DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed on 4/24/2026.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments with respect to claims filed on 4/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-13 remain pending in this application and are currently under consideration for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
The amendments and remarks filed on 4/24/2026 are sufficient to cure the previous objections set forth in the Non-Final office action mailed on 2/6/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/22/2026 and 5/8/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,276,894 (hereinafter 894’) in view of Kim et al. (US 20100119935 A1), further in view of Guan et al. (CN 105470558 A, see machine translate for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, 894’ teaches a secondary battery (secondary battery, claim 1 of 894’, line 28) comprising:
a container member (housing member, claim 1 of 894’, line 29) including a bent part (bent portion, claim 1 of 894’, line 29) defining an open end part (open end, claim 1 of 894’, lines 29-30);
a battery device (battery element, claim 1 of 894’, line 31) contained inside the container member (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 31-32);
a cover member (lid member, claim 1 of 894’, line 35) that closes the open end part (see claim 1 of 894’, line 37); and
a sealing member (sealing member, claim 1 of 894’, line 42) interposed between the bent part and the cover member (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 42-43), wherein
the cover member (lid member, claim 1 of 894’, line 35) includes a first bottom surface (bottom surface, claim 1 of 894’, line 38), a first top surface (top surface, claim 1 of 894’, line 39), and a first side surface (side surface, claim 1 of 894’, line 40), the first bottom surface being opposed to the battery device (see claim 1 of 894’, line 38), the first top surface being positioned on an opposite side to the first bottom surface (see claim 1 of 894’, line 39), the first side surface being coupled to each of the first bottom surface and the first top surface (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 40-41),
the bent part (the bent portion, claim 1 of 894’, line 44) includes a tip part (specific bent portion, claim 1 of 894’, line 44), the tip part provided along the first side surface and the first top surface in this order (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 44-46),
the container member (the housing member, claim 1 of 894’, line 48),
an outer diameter (first outer diameter D1 (mm), claim 1 of 894’, line 48) in an intersecting direction (cross direction, claim 1 of 894’, line 49), the outer diameter being defined based on the bent part (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 48-49), the intersecting direction intersecting with a placing direction (housing direction, claim 1 of 894’, line 36, 57) in which the battery device is placed into the container member (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 36-37),
a bending proportion (bending ratio R1 (=(L1/D1)×100%), claim 1 of 894’, line 47) of a length of the tip part (bending length L1 (mm) of the specific bent portion, claim 1 of 894’, line 50) in the intersecting direction (the cross direction, claim 1 of 894’, line 51) to the outer diameter of the container member (first outer diameter D1 (mm), claim 1 of 894’, line 48) is greater than or equal to 8.0 percent and less than or equal to 10.0 percent (10 % or more and 13 % or less, claim 1 of 894’, line 51), and
a thickness (thickness T3 (mm), claim 4 of 894’, line 18) of the tip part (the specific bent portion, claim 4 of 894’, line 18) is greater than or equal to 0.27 mm and less than or equal to 0.31 mm (0.27 mm or more and 0.31 mm or less, claim 4 of 894’, lines 18-19).
894’ does not teach
the bent part is provided along the first bottom surface, the first side surface, and the first top surface in this order,
the container member is a metal material including one or more of iron and aluminum,
the outer diameter is greater than or equal to 25 millimeters and less than or equal to 27 millimeters,
Kim et al. teaches the bent part (300, Fig. 2) is provided along the first bottom surface (lower end surface of 310, [0015]; where 316 formed, see Fig. 2), the first side surface (314, Fig. 2), and the first top surface (surface of 310 touches 328, see Fig. 2) in this order,
the container member (cylindrical container, [0043]) is a metal material including one or more of iron and aluminum (aluminum, [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the bend portion taught by 894’ to be the structure of the cap assembly taught by Kim et al. to be stably mounted to the open upper end of the container (see Kim et al. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the housing member taught by 894’ to be the aluminum taught by Kim et al. because it’s known in the art that aluminum is a lightweight metal material.
894’ in view of Kim et al. does not teach the outer diameter is greater than or equal to 25 millimeters and less than or equal to 27 millimeters.
Guan et al. teaches the outer diameter of container member is greater than or equal to 25 millimeters and less than or equal to 27 millimeters (The outer diameter of the steel shell is 26.0 ± 0.05 mm, see [010], [017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the first outer diameter D1 of the housing member taught by 894’ in view of Kim et al. to be 26.0 ± 0.05 mm as taught by Guan et al. to avoid poor heat dissipation (see Guan et al. [003]).
Regarding Claim 2, 894’ in view of Kim et al. in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein
the tip part (specific bent portion, claim 1 of 894’, line 56) and the cover member (lid member, claim 1 of 894’, line 56) overlap with each other (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 56-57) in the placing direction (housing direction, claim 1 of 894’, line 57),
and
a proportion (overlap ratio R2 = ( L2 / D2 ) x100 %, claim 1 of 894’, line 53) of a length (overlap length L2 (mm), claim 1 of 894’, line 54), in the intersecting direction (cross direction, claim 1 of 894’, line 54), of a range in which the tip part (specific bent portion, claim 1 of 894’, line 56) and the cover member (lid member, claim 1 of 894’, line 56) overlap with each other (see claim 1 of 894’, lines 56-57) to the outer diameter (second outer diameter D2 (mm), claim 1 of 894’, line 53) of the cover member (lid member, claim 1 of 894’, line 53) is greater than or equal to 4.0 percent and less than or equal to 6.0 percent (6 % or more and 9 % or less, see claim 1 of 894’, lines 57-58).
894’ in view of Kim et al. in view of Guan et al. does not teach the cover member has an outer diameter of greater than or equal to 24 millimeters and less than or equal to 26 millimeters in the intersecting direction.
Guan et al. teaches the cover member (The cap, see [017]) has an outer diameter of greater than or equal to 24 millimeters and less than or equal to 26 millimeters (25.4 ± 0.05 mm in diameter, see [017]) in the intersecting direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the second outer diameter D2 of the lid member taught by 894’ in view of Kim et al. in view of Guan et al. to be 25.4 ± 0.05 mm as taught by Guan et al. because it’s known in the art by applying such a common type of cap with such outer diameter (see Guan et al. [017]).
Regarding Claim 3, 894’ in view of Kim et al. in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein
the sealing member is provided along the first side surface and the first top surface in this order (claim 2 of 894’, lines 64-65), and
the sealing member has a thickness that is gradually reduced as the sealing member is provided from the first side surface toward the first top surface (claim 2 of 894’, lines 66-67).
Regarding Claim 11, 894’ in view of Kim et al. in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein the sealing member includes polypropylene (claim 6 of 894’, lines 34-35).
Regarding Claim 13, 894’ in view of Kim et al. in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery (see claim 7 of 894’, lines 37-38).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodeyama (WO 2018/225394 A1, provided on the IDS dated 4/17/2023, see machine translate for citation) in view of Guan et al. (CN 105470558 A, see machine translate for citation).
Regarding Claim 1, Sodeyama teaches a secondary battery (secondary battery, see Abstract) comprising:
a container member (11, Fig. 1, 3, see [0021]) including a bent part (11P, Fig. 3, see [0051]) defining an open end part (11N, Fig. 3, see [0051]);
a battery device (20, Fig. 1, see [0018]) contained inside the container member (11, Fig. 1);
a cover member (14, Fig. 1,2,3) that closes the open end part (see [0026], [0052]); and
a sealing member (15, Fig. 1,2,3) interposed between the bent part and the cover member (see [0028]), wherein
the cover member (14, Fig. 3) includes a first bottom surface (14BS, Fig. 3), a first top surface (14TS, Fig. 3), and a first side surface (14SS, Fig. 3), the first bottom surface (14BS, Fig. 3) being opposed to the battery device (14BS facing 20, see [0052]), the first top surface (14TS, Fig. 3) being positioned on an opposite side to the first bottom surface (14TS opposite to 14BS, see [0052]), the first side surface (14SS, Fig. 3) being coupled to each of the first bottom surface and the first top surface (14SS connected to each 14BS and 14TS, see [0052]),
the bent part (11P, Fig. 3) is provided along the first bottom surface (14BS, Fig. 3), the first side surface (14SS, Fig. 3), and the first top surface (14TS, Fig. 3) in this order (see [0053]) and includes a tip part (11 PP, Fig. 3, see [0053]), the tip part (11 PP, Fig. 3, see [0053]) provided along the first side surface (14SS, Fig. 3) and the first top surface (14TS, Fig. 3) in this order (see [0053]),
the container member (11, Fig. 2; see battery can 11, [0022]) is a metal material (metal materials, [0022]) including one or more of iron and aluminum (iron, aluminum, [0022]),
an outer diameter (D1, Fig. 2) in an intersecting direction (intersecting direction, see [0019], [0066]), the outer diameter (D1, Fig. 2) being defined based on the bent part, the intersecting direction intersecting with a placing direction (storage direction, see [0019], [0054]) in which the battery device is placed into the container member (see [0019], [0066]),
a bending proportion (R1, R1 = L1/D1, see [0066]) of a length of the tip part (L1, Fig. 3, see [0066]) in the intersecting direction (intersecting direction, see [0066]) to the outer diameter of the container member (D1, Fig. 2) is greater than or equal to 8.0 percent and less than or equal to 10.0 percent (10% to 13%, see [0073] and [0192]; alternatively, R1 = 9.8% for example 1-1; table 1, see [0265]), and
a thickness (T3, Fig. 3) of the tip part (11 PP, Fig. 3) is greater than or equal to 0.27 mm and less than or equal to 0.31 mm (0.27 mm to 0.31 mm, see [0091]).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the bending rate R1 of 10% to 13% taught by Sodeyama to be 10% to ensure the effective operation of the safety valve and to obtain excellent safety with a good opening pressure and a good contact rate (see Sodeyama [0073], [0192] and [0266]).
Sodeyama does not teach the outer diameter of the container member is greater than or equal to 25 millimeters and less than or equal to 27 millimeters.
Guan et al. teaches the outer diameter of container member is greater than or equal to 25 millimeters and less than or equal to 27 millimeters (The outer diameter of the steel shell is 26.0 ± 0.05 mm, see [010], [017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the outer diameter D1 of the storage member taught by Sodeyama to be 26.0 ± 0.05 mm as taught by Guan et al. to avoid poor heat dissipation (see Guan et al. [003]).
Regarding Claim 2, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein
the tip part (11 PP, Fig. 3, see Sodeyama [0053]) and the cover member (14, Sodeyama Fig. 3) overlap with each other in the placing direction (tip portion of 11 PP overlaps with 14TS, see Sodeyama [0054]),
the cover member (14, Sodeyama Fig. 2) has an outer diameter (D2, Sodeyama Fig. 2, see Sodeyama [0077]) in the intersecting direction (intersecting direction, see Sodeyama [0077]), and
a proportion (R2, R2 = L2/D2, see Sodeyama [0077]) of a length (L2, Sodeyama Fig. 2, see Sodeyama [0077]), in the intersecting direction (intersecting direction, see Sodeyama [0077]), of a range in which the tip part and the cover member overlap with each other to the outer diameter of the cover member (D2, Sodeyama Fig. 2).
Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. does not teach the proportion is greater than or equal to 4.0 percent and less than or equal to 6.0 percent;
the cover member has an outer diameter of greater than or equal to 24 millimeters and less than or equal to 26 millimeters.
Sodeyama teaches the proportion (R2, R2 = L2/D2, see [0077]) is greater than or equal to 4.0 percent and less than or equal to 6.0 percent (6% or more and 9% or less, claim 2, see [0298]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the overlap ratio R2 taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. to be 6% as taught by Sodeyama to have a good open pressure and a good contact rate (see Sodeyama [0270]).
Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. does not teach the cover member has an outer diameter of greater than or equal to 24 millimeters and less than or equal to 26 millimeters.
Guan et al. teaches the cover member (The cap, see [017]) has an outer diameter of greater than or equal to 24 millimeters and less than or equal to 26 millimeters (25.4 ± 0.05 mm in diameter, see [017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the outer diameter D2 of the battery lid taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. to be 25.4 ± 0.05 mm as taught by Guan et al. because it’s known in the art by applying such a common type of cap with such outer diameter (see Guan et al. [017]).
Regarding Claim 3, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein
the sealing member (15, Sodeyama Fig. 3) is provided along the first side surface (14SS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) and the first top surface (14TS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) in this order (see Sodeyama [0053]), and
the sealing member has a thickness that is gradually reduced as the sealing member is provided from the first side surface toward the first top surface (see Sodeyama [0061]).
Regarding Claim 6, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches further comprising
an adjacent member (31, Sodeyama Fig. 3) disposed adjacent to the first bottom surface (14BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), wherein
the adjacent member (31, Sodeyama Fig. 3) includes a second bottom surface (31BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), a second top surface (31TS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), and a second side surface (31SS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the second bottom surface (31BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) being opposed to the battery device (see Sodeyama [0058]), the second top surface (31TS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) being adjacent to the first bottom surface (14BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the second side surface being coupled to each of the second bottom surface and the second top surface (see Sodeyama [0058]),
the bent part (11P, Sodeyama Fig. 3) is provided along the second bottom surface (31BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the second side surface (31SS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the first side surface (14SS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), and the first top surface (14TS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) in this order (see Sodeyama [0059]), and
a total thickness (TT = T4 + T5, see Sodeyama [0094]) resulting from adding a thickness of the cover member (T4, Fig. 3, see Sodeyama [0094]) and a thickness of the adjacent member (T5, Sodeyama Fig. 3, see Sodeyama [0094]) together.
Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. does not teach the total thickness is greater than or equal to 1.0 millimeter and less than or equal to 1.4 millimeters.
Sodeyama teaches the total thickness (TT = T4 + T5, see Sodeyama [0094]) is greater than or equal to 1.0 millimeter and less than or equal to 1.4 millimeters (0.8 mm to 1 mm, see [0094]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the total thickness TT taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. to be 1 mm as taught by Sodeyama to have the external tab easily connected to the battery lid while securing the battery capacity (see Sodeyama [0096] and [0197]).
Regarding Claim 11, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein the sealing member (15, Sodeyama Fig. 1) includes polypropylene (polypropylene, Sodeyama [0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein
the battery device includes a positive electrode (21, Sodeyama Fig. 1), and
the positive electrode (21, Sodeyama Fig. 1) includes a lithium phosphoric acid compound (phosphoric acid compound containing lithium, see Sodeyama [0105]) having an olivine crystal structure (crystal structure such as an olivine type, see Sodeyama [0105]).
Regarding Claim 13, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein the secondary battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery (lithium ion secondary battery, Sodeyama [0016]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodeyama (WO 2018/225394 A1, provided on the IDS dated 4/17/2023, see machine translate for citation) in view of Guan et al. (CN 105470558 A, see machine translate for citation), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2010/0119935 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches further comprising
an adjacent member (31, Sodeyama Fig. 3) disposed adjacent to the first bottom surface (14BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), wherein
the adjacent member (31, Sodeyama Fig. 3) includes a second bottom surface (31BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), a second top surface (31TS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), and a second side surface (31SS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the second bottom surface (31BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) being opposed to the battery device (see Sodeyama [0058]), the second top surface (31TS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) being adjacent to the first bottom surface (14BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the second side surface being coupled to each of the second bottom surface and the second top surface (see Sodeyama [0058]),
the bent part (11P, Sodeyama Fig. 3) is provided along the second bottom surface (31BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the second side surface (31SS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), the first side surface (14SS, Sodeyama Fig. 3), and the first top surface (14TS, Sodeyama Fig. 3) in this order (see Sodeyama [0059]),
the tip part (11 PP, Sodeyama Fig. 3) includes a first tip part (first tip part, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) and a second tip part (second tip part, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3), the first tip part extending along the first side surface (14SS, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3), the second tip part extending along the first top surface (14TS, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) and being coupled to the first tip part (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3),
an angle (angle, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) defined by a direction in which the first tip part extends and a direction in which the second tip part extends (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3), and
a thickness difference (DT, see Sodeyama [0086]) is greater than or equal to 0.10 millimeters (0.1 mm or more, claim 4, see Sodeyama [0298]), the thickness difference (DT = T1 – T2, see Sodeyama [0086]) resulting from subtracting a thickness of the sealing member at a position corresponding to a tip of the bent part (T2, Sodeyama Fig. 3, see Sodeyama [0086]) in the intersecting direction from a thickness of the sealing member at a position corresponding to the second bottom surface (T1, Sodeyama Fig. 3, see Sodeyama [0086]) in the placing direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
1820
1773
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. does not teach the angle is greater than or equal to 80 degrees and less than or equal to 90 degree;
a thickness difference is less than or equal to 0.29 millimeters.
Kim et al. teaches the angle (angle α, Fig. 4) is greater than or equal to 80 degrees and less than or equal to 90 degrees (60 to 85 degrees, see [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the angle as taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. to be 80 to 85 degrees as taught by Kim et al. because such angle maintain the tight contact between the gasket and the crimping region and prevents the leakage of the electrolyte (see Kim et al. [0037], [0058]).
Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. in view of Kim et al. does not teach
a thickness difference is less than or equal to 0.29 millimeters.
Sodeyama teaches a thickness difference (DT, see Sodeyama [0086]) is less than or equal to 0.29 millimeters (0.3 mm or less, see claim 4, see [0298]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness difference DT taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. in view of Kim et al. to be less than or equal to 0.29 mm as taught by Sodeyama to have external tab easily connected to the battery lid while ensuring the safety of the secondary battery (see Sodeyama [0088]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodeyama (WO 2018/225394 A1, provided on the IDS dated 4/17/2023, see machine translate for citation) in view of Guan et al. (CN 105470558 A, see machine translate for citation), and further in view of Takano et al. (US 2021/0257607 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches wherein
the container member (11, Sodeyama Fig. 3) includes a recessed part (11U, Sodeyama Fig. 3) at which the bent part (11P, Sodeyama Fig. 3) is folded back in part along the first bottom surface (14BS, Sodeyama Fig. 3).
Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. does not teach an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of an inner wall, of the container member, on a side closer to the cover member relative to a position of the recessed part as a reference in the placing direction is less than an arithmetic mean roughness Ra of an inner wall, of the container member, on a side farther from the cover member relative to the position of the recessed part as the reference in the placing direction.
Takano et al. teaches an arithmetic mean roughness Ra (Ra1, [0037]) of an inner wall (inner surface, [0036]), of the container member (15, Figure 1), on a side (S1, Figure 1) closer to the cover member (26, Figure 1) relative to a position of the recessed part (21, Figure 1) as a reference in the placing direction (see [0036]) is less than (Ra1 < Ra2, [0037]) an arithmetic mean roughness Ra (Ra2, [0037]) of an inner wall (inner surface, [0037]), of the container member (15, Figure 1), on a side (S2, Figure 1) farther from the cover member (26, Figure 1) relative to the position of the recessed part (21, Figure 1) as the reference in the placing direction (see [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the storage member taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. to have an arithmetic mean roughness Ra1 of the inner surface, of the case main body, on the first region closer to the cap relative to a position of the grooved portion as a reference is less than an arithmetic mean roughness Ra2 of the inner surface, of the case main body, on the second region farther from the cap relative to the position of the grooved portion as the reference as taught by Takano et al. because setting Ra2>Ra1 reduces the electrical contact resistance of negative electrode thus higher output realized (see Takano [0039]).
Regarding Claim 8, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. does not teach wherein the arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner wall, of the container member, on the side closer to the cover member is less than or equal to 0.4 micrometers, and the arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner wall, of the container member, on the side farther from the cover member is greater than 0.4 micrometers.
Takano et al. teaches wherein
the arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner wall, of the container member, on the side closer to the cover member is less than or equal to 0.4 micrometers (Ra1 < 0.4 µm, [0038]), and
the arithmetic mean roughness Ra of the inner wall, of the container member, on the side farther from the cover member is greater than 0.4 micrometers (Ra2 > 0.4 µm, [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further modify the storage member taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. to have an arithmetic mean roughness Ra1 of the inner surface, of the case main body, on the first region closer to the cap is less than or equal to 0.4 micrometers, and an arithmetic mean roughness Ra2 of the inner surface, of the case main body, on the second region farther from the cap is greater than 0.4 micrometers as taught by Takano et al. based on a basis of the arithmetic mean roughness specified in JIS B 0601-2001 (see Takano [0038]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodeyama (WO 2018/225394 A1, provided on the IDS dated 4/17/2023, see machine translate for citation) in view of Guan et al. (CN 105470558 A, see machine translate for citation), in view of Kato et al. (US 20090269663 A1) and further in view of Maeda (JP 2000243359 A, see machine translate for citation).
Regarding Claim 9, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. teaches further comprising
A protective layer (asphalt, see Sodeyama [0028]) covering a surface of the sealing member (surface of the gasket, see Sodeyama [0028]) and including asphalt (see Sodeyama [0028]).
Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. doesn’t teach wherein the protective layer has an area density of greater than or equal to 0.060 milligrams per square centimeter and less than or equal to 0.100 milligrams per square centimeter.
Kato et al. teaches a protective layer (asphalt, see [0041]) covering a surface of the sealing member (13 of 5, Fig. 3) and including asphalt (see [0041]), wherein the protective layer (asphalt, see [0041]) has an area density (see [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the asphalt layer covering the gasket taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. such that the area density is greater than or equal to 0.060 milligrams per square centimeter and less than or equal to 0.100 milligrams per square centimeter to reduce the likelihood of difficulty in forming the layer (Maeda [0030]) and because Applicant has not disclosed that are area density of 0.060-0.100 milligrams per square centimeter provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Hence, the modification would be considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. in view of Kato et al. Note: the examiner would like to note that Area Density (AD) = Volume Density (VD) x Thickness (T) and in this case because Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. in view of Kato. teaches asphalt as the material used to cover the gasket VD is constant and AD varies based on T.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodeyama (WO 2018/225394 A1, provided on the IDS dated 4/17/2023, see machine translate for citation) in view of Guan et al. (CN 105470558 A, see machine translate for citation), and further in view of Sano et al. (US 5851693 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. does not teach wherein the cover member includes stainless steel.
Sano et al. teaches wherein the cover member (1, Fig. 1) includes stainless steel (stainless steel, col.1, lines 39-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the material of the battery lid taught by Sodeyama in view of Guan et al. to include stainless steel as taught by Sano et al. because it’s known in the art to have the material of cover member to be stainless steel (see Sano et al. col.1, lines 37-40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to 35 U.S.C.103 rejections filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Sodeyama, applicant states that the 9.8% bending ratio R1 of Example 1-1 in Table 1 is associated with a specific outer diameter D1 of 20.35 mm, which is clearly outside the claimed outer diameter range of 25 to 27 mm. Applicant further states that the sealing strength of the claimed secondary battery configuration depends on both the claimed container outer diameter range 25 to 27 mm and the bending proportion of 8 to 10%, which Sodeyama only has the 9.8 % bending proportion but not the specific outer diameter in the claimed range.
Regarding Guan, applicant states that modification of Sodeyama outer diameter to 26 mm taught by Guan would not work because it alters the mechanical force balance governing sealing strength of Sodeyama and Guan is not directed to the sealing mechanism.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the Examiner agrees with applicant that the 9.8% bending ratio R1 of Example 1-1 in Table 1 is associated with a specific outer diameter D1 of 20.35 mm, which is clearly outside the claimed outer diameter range of 25 to 27 mm. Examiner relies on the combination of the 26.0 mm outer diameter taught by Guan with the 9.8% bending ratio R1 of Example 1-1 in Table 1 of Sodeyama. Further, Sodeyama teaches in paragraph [0293] that the present technology is not limited to the embodiments described in the embodiment and the examples, and various modifications are possible.
Second, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sealing strength) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Last, there is no evidence presented in applicant’s remarks that the modification of Sodeyama outer diameter to 26 mm based on Guan would alter the mechanical force balance governing sealing performance of Sodeyama. Further, Sodeyama teaches in paragraph [0293] that the present technology is not limited to the embodiments described in the embodiment and the examples, and various modifications are possible. In addition, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., sealing strength/performance) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Therefore, for the aforementioned reason a new rejection of the claims in view of the amendments is made under Sodeyama (see rejection above).
A new ground of nonstatutory double patenting rejection is made in view of the amendments to the claims which change the scope of the claims (see rejection above).
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 NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (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 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights