DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority This application is a continuation of PCT/JP2022/002408, filed on 01/24/22. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/03/23, 08/28/23,03/18/25, 08/20/25 was considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings were received on 08/03/23. 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. 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 1, 4 -8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the publication WO 2020/251055 (herein WO’055) . As to claim s 1 , 4, 7-8, 10 : WO’055 discloses that it is known in the art to make a lithium-ion (non-aqueous electrolyte) battery comprising a sealing member/element comprising a vinylidene fluoride unit (i.e., fluoro-elastomer) wherein the sealing member/element has a circular shape and a rectangular cross-sectional shape when cut (Abstract; 0087-0090; see Claim 1; see Table 1 ) . Examiner’s note : w ith respect to the specific compression rate, elongation Eb, ß=T /W (the specific cross-sectional aspect ratio) where T is the circumferential thickness and W is the width of the sealing member, respectively , applicant is kindly reminded what MPEP 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims - Functional Language establishes: APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir . 1990) (emphasis in original). As per MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof: "V. ONCE A REFERENCE TEACHING PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS MADE THE BASIS OF A REJECTION, AND THE EXAMINER PRESENTS EVIDENCE OR REASONING TENDING TO SH OW INHERENCY, THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT TO SHOW AN UNOBVIOUS DIFFERENCE .... [T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency under 35 U.S.C. 102, o r prima facie obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same... [footnote omitted]." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims . In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433- 34 (CCPA 1977)) . As to claim s 5-6 : WO’055 disclose a sealing member/element comprising a vinylidene fluoride unit (0043; see Table 1). All in all, A REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102/103 CAN BE MADE WHEN THE PRIOR ART PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE IDENTICAL EXCEPT THAT THE PRIOR ART IS SILENT AS TO AN INHERENT CHARACTERISTIC, PROPERTY OR FUNCTION Where applicant claims a compositi on in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is n ot explicitly disclosed by the reference, the examiner may make a rejection under both 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, expressed as a 102/103 rejection. "There is nothing inconsistent in concurrent rejections for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 and for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. 102." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 n.4, 195 USPQ 430, 433 n.4 (CCPA 1977). This same rationale should also apply to product, apparatus, and process claims claimed in terms of function, property or characteristic. Therefore, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is appropriate for these types of claims as wel l as for composition claims . Refer to MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof . 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. Claim s 2- 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication WO 2020/251055 (herein WO’055) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the publication WO 20 15 / 129866 (herein WO’ 866 ) . WO’055 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific circumferential thickness and width of the sealing member. As to claim s 2-3 : In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, WO’866 discloses that it is known in the art to make a sealing member including, inter alia, an annular sealing member having a circumferential thickness, width and compression ratio (Abstract; 0016-0020; see Figure 1). In this instance, WO’866 addresses the formation of sealing member s/elements having specif ic circumferential thickness and width (i.e., specific dimensions) . By compounding the above teachings, it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sealing member/element by having the circumferential thickness and width as instantly claimed because WO’866 teaches that the specifically disclosed sealing member/element having specific dimensions is a sealing member capable of achieving a satisfactory sealing effect even when used over a long period of time. Further, the claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations, or based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known method of enhancement to a “base” device (method, or product) in the prior art and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Stated differently, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is prima-facie obvious. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 US- 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. With respect to the specific circumferential thickness and width of the sealing member , assuming arguendo that WO’866 does not teach such circumferential thickness and width (a point not conceded by the examiner), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the sealing member of WO’055 and WO’ 866 by having the specific circumferential thickness and width as instantly claimed because where the only difference between the prior art an d the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions (changes in size / proportion) of the claimed feature and a feature having the claimed relative dimensions would n ot perform differently than the prior art feature, e lement, or component , the claimed element, feature or component is not patenta bly distinct from the prior art element, feature or component . That is, limitations relating to the size of the element, feature or component are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art as it is noted that changes in size is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in t he art would have found obvious abse nt persuasive evidence that the particular dimensions (i.e., circumferential thickness and width ) is /are critical . In re Rose 105 USPQ 237; In re Rinehart 189 USPQ 143; In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777 & 225 USPQ 232 ( See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale ) . Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the publication WO 2020/251055 (herein WO’055) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Min et al 2010/0313410 . WO’055 is applied, argued and incorporated herein for the reasons manifested supra. However, the preceding reference does not expressly disclose the specific battery being a rectangular battery . As to claim 9 : In this respect, in the same field of applicant’s endeavor, Min et al disclose that it is known in the art to make rectangular lithium-ion ( non-aqueous electrolyte ) batteries ( 0004; 0002 ). In light of the above , it would have been within the purview of a skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the battery of WO’055 by having a rectangular shape as instantly claimed because Min et al t each that it is commonplace in the art to shape or make batteries by having specific shapes according to the required physical/geometrical characteristics, to the size requirement (smaller/lighter) in order to have increased functionality and be able to meet the demand for high-performance while being capable of being used for an extended time and to have high reliability. In this regard, it is noted changes in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed battery (i.e., rectangular battery) is critical. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 . It is also noted that aesthetic design changes having no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid , 73 USPQ 431 . ( See MPEP 2144.04 [R-1] Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale ). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RAYMOND ALEJANDRO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1282 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday (8:00 am-6:30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT /RAYMOND ALEJANDRO/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 1752