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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is responsive to amendments and remarks filed on 4/24/2026.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claim 14 has been newly added.
Claims 1-3, and 5-14 are currently pending.
* Applicant please note that when submitting a marked-up copy that has less than three characters deleted at a given section to please use double brackets [[x]] instead of a so that the scanning AI, as well as the support team can clearly see the correction.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted 4/23/2026, and 6/5/2026 were received and are being considered by the examiner, except where lined-through. The IDS dated 4/23/2026 has the dates for the office actions corrected by the examiner annotated on the document. The IDS dated 6/5/2026 has a lined through document because a translation in English was not provided.
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendment the objection to the specification/title is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the objection to the abstract is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the objection to the drawings is withdrawn.
In light of the amendment the rejection to the claims under §112(b) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that “the claimed terminal member is not a pin-shaped component that is inserted into the through hole, but rather includes a plate-shaped portion that covers the through hole” the examiner would like to point out that the terminal member disclosed by HARA has a plate shaped member when viewed from above. This is further detailed in the rejection of the claim below.
Applicant also claims that the instant invention has “enhanced battery characteristics”, it should be noted that an argument for unexpected results or criticality cannot be effectively made against a 102-anticipation rejection.
Evidence of secondary considerations, such as unexpected results or commercial success, is irrelevant to 35 U.S.C. 102 rejections and thus cannot overcome a rejection so based. In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543, 179 USPQ 421, 425 (CCPA 1973).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation in the 13th line of the claim has been amended to read "an opening". While the original §112(b) recited both a functional language rejection and an antecedent basis rejection, the examiner would like to extend his apologies for the antecedent basis rejection. The claim is now objected. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted to read as “the opening”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4804593 A, HARA et al.
Regarding claim 1. HARA discloses a battery in the annotated figure depicted below comprising:
an outer package member having an outer diameter and a height;
a battery device contained inside the outer package member;
a sealing member having an insulating property; and
a terminal member supported by the outer package member via the sealing member, wherein
[col 7 line 10] a ratio of the outer diameter (17 mm) to the height (33.5 mm) is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than 1, HARA discloses 17 / 33.5 = 0.507
PNG
media_image1.png
614
993
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The annotated figure depicted below discloses the outer package member includes
a container member that has an opening, and contains the battery device in an inside of the container member, and
a cover member that is connected to the container member, wherein
the cover member is configured to close the opening, and wherein
the cover member has a through hole shown in the annotated figure below,
the terminal member is fixed to the cover member via the sealing member, and is configured to cover the through hole, wherein
the terminal member includes a plate-shaped member (top portion) disposed on an outer side of the cover member so as to cover the through hole, and
[col 3 lines 65-68 and col 4 lines 1-10] discloses a fixation strength of the terminal member to the cover member is lower than a connecting strength of the cover member to the container member.
PNG
media_image2.png
594
703
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.6. HARA [col 7 line 10] discloses 17 mm / 33.5 mm = 0.507
Regarding claim 3. HARA [col 7 line 10 and col 9 line 5] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein a ratio of an outer diameter of the terminal (17 mm) member to an inner diameter of the through hole (9 mm) is greater than or equal to 1.13 and less than or equal to 3.37. HARA discloses 17 mm/ 9 mm = 1.89
Regarding claim 6. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, in the annotated figure depicted below
the battery device includes a positive electrode (8) and a negative electrode (7) that are opposed to each other and are wound, and has a winding center space at a center around which the positive electrode and the negative electrode are wound, and
the through hole is positioned to overlap at least a portion of the winding center space.
PNG
media_image3.png
614
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1 in the annotated figure depicted below,
a wiring member that couples the battery device and the terminal member to each other, wherein
the wiring member is folded once or more between the battery device and the terminal member.
PNG
media_image4.png
534
425
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1 in the annotated figure depicted below, wherein
the cover member has a recessed part,
in the recessed part, the cover member bends to protrude in part toward the inside of the container member, and
the terminal member is disposed inside the recessed part.
PNG
media_image5.png
614
721
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11. HARA [col 3 lines 65-68] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein
the battery device includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode,
the negative electrode is electrically coupled to the terminal member, and
the positive electrode is electrically coupled to the outer package member.
Regarding claim 12. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1 in the annotated figure depicted below, wherein the battery comprises a battery of a cylindrical type.
PNG
media_image6.png
466
558
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13. HARA [col 6 line 47] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery comprises a lithium-ion secondary battery.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 4804593 A, HARA et al. with PALMETTO IND. website as supporting evidence.
Regarding claim 5. HARA [col 4 line 5] discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the sealing member includes polypropylene having a melting point of higher than or equal to 130 degrees Celsius and lower than or equal to 250 degrees Celsius.
PALMETTO INDUSTRIES website discloses the inherent property of polypropylene’s melting point to be 160°C to 170°C which is clearly anticipated with sufficient specificity by HARA.
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 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 7, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4804593 A, HARA et al.
Regarding claim 7. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 6.
HARA does not explicitly disclose an inner diameter of the through hole is larger than an inner diameter of the winding center space.
It has been held that 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. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.04. IV. A
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have changed the size of the opening without modifying the functionality of the device.
Regarding claim 10. HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the battery device includes a positive electrode and a negative electrode.
HARA does not disclose the positive electrode is electrically coupled to the terminal member, and the negative electrode is electrically coupled to the outer package member.
The mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have switched the polarities on the battery device without changing the functionality or effectiveness of the claimed safety features of the battery.
Regarding claim 14 : HARA discloses the battery according to claim 1, wherein the ratio is greater than or equal to 0.1
HARA does not specifically disclose less than or equal to 0.4.
HARA [col 7 line 10] discloses a ratio of the outer diameter (17 mm) to the height (33.5 mm) is greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than 1, HARA discloses 17 / 33.5 = 0.507
HARA’s ratio of 0.507 is close to 0.4 thereby establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, conversely the examiner could not find any data to demonstrate how 0.4 is critical to the function of the battery.
It has been held that 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. In re Rose , 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Also see MPEP 2144.04. IV. A
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made a battery disclosed by HARA with a ratio in the instantly claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.1 and less than or equal to 0.4, this small change in size would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill with little to no experimentation.
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 LAWRENCE LA RAIA III whose telephone number is (703)756-5441. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571) 272-1330. 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.
LAWRENCE LA RAIA III
Examiner
Art Unit 1727
/L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1727
/BARBARA L GILLIAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights