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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are currently pending
Claim 1 is amended
Claim 5 has been cancelled
Status of Amendments
The amendment filed 12 June 2026 has been fully considered, but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
This action has been made final.
Status of Objections and Rejections of the Office Action from 12 March 2026
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The 103 rejections over Yoshihara in view of Oh are maintained in view of Applicant’s amendment and have been modified to address the amended limitations.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshihara in view of Oh (WO 2022039534 A1), hereinafter Oh.
Regarding claim 1, Yoshihara teaches a secondary battery [0001], comprising:
an electrode assembly 4 (Fig. 3) including a first electrode plate 1, a second electrode plate 2, and a separator 3 in a stack [0015];
a case body 7 including a receiving portion 11 and a terrace portion 6 (Fig. 6), the receiving portion 11 including a bottom surface and side surfaces extending from the bottom surface to accommodate the electrode assembly (Seen in Fig. 6), and the terrace portion 6 extending outwardly along an edge of the receiving portion 11 [0019];
a case cover 5 covering the case body and bonded along the terrace portion (P1, P2, P3 of Fig. 5) [0019]; and
a first electrode tab 8 (Fig. 2) drawn out from the first electrode plate 1 and a second electrode tab 9 drawn out from the second electrode plate 2 [0017],
wherein a first boundary is defined where the bottom surface and at least one of the side surfaces meet (measured by R2 in Fig. 6), the first boundary being a first curved surface,
wherein a second boundary is defined where two adjacent ones of the side surfaces meet (measured by R1 in Fig. 5), the second boundary being a second curved surface,
wherein a third boundary is defined where at least one of the side surfaces, in this case the inclined surface, and the terrace portion, in this case the top surface flat portion, meet (seen in Fig. 6 connecting the side surface to terrace portion 6), the third boundary being a third curved surface, in this case defined as having the same curvature radius as R1 [0022].
Yoshihara also teaches a distance along at least one of the side surfaces between a point where a curved surface leading from one of the side surfaces to the bottom surface starts and a point where a curved surface leading from the one of the side surfaces to the terrace portion ends which corresponds to the claimed “clearance”. In this case Yoshihara teaches an inclined surface alongside P2 of the receiving portion 11 set to an angle of 30 to 60° [0022]. Therefore, a clearance must exist between a point where a curved surface leading from one of the side surfaces to the bottom surface starts and a point where a curved surface leading from the one of the side surfaces to the terrace portion ends.
Yoshihara is silent as to a radius of curvature of the first curved surface R2 being in a range of 0.2 mm to less than 0.3 mm. However, Yoshihara teaches a radius of curvature of the first curved surface R2 being 0.3 mm to 1 mm [0006], which is very close to the claimed range. Therefore, the claimed range is considered to be obvious because a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Yoshihara further teaches a radius of curvature of the second curved surface R1 being 0.5 mm to 5 mm [0006], with an example battery having an R1 of 1.5 mm [0028]. Therefore, Yoshihara teaches a radius of curvature of the first curved surface R2 being smaller than a radius of curvature of the second curved surface R1.
Yoshihara is also silent as to the range of clearance.
However, Oh teaches a secondary battery with a distance, CL, as seen in Fig. 9, of 0.5 mm or less, in particular 0.35 mm or less (pg. 22, ¶8 into pg. 23, ¶ 1). This can then be added to the radius of curvature for corner 162 of 1 mm or less, in particular 0.7 mm or less (pg. 21, ¶ 2), to produce a clearance of 1.5 mm or less, in particular 1.05 mm or less. This overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 to 0.6 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Yoshihara and Oh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of secondary battery housings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yoshihara with the clearance taught by Oh. Doing so would have increased the volume of the electrode assembly and the energy density (pg. 19, ¶ 5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yoshihara teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1. Yoshihara further teaches the bottom surface of the receiving portion including two long sides opposite to each other and two short sides opposite to each other (as seen in Fig. 5). Yoshihara does not specify the long sides having a different radius of curvature upon meeting the side surface than the short sides. Therefore, given the curvature radii mentioned above regarding claim 1, a sum of a radius of curvature where one of the two long sides and one of the side surfaces meet and a radius of curvature where one of the two short sides and one of the side surfaces meet would equal 1 mm, which is smaller than a radius of curvature of the second curved surface of 1.5 mm.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoshihara teaches the secondary battery as claimed in claim 1. Yoshihara further teaches the radius of curvature of the second curved surface R1 being in a range of 0.5 mm to 5 mm [0006], with an example battery having an R1 of 1.5 mm [0028]. This example lies within the claimed range of 1.0 mm to 4.0 mm. "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended radius of curvature of the first curved surface excludes the noted example of Yoshihara and is, therefore, not obvious over Yoshihara. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the range taught by Yoshihara is very close to the newly amended range and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The ranges are so mathematically close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the difference between the claimed ranges to be virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.
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 DUSTIN KENWOOD VAN KIRK whose telephone number is (703)756-4717. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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.
/DUSTIN VAN KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights