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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment and arguments, filed 04/30/26, have been fully considered. Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are amended; claim(s) 2 and 4 stand(s) as originally or previously presented; no new matter has been added. Examiner affirms that the original disclosure provides adequate support for the amendment.
Upon considering said amendment and arguments, the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 103 rejections set forth in the Office Action mailed 02/04/26 has/have been withdrawn. However, the previous 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection has/have been maintained and altered as necessitated by amendment, as set forth below. Additionally, Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1 and 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haraguchi et al. (WO 2019082712 A1, from 07/11/23 IDS; citation to English equivalent US 20200259202 A1, from same IDS) (Haraguchi).
Regarding claim 1, Haraguchi discloses a cylindrical battery (Title, figs.), comprising (per annot. figs. 1/2 below) a bottomed tubular exterior can (exterior; see also fig. 1’s ref. 13); and a sealing assembly closing an opening of the exterior can (denoted SA), wherein the sealing assembly includes a sealing plate (22) that discharges gas inside to an outside by rupturing (¶ 0015), the sealing plate has an outer peripheral portion at least part of which is crimped and fixed to the opening of the exterior can (denoted OPP; see also ¶ 0013); and an annular thin portion adjacent to the outer peripheral portion (denoted TP, which would be annular by wrapping around battery radially, as implied from fig. 1’s cross-section; compare to substantially similar instant fig. 3), the thin portion having a thickness smaller than a thickness of the outer peripheral portion in an axial direction (as seen in fig. 2, due to the carved out inner surface IS, the thin portion TP is thinner axially than outer peripheral portion OPP),
the thin portion has an inclined portion that is inclined to a bottom side of the exterior can in the axial direction as going inward in a radial direction (denoted IP), and in a cross section of the thin portion as cut along a plane including the radial direction and the axial direction, an inner surface of an adjacent portion (denoted AP), of the thin portion, that is adjacent to the outer peripheral portion has a curved shape (denoted as IS within AP).
PNG
media_image1.png
235
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
299
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As seen above and in ¶ 0018, Haraguchi discloses that the thickness of sloping region decreases continuously—i.e., as a gradient—toward the outer periphery, culminating at thinnest portion 23a. Further, as seen in the figure (even though unlabeled), the portion immediately radially outward from the thinnest portion 23a becomes infinitesimally thicker again due to the IS’s curve’s extending outward and downward).
Thus, Haraguchi discloses that a gradient of an outer surface of the thin portion changes from a gradient change point, which is positioned inward of the adjacent portion in the radial direction (GCP (thinnest portion 23a) closer to radial center than is AP), toward the outer peripheral portion (i.e., thickness of outer surface of “thin portion” continually decreases toward OPP, culminating in thinnest portion 23a, followed by becoming thicker again such that 23a is a gradient change portion GCP) such that a thickness of the adjacent portion is smaller than a thickness of a portion of the thin portion excluding the adjacent portion (i.e., the top of the curved surface would make AP (the portion immediately radially outward from the thinnest portion 23a) infinitesimally thicker than GCP but still necessarily thinner than, e.g., the base of the sloping region (where left dashed line delimiting TP above extends downward) as “a portion of the thin portion excluding the adjacent portion” due to the base’s “leg” that extends downward to increase thickness, as seen in circled portions in annot. fig. 2 v2 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
294
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Haraguchi discloses the cylindrical battery according to claim 1, wherein the outer surface spreads in the adjacent portion in a direction substantially perpendicular to the axial direction (note, in annot. fig. 2, flattening left to right and, thus, orthogonal to axial direction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text forming the basis for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haraguchi et al. (WO 2019082712 A1; citation to English equivalent US 20200259202 A1) (Haraguchi), as applied to claim 1, in view of Aoki et al. (JP 2013062113 A) (Aoki).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Haraguchi discloses the cylindrical battery according to claim 1.
As seen in fig. 1, Haraguchi exemplifies an exposed sealing configuration where the sealing plate (valve member 22) acts as the terminal, though Haraguchi fails to explicitly disclose that the sealing plate has, in a center portion in the radial direction, a convex portion protruding outward in the axial direction, the convex portion being positioned inward of the thin portion in the radial direction, wherein a top surface of the convex portion is positioned more outward in the axial direction—i.e., upward in the height direction (spec.’s ¶ 0028)—than a shoulder portion of the exterior can.
Aoki teaches an analogous cylindrical battery including a sealing body 15 comprising convex terminal cap 8 coupled to valve body 14 (fig. 3). As seen in fig. 3, the cap’s convex portion is radially inward of cutting portions 22b that rupture in response to pressure buildup from gas flowing through through holes 14a in the valve body 14 (sees also ¶ 0026). Aoki teaches that, in addition to the openings 20a within cap 8, the rupturable cutting portions 22b allow gas to be discharged, improving gas discharge capacity (¶ 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to couple Aoki’s terminal cap with vent openings and cutting portions to Haraguchi’s sealing plate, where the cap’s convex portion is radially inward of Haraguchi’s “thin portion”, with the reasonable expectation of providing extra openings for gas to escape upon pressure buildup to improve gas discharge capacity, as taught by Aoki.
Thus, modified Haraguchi would disclose or render obvious that the sealing plate has, in a center portion in the radial direction, a convex portion protruding outward in the axial direction (Aoki’s convex portion of the cap), the convex portion being positioned inward of the thin portion in the radial direction (per Aoki’s fig. 3), wherein a top surface of the convex portion is positioned more outward in the axial direction than a shoulder portion of the exterior can (as also seen in Aoki’s fig. 3, where the convex portion of the cap protrudes axially past the crimping part/lip of the can).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 of claim 1 and the 103 of claims 3 and 4 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive.
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues that Haraguchi fails to disclose a gradient change point within the recited positional relation relative to the adjacent portion. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As seen in annot. fig. 2 above, Haraguchi discloses a point where the thickness of the thin portion’s outer surface changes—i.e., thinnest portion 23a followed by infinitesimally thicker adjacent portion radially outward, as detailed above—and Examiner has updated the explanation of the “adjacent portion” as being adjacent the thinnest region 23a. Such establishes that the gradient change point is radially inward from the adjacent portion, which is reasonably slightly thinner than a portion of the thin portion excluding the adjacent portion (e.g., base of sloping region 23, as explained based on “leg” at base of sloping region (annot. fig. 2 v2) imparting greater thickness) such that Haraguchi still appears to anticipate claim 1.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection citing the new reference Aoki, who teaches the convex cap coupled to the sealing plate and positioned radially inward of thin portions within or proximal to the sealing plate. This combination appears proper because, unlike the previously relied upon Ma, Aoki’s valve body 14 is a flat, elongated plate (similar to Haraguchi’s), so Applicant’s concerns of the differences in geometry of the sealing members between the references —and, thus, assertion of frustrating either reference’s intended purpose or mode of operation—do not appear to apply to the new combination. Further, again, the skilled artisan would understand to position Aoki’s protruding cap radially inward of Haraguchi’s “thin portion” given Aoki teaches a similar configuration of the cap’s convex portion’s being radially inward of the thinner cutting portions 22b and through holes 14a of valve body 14.
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 JOHN S MEDLEY whose telephone number is (703)756-4600. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00–5:00 EST M–Th and 8:00–12:00 EST F.
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, Jonathan Leong, can be reached on 571-270-192. 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.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights