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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 1 is currently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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 located above a lower end of the outer peripheral face of the gasket [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 all around the circumference in a circumferential direction [fig. 8, Sodeyama depicts the cross-section of a cylindrical battery], 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], a portion of the outer peripheral face of the gasket [fig. 8, Sodeyama], on which the projection is not formed has an outer diameter that is smaller than the inner diameter of the exterior housing can [fig. 8, Sodeyama],
PNG
media_image1.png
447
579
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
596
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 8, Sodeyama showing the gasket (15) having a protrusion in abutment with the exterior can and above a lower end of the gasket. Additionally, the difference in diameter between the gasket and can lid.
Sodeyama continues to depict the projection being spaced apart from a deformed portion of the opening end of the exterior housing can in an axial direction [fig. 3, Sodeyama], the deformed portion deformed by crimping [0039, fig. 3, Sodeyama].
In regards to the limitation “and the projection is configured so as not to be clamped with pressure between the sealing assembly and the exterior housing can when the sealing assembly is crimped to the exterior housing 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_image3.png
622
781
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
454
538
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3, annotated Sodeyama depicting the projection being spaced apart from a deformed portion and the force being applied to the lid.
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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for additional details.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 1 overcome the teachings of Sodeyama and points to 1) the projection is located above a lower end of the outer peripheral face of the gasket. 2) a portion of the outer peripheral face of the gasket, on which the projection is not formed, has an outer diameter that is smaller than the inner diameter of the exterior housing can.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with this as the gasket of Sodeyama does contain these features as pointed to in the rejection of claim 1.
Additionally, applicant alleges that the limitations 1) listed above, allows for it to become easy to insert the gasket into the exterior housing can.
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.
Applicant then alleges that the limitations 2) listed above are not taught by Sodeyama and points to Sodeyama’s teachings of the gradual decreasing thickness of the gasket as evidence. The examiner notes that if the gasket’s thickness gradually decreases then its diameter would be less than that of the can, see rejection of claim 1 above.
In response to the amendments of claim 1, the examiner has removed Jeon from the rejection above.
The applicant’s arguments in regards to Sodeyama were not persuasive and the examiner maintains their rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 /STEWART A FRASER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights