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 .
Response to Amendment, Claim Status, and Other Notes
The amendment filed 18 October 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objection set forth in the Office Action mailed 28 July 2025. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claims 1–5, 7, and 8 are pending in the application.
The paragraph numbers cited in this Office Action in reference to the Instant Application are referring to the paragraph numbering of the PGPub of the Instant Application. See US 2023/0223579 A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to, as the phrasing “is in close contact with” should instead recite “is in contact with” in order to improve clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inclined surface beginning at an edge of the cap-up”. The Instant Specification ([0052]) discloses that the inclined surface is formed by chamfering from position F, shown in FIG. 7 to be located along the same plane as the outermost surface from the center of cap-up 52. Thus, for the purposes of this Office Action, an “edge of the cap-up” recited in Claim 1 is interpreted as referring to points located in the same plane as the outermost surface of the cap-up. See annotated FIG. 7 of the Instant Specification below.
PNG
media_image1.png
516
795
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7 of the Instant Application, with annotations added by the Examiner
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the claim element “the body” in L12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of this Office Action, the limitation has been interpreted as referring to the gasket generally.
Claims 2–5, 7, and 8 are rejected as they depend upon Claim 1 and do not resolve the indefinite language described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sodeyama (US 2020/0091469 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Sodeyama discloses a cylindrical secondary battery (see cylindrical secondary battery, [0032], FIG. 1) comprising:
a cylindrical can (see battery can 11, [0032], [0034], FIG. 1) having a circular bottom portion (see bottom of battery can 11 in FIG. 1; one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the bottom portion of a cylindrical can will necessarily be circular), a side portion extending from the bottom portion (see sides of battery can 11 in FIG. 1), a beading part (see recess 11U, [0068], FIG. 3) concavely formed inwardly at one side portion, and a crimping part (see bent portion 11P, [0039], FIG. 3) formed by bending a distal end of the side portion (11U);
an electrode assembly in the can (11) (see electrode body 20, [0032], FIG. 1); and
a cap assembly sealing the can (11) (see crimped structure 11R, [0039], FIG. 3), the cap assembly (11R) comprising:
a gasket (see gasket 15, [0038], FIG. 1–3, 5, 6, and 8) for insulation from the can (11) ([0043]), an upper portion of the gasket (15) in a direction away from the electrode assembly (20) having a smaller thickness than a lower portion of the gasket (15) ([0075], FIG. 8); and
a cap-up (see battery lid 14, [0038], FIG. 1–3, 5, 6, and 8) between the crimping part (11P) and the beading part (11U),
wherein the gasket (15) has an inclined surface that is chamfered on an inner circumferential surface of the gasket ([0075], FIG. 8), the inclined surface beginning at an edge of the cap-up (14) (FIG. 8 shows that the inclined surface of the gasket begins (i.e. the thickness of the gasket begins to decrease) at a point that lies in the same plane as an outermost edge of the cap-up (14); see annotated FIG. 8 of Sodeyama below).
PNG
media_image2.png
631
801
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 8 of Sodeyama, with annotations added by the Examiner (in reference to Claim 1)
Regarding Claim 2, Sodeyama discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of Claim 1. Sodeyama further discloses wherein the thickness of the upper portion of the gasket (15) decreases toward its end portion ([0075], e.g. FIG. 8).
Regarding Claim 3, Sodeyama discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of Claim 2. Sodeyama further discloses wherein the gasket (15) has a ring-shaped body (see portion of the gasket (15) located adjacent to 31SS in the x-direction and above in the z-direction in e.g. FIG. 3; see also annotated FIG. 3 below; note that as e.g. FIG. 3 shows a cross-section of a cylindrical secondary battery, one of ordinary skill in the art will understand that the body is necessarily ring-shaped), a connection portion extending from the body (see portion of gasket (15) located below the body and above the beading part in the z-direction in e.g. FIG. 3; see also annotated FIG. 3 below), and an extension portion extending downwardly from the connection portion (see portion of the gasket (15) located adjacent to the beading part in the x-direction in e.g. FIG. 3; see also annotated FIG. 3 below), and
wherein a thickness of the body decreases toward its end portion ([0075], FIG. 3 and 8).
PNG
media_image3.png
760
969
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 of Sodeyama, with annotations added by the Examiner (in reference to Claim 3)
Regarding Claim 4, Sodeyama discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of Claim 3. Sodeyama further discloses wherein the cap assembly (11R) comprises:
a safety vent below the cap-up (see safety cover 31, [0050], FIG. 2 and 3);
a cap-down (see sub disc 34, [0050], FIG. 2 and 3) below the safety vent (31) and electrically connected to the electrode assembly (20) ([0059]), and
wherein the gasket (15) insulates the safety vent (31) and the cap-up (14) from the can (11) ([0043], FIG. 2 and 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, and 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior art is considered to be Sodeyama (2020/0091469 A1) in view of Lee et al. (US 2024/0380043 A1).
Sodeyama discloses the cylindrical secondary battery of Claim 4. Sodeyama further discloses wherein the gasket (15) is bent to surround an edge of the safety vent (31) (FIG. 2 and 3), but does not disclose wherein a lower surface of an edge of the safety vent is in close contact with an upper surface of the cap-up. Instead, in Sodeyama, the safety vent (31) is entirely located below the cap-up (14), and thus no lower surface of the safety vent (31) is in close contact with an upper surface of the cap-up (14).
Lee teaches a cylindrical secondary battery (see cylindrical secondary battery 10, [0068], Figure) comprising: a cylindrical can (see can 100, [0069]) having a circular bottom portion (see sealed bottom, [0071]), a side portion extending from the bottom portion (see cylindrical structure, [0071], not including the described opening portion at the top and the sealed bottom opposite the opening portion), a beading part concavely formed at one end of the side portion (see beading portion, [0073]), and a crimping part formed by bending a distal end of the side portion (see upper portion of the can in Figure); an electrode assembly in the can (see electrode assembly 121, [0069]); and a cap assembly sealing the can (see cap assembly 110, [0068], [0074], Figure), the cap assembly comprising a gasket for insulation from the can (see crimping gasket 113, [0074]), an upper portion of the gasket in a direction away from the electrode assembly having a smaller thickness than a lower portion of the gasket (Figure); a cap-up (see top cap 111, [0074], Figure) between the crimping part and the beading part, wherein the gasket has an inclined surface that is chamfered on an inner circumferential surface of the gasket (see the tip portion of the gasket which has an inclined surface, Figure); a safety vent (see safety vent 112, [0074], Figure) below the cap-up; a cap-down (see current interrupt member 114, [0074], Figure) below the safety vent and electrically connected to the electrode assembly, and wherein the gasket insulates the safety vent and the cap-up from the can (the gasket (113) is shown in the Figure to prevent contact between the can (100) and the rest of the cap assembly (110), which includes the safety vent (112) and cap-up (111); note that [0004] discloses that one function of a gasket is to ensure insulation between a cap and case). Finally, Lee teaches wherein a lower surface of an edge of the safety vent is in contact with an upper surface of the cap-up ([0074], Figure), and wherein the gasket is bent to surround the edge of the safety vent ([0074], Figure).
However, modification of Sodeyama in view of the teachings of Lee, namely modification of Sodeyama such that a lower surface of an edge of the safety vent is in contact with an upper surface of the cap-up, and wherein the gasket is bent to surround the edge of the safety vent, as claimed, would not be possible, as to do so would result in the beginning of the inclined surface of the gasket of Lee-modified Sodeyama no longer being located at an edge of the cap-up as recited in Claim 1. Instead, the beginning of the inclined surface would be located in a different plane than that which includes an outermost surface of the cap-up, which as described in the Claim Interpretation section above, would not be considered an edge of the cap-up.
Furthermore, Sodeyama discloses that the purpose of the inclined surface is because the gap between the beaded portion and the cap-up can be easily sealed by the gasket using force even when the thickness of the gasket is gradually reduced in the direction away from the electrode assembly. Thus Sodeyama appears to ascribe the benefit of the inclined surface not to its beginning specifically at an edge of the cap-up, but rather to it beginning at a point where the cylindrical can is bent to press into the gasket to seal the battery (i.e. beginning at a point parallel to the bottom surface of the safety vent in the x-direction as shown in e.g. FIG. 2 and 3). As neither Sodeyama, Lee, nor any other reference found by the Examiner identify the benefit of the inclined surface beginning specifically at an edge of the cap-up, it would not have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it satisfies the cumulative limitations of Claim 5, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve the cylindrical secondary battery.
In contrast, the Examiner notes that Instant Application particularly points out that the shape of the gasket, particularly the inclined surface beginning at an edge of the cap-up as claimed, results in minimized transmission of pressure that is downwardly applied to the safety vent via the gasket due to reduced contact area between the two components ([0052] and FIG. 7 of the Instant Specification). Thus, the inclined surface beginning at an edge of the cap-up, when present in the cap assembly as called for in Claim 5, is a critical feature which is not realized by the prior art and imparts the specific benefit of reducing pressure transmitted from the gasket to other parts of the cap assembly.
In light of the above, the closest prior art fails to disclose, teach, suggest, or render obvious the claim limitation “wherein a lower surface of an edge of the safety vent is in close contact with an upper surface of the cap-up, and wherein the gasket is bent to surround the edge of the safety vent” of Claim 5, in combination with all of the other limitations taken as a whole.
Claims 7 and 8 depend on Claim 5 and therefore also include all the limitations of Claim 5. Thus Claims 7 and 8 also contain the allowable subject matter described above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 18 October 2025 with respect to Claim 1 in regards to the reference Lee have been fully 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’s arguments filed 18 October 2025 with respect to Claim 1 in regards to the reference Sodeyama have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the reasons below:
Applicant argues on p. 7 of Remarks that the inclined surface of the gasket of Sodeyama does not begin at an edge of the cap-up. However, as set forth in the Claim Interpretation section of the Office Action above, an “edge of the cap-up” recited in Claim 1 is interpreted as referring to points located in the same plane as the outermost surface of the cap-up, in light of [0052] and FIG. 7 of the Instant Specification. As such, because the cap-up of Sodeyama (mapped as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above to battery lid 14) has an outermost edge which is in the same plane as the beginning of the inclined surface of the gasket, it can be considered that the inclined surface of Sodeyama begins at an edge of the cap-up (see annotated FIG. 8 of Sodeyama in the rejection of Claim 1 above). As such, this argument is not persuasive.
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 JULIA MARIE FEHR, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-0860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, BASIA RIDLEY can be reached at (571)272-1453. 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.
/J.M.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1725
/BASIA A RIDLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1725