DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 06/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 12-14 are new. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in this application.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Hermann (US-20100136421-A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Mitsuzuka teaches a sealed battery (Fig. 1, 50; [0023]) comprising:
a battery case (Fig. 1, 22; [0023]) with a bottomed cylindrical shape (Fig. 1, shape of 22; [0023]) including an opening (Fig. 1, opening at top of 22);
an electrode body (Fig. 1, 30; [0023]) housed in the battery case 22;
an electrolyte solution ([0023, 0043], “electrolyte solution”);
and a sealing member (cap assembly in Fig. 1) that closes the opening of the battery case (Fig. 1, wherein the sealing member is a cap assembly, sealing the top of the battery case 22, wherein the cap assembly is not specifically mapped but includes all elements enclosed by gasket 43; [0023]),
the sealing member (cap assembly in Fig. 1) including: a terminal cap (Fig. 1, positive electrode terminal 21; [0023]),
a bottom plate (Fig. 1, sealing plate 40; [0024]) electrically connecting the terminal cap (Fig. 1, wherein 40 is contacting 21 and is thus electrically connected),
and an electrode of one polarity of the electrode body (Fig. 1, wherein positive electrode tab 23 connects to 40; see also [0023] which describes electrode tab 23 is electrically connected to 21 such that the bottom plate 40 electrically connects the terminal cap and a positive electrode of the electrode body),
PNG
media_image1.png
815
1199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the bottom plate 40 including:
a central region (annotated Fig. 1, “central region”) including a central through hole (Fig. 1, 41; [0024]),
a peripheral edge (annotated Fig. 1, “peripheral edge”),
an outer flange (annotated Fig. 1, “outer flange”) proximal (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proximal, “situated close to”) the peripheral edge (annotated Fig. 1, “peripheral edge”),
the outer flange (annotated Fig. 1, “outer flange”) including a folded region (annotated Fig. 1, “folded region”) proximal (“situated close to”) to and terminating at the peripheral edge (annotated Fig. 1, folded region terminating at “peripheral edge”),
a support region (annotated Fig. 1, “support region”) proximal (“situated close to”, see above) to the central through hole 41 and facing toward the folded region (see annotated Fig. 1, support region facing the folding region),
a transitional region (annotated Fig. 1, transitional region) forming a bend of the flange (see annotated Fig. 1, outer flange bend at transitional region) between (“outer flange bend”) the folded region (annotated Fig. 1, “folded region”) and the support region (annotated Fig. 1, “support region”),
and a recess (annotated Fig. 1, wherein the folded, support, and transitional regions form a groove, thus recess, which receives 10) formed by the folded, support and transitional regions (see annotated Fig. 1).
and a valve body (Fig. 1, 10; [0024]) received in the recess (annotated Fig. 1, wherein 10 is received within said groove),
the valve body 10 including:
a first planar surface (Fig. 2, upper planar surface of 3)
covered with a resin material (Fig. 4, resin 1; [0012], [0032], “resin forming the base material layer 1”), having a first inner planar surface (Fig. 1, flat upper surface of 1) oriented toward (flat upper surface 1 facing 21) the terminal cap 21, and a first outer planar surface (Fig. 2, leftmost side surface of 1) oriented toward the folded region (annotated Fig. 1, wherein left side of 10 (and thus 1) is oriented towards the folded region),
a second planar surface (lower flat surface of 3) covered with the resin material (Fig. 2, 4; [0011]), having a second inner planar surface (Fig. 2, resin 4 having left side edge surface of 4) oriented toward the central through hole (wherein the left side of 10, and thus 4, faces 41), and a second outer planar surface (Fig. 2, bottom surface of resin 4) oriented toward the support region (annotated Fig. 1, wherein the bottom surface of 10, and thus resin 4, faces the support region).
a valve body 10 peripheral edge surface (entire left side of valve body 10) that is an outer edge of the valve body (wherein the left side of valve body 10 is an outer edge of 10)
However, Mitsuzuka fails to teach a gap remaining in the recess between the valve body and the bottom plate, the valve body peripheral edge surface is covered with the protective layer containing compound A, wherein the protective layer fills a first space of the gap interposed between the valve body and peripheral edge surface and the transitional region, and the protective layer is not interposed between the second outer planar surface and the support region.
PNG
media_image2.png
797
1037
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hermann teaches a gap (Fig. 1,gap filled by 126) remaining in the recess (recess between 123 and bottom surface 102; [0013]) between the valve body 123 and the bottom plate 102 (se Fig. 1), the valve body 123 peripheral edge surface (Fig. 1, leftmost surface of 123) is covered with the protective layer (Fig. 1, 126; [0016]) containing compound A ([0020], “synthetic polymers…polyolefin”), wherein the protective layer fills (see Fig. 1) a first space (annotated Fig. 1, first space) of the gap (fap filled by 126) interposed between the valve body 123 and peripheral edge surface (see annotated Fig. 1 of Mitsuzuka, peripheral edge surface for illustrative purposes only and how it analogously applies to the uppermost terminating inner edge of 115 in Fig. 1 of Hermann) and the transitional region. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the dimensions of Mitsuzuka such that a gap is made for the inserting gasket 126 as described, because Hermann teaches gasket 126 to have an insulating function [0016], thus better preventing short, and because Hermann teaches reduces corrosion at the upper edge, wherein a portion of 126 is disposed in the upper edge (see Fig. 1). Additionally, Mitsuzuka teaches the benefits of corrosion resistant materials for protecting the valve body [0090], wherein polyolefin described by Hermann [0020] is inherently a corrosion resistant material, such that covering the remaining exposed side edges of the valve body with 126 would help prevent corrosion, solving a known problem with a known solution.
Hermann’s Fig. 1 does not clearly disclose, in the embodiment of Fig. 1, wherein the protective layer is not interposed between the second outer planar surface and the support region (Fig. 1, also see annotated Fig. above for bottom plate portions in reference to Fig. 1 of Hermann analogously shaped bottom plate, such that each region is similarly transposed onto Hermann).
However, in another embodiment, Hermann teaches a protective layer (Fig. 3, alternative protective layer 301 disposed on an upper surface of underlying member 203 without extending beneath that member; [0021]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the alternative protective layer 301 for the gasket 126 of Fig. 1 because Hermann expressly discloses the desire to prioritize covering the upper surface and peripheral edges [0020-0021]), and because the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143.A.).
Accordingly, Hermann teaches wherein at least a portion of the protective layer is not interposed between the second outer planar surface (Fig. 1, bottom surface of valve body 123) and the support region (peripheral lower portion of bottom plate 115, see annotated Fig. above in reference to Fig. 1 of Hermann).
Regarding claim 2,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the second outer planar surface (bottom surface of 4) is fixed to the support region (annotated Fig. 1, support region; [0026], “the valve body 10 may be heat-sealed to the sealing plate 40”, thus also heat sealing the support region).
Regarding claim 3,
PNG
media_image3.png
822
1037
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), further comprising a spacer (Fig. 1, pressing plate 42, [0024]; wherein 42 behaves as a spacer because it makes space between the valve body and the folded edge of 40) received in the recess (said groove, see rejection of claim 1 above) between the first outer planar surface (upper surface of 1) and the folded region (see annotated Fig. 1, folded region), the spacer having a spacer peripheral edge surface (left edge of spacer 42), and the protective layer (protective layer 126 of Hermann) is also interposed in a second space (annotated Fig. 1, second space) of the gap (space occupied by 126 of Hermann) between the spacer peripheral edge surface (left edge of spacer 42) and the transitional region (see annotated Fig. 1, transitional region).
Regarding claim 4,
PNG
media_image4.png
822
1035
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), wherein the protective layer is further interposed in a third space (annotated Fig. 1, third space) between the first outer planar surface (upper surface of 1) and the folded region (annotated Fig. 1, “folded region”, see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12,
PNG
media_image1.png
815
1199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
694
1276
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the central region (annotated Fig. 1, central region) lies in a first plane (annotated Fig. 1, first plane) proximal (“situated close to”) the electrode body (Fig. 1, 30), the folded region (annotated Fig. 1, ) lies in a second plane (annotated Fig. 1, second plane ) proximal (“situated close to”) the terminal cap 21, and the support region (annotated Fig. 1, support region) lies in a third plane (annotated Fig. 1, third) between the first and second planes (annotated Fig. 1, third plane between first and second planes)
Regarding claim 13,
PNG
media_image6.png
826
1199
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a cavity (see annotated Fig. 1, cavity) is formed between (between central region and bottom surface of 10, thus 4) the second inner planar surface (annotated Fig. 2, bottom surface of 4) of the valve body and the central region (annotated Fig. 1, central region) of the bottom plate 40.
Regarding claim 14,
PNG
media_image7.png
498
722
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the bottom plate 40 is concave (see annotated Fig. 1, wherein the grey circle emphasizes concave/convex shape of 40) with respect to and jutting away from the valve body (wherein 40 juts away from valve body 10), and convex (annotated Fig. 1, wherein grey circle emphasizes concave/convex shape of 40) with respect to and jutting toward a bottom of the battery case (Fig. 1, wherein 40 juts toward the bottom of the battery case 22).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Hermann (JP3594440B2), and further in view of Toshihiko (JP2018014160A), and Lee (KR20160108857A, refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 5,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein a distance L between the bottom plate and the electrode body is 2.3 mm or less.
Lee, analogous in the art of cylindrical batteries, teaches wherein the distance L between the bottom plate and the electrode body is 10% to 40% the diameter of the battery case [0026].
Toshihiko, analogous in the art of cylindrical, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches wherein a battery case main body has an outer diameter of 18.2 mm ([0047], as an acceptable embodiment of a cylindrical, organic-electrolyte battery in the art).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a distance L between the bottom plate and the electrode body to be 1.82 mm to 7.28 mm (calculated by multiplying the diameter taught toward by Toshihiko by the percentage range taught toward by Lee), which overlaps with and thus obviates the claimed range of 2.3 mm or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, changes in size/proportion are design choices within the ambit of a person having ordinary skill in the art per MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Hermann (JP3594440B2), and further in view of Toshihiko (JP2018014160A, refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 6,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to specifically teach wherein d/D <=0.2 is satisfied, where d denotes an inner diameter of a hollow portion of the electrode body, and D denotes an inner diameter of the battery case.
Toshihiko teaches the opening area of the gas discharge port 21 is, for example, 15 mm^2 to 150 mm^2 (Toshihiko; [0033], such that the diameters are thus 4.37 mm to 13.82 mm. While not necessarily to scale, the hollow portion of the electrode body appears to be half the diameter of 21, such that it appears that the hollow portion of the electrode body is ~2.19 to 6.9 mm. Accordingly, compared to an outer diameter of ~18 mm (per [0047]), that gives a ratio range 0.1217 to 0.38 of d/D(outer), which is very similar to ratio d/D, and accordingly at least a portion of the range the ratios 0.1217 to 0.38 must overlap with the claimed ratio of d/D wherein d/D <=0.2 is satisfied). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 7,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the terminal cap includes one or more holes (gas discharge holes 21a, Mitsuzuka Fig. 1), but fails to specifically teach that a total area of the one or more holes is 2 mm^2 or more.
Toshihiko teaches a terminal cap (Toshihiko, cap 27; [0035]) which includes a total area of the one or more holes (Toshihiko, opening 27a; [0035]; Fig. 1; teaches wherein 27a is “sufficiently larger than the area of through hole 23b”, wherein the area of the through hole 23b is, e.g., up to 15 mm^2; therefore, since 23b is up to 15mm^2, the total area of the holes of 27a must lie within the claimed range of 2 mm^2 or more).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the Toshihiko such that the cap vent holes in Mitsuzuka had sufficiently large area to be able to discharge gas as taught by Toshihiko in order to discharge gas per [0035]. The selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Hermann (JP3594440B2, refer to enclosed translations for citations), and further in view of Nikolai (US20110143218).
Regarding claim 8,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a separator thickness of 0.02 mm or less.
Nikolai, analogous in the art of cylindrical, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches wherein a thickness of a separator constituting the electrode body is between e.g. between 10 μm and 20 μm (equivalent to 0.01 and 0.02 mm, wherein the thickness falls within the claimed range of 0.02 mm or less) as an acceptable embodiment of a separator exhibiting optimal for ion transport (Nikolai, [0039]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have wherein a thickness of a separator constituting the electrode body is 0.02 mm or less, as suggested by Nikolai with the motivation of achieving desired ion transport.
Regarding claim 9,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach a viscosity at 20°C of 0.0012 Pa s or less
Nikolai, analogous in the art of cylindrical, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches wherein the electrolyte solution includes a viscosity at 25°C of 0.0002 Pa s (0.2 centipoise, Lee* [0035]) which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.0012 Pa s or less, wherein the lower range is an order of magnitude less than 0.0012 Pa such that the viscosity at 20°C would expectedly less than 0.0012 Pa.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2144.05.I. Further, selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use further supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07, such that selecting the electrolyte solution of Lee* for use as the electrolyte solution within Mitsuzuka would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) and Hermann (JP3594440B2, refer to enclosed translations for citations), and further in view of Takahada (US2017047616A1).
Regarding claim 10,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) wherein but fails to teach a weight of a positive electrode mixture per unit area is 0.14 g/cm^2 or more.
Takahada, analogous in the art of a nonaqueous, organic-electrolyte batteries, teaches a weight of a positive electrode mixture per unit area of a positive electrode constituting the electrode body is 0.14 g/cm2 or more as an acceptable embodiment of an electrode density for a nonaqueous, organic electrolyte battery (Takahada, [0106], 2.8 g/cm3).
Therefore, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have a weight of a positive electrode mixture per unit area of a positive electrode constituting the electrode body is 0.14 g/cm2 or more, as suggested by Takahada as an acceptable embodiment of an electrode density for a nonaqueous, organic electrolyte battery ([0106], 2.8 g/cm3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuzuka (WO2020075731A1) in view of Hermann (US2010136421A1) and Satoru (JP3594440B2, refer to enclosed translations for citations).
Regarding claim 11,
Mitsuzuka in view of Hermann teaches the sealed battery according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but fails to teach wherein the compound A contains polypropylene. Satoru teachers wherein the compound A contains polyolefin (see Fig. 2, 16, [0020]), and wherein Mitsuzuka teaches polypropylene and polyethylene are interchangeable materials for the polyolefin in an organic electrolyte battery (Mitsuzuka, [0094]) such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the polypropylene compound A with polyethylene as they both perform the same function of improving the sealing of the organic-electrolyte battery as a protective polyolefins. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports an obviousness conclusion per MPEP 2143 I B, and the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use further supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 06/29/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues all other claims should be allowed based off an allowable claim 1. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejection of claim 1 has been sustained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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, TIFFANY LEGETTE can be reached on (571) 270-7078. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights