper surface of the sealing assembly.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill within the art would find it obvious to try and have the protrusion be below the upper surface of the sealing cap as one of a finite number of options (above upper surface, equal in height to upper surface, or below upper surface) with a reasonable expectation of similar results i.e. a protrusion in which a large contact pressure is applied to during the clamping (“crimping”) process allowing for improved sealing [0041], see MPEP 2143.I.E. barring evidence of criticality and unexpected results.
In regards to 2), the examiner notes that the following claim limitation is a product-by-process claim limitation
PNG
media_image3.png
133
796
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Specifically the limitation of “and is not compressed when the sealing assembly is crimped to the exterior housing can” is a product-by-process claim.
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.", see MPEP 2113.
Crimping the exterior housing to the sealing assembly results in a final sealed/closed product capable of stable sealing and preventing the leakage of electrolyte and deterioration of electrochemical performance. The present art teaches of a final sealed/closed product capable of stable sealing and preventing the leakage of electrolyte and deterioration of electrochemical performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
In response to the inclusion of claim 2 into claim 1 the examiner has removed the 102 rejection however, a 103 rejection still remains.
Applicant argues allowability in response to the amendment of the protrusion not experiencing compression during crimping. However, as noted in the rejection of claim 1, this is a product-by-process limitation. Furthermore, newly introduced Sodeyama does not disclose a force being applied to the projection during crimping.
Applicant then argues allowability due to the fact that their sealing performance is not deteriorated. However, applicant only alleges this and does not provide data/results to support this allegation.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
No other arguments are presented, the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US4442184A discloses a gasket with a protrusion/flange (4) with a diameter larger than the interior of the sealing lid .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724