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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/24/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received 04/24/2026:
Claims 1-4 are pending in the current application. Claims 1 and 4 have been amended.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4 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 Shaocong et al. (CN 210576035U).
Regarding claim 1, Shaocong teaches a battery comprising an outer encasement member 2 configured to accommodate an electrode body 1 that is quadrilateral in plan view (P23; Fig.1), wherein: the outer encasement member 2 has a recessed portion, or inner cavity 214 that is quadrilateral in plan view and configured to accommodate the electrode body 1, and is provided with a joint portion, or seal area 23 at an outer peripheral end portion; a corner portion of the recessed portion 214 is provided with a projection, or third surface 213 extending in a protruding direction toward the joint portion, or protruding along an x-axis relative to the recessed portion; and the projection has an inflection point in a case where viewed from a direction (z) orthogonal to both the protruding direction (x) and a thickness direction of electrode body (z) that is convex toward an outside of the outer encasement member on a tip side of the projection with respect to the inflection point (P43-55; Fig. 1.4-7), and as shown in annotated Fig. 5 of Shaocong below:
PNG
media_image1.png
429
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the convex face convex towards an outside of the outer encasement member from an the inflection on a tip side of the projection to have the first surface limit vibrations of the electrode assembly while the projection convex away from the assembly, towards the joint portion, to avoid puncture from a sharp corner and improve sealing performance, as taught by Shaocong (P19.41-44). The modification would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a known predictable variation, with no change in the respective functions, that would yield the predictable result of the intended purpose of protecting the electrode assembly. MPEP 2143 A
Regarding claim 2, Shaocong teaches the projection defines a hollow between the joint portion 23 and the electrode body 1 inside the outer encasement member 2 (P47-55; Fig. 1.4-7).
Regarding claim 3, Shaocong teaches the outer encasement member 2 includes a first outer encasement member 21 and a second outer encasement member 22; and the joint portion 23 is configured by joining an outer peripheral end portion of the first outer encasement member 21 and an outer peripheral end portion of the second outer encasement member 22 (P30.35; Fig. 4.6).
Regarding claim 4, Shaocong teaches the projection 213 includes an inclined face, such as first surface 211 that is inclined toward the inflection point 213 (Fig. 2-3) in a thickness direction of the battery, wherein the incline of the inclined face is shown in Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 4, above, and the inclined face is formed as a tangential surface relative to the inflection point (P19-56; Fig. 2-5). Furthermore, a change in proportion or relative dimension is obvious in the absence of unexpected results. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda Rosenbaum whose telephone number is (571)272-8218. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5 pm.
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, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.
/Amanda Rosenbaum/ Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/OSEI K AMPONSAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Prosecution Insights