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 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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 ends with the limitation “the 0.2% proof stress of the negative electrode core is less than or equal to 1.1 times”, but does not specify what is multiplied. For purposes of this Office action, this limitation is taken to mean “the 0.2% proof stress of the positive electrode core is less than or equal to 1.1 times the 0.2% proof stress of the negative electrode core”, because such a limitation would be a narrowing consistent with the limitations set forth in claim 1.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda (JP2019-121498; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda teaches a battery (title) preferably comprising a non-aqueous electrolyte comprising a lithium salt and a non-aqueous solvent for dissolving the lithium salt (machine translation at page 10), a positive electrode having a positive electrode current collector (taken to be the claimed positive electrode core) and a positive electrode active material layer (taken to be the claimed positive electrode mixture layer), and a negative electrode having a negative electrode current collector (taken to be the claimed negative electrode core) and a negative electrode active material layer (taken to be the claimed negative electrode mixture layer) (machine translation at page 9), where the ratio (C2/C1), where C2 is the 0.2% proof stress of the positive core and C1 is the 0.2% proof stress of the negative core is from 0.7-1.5 (machine translation at page 3), such a range completely encompassing the claimed range of from 1.05-1.3. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a ratio of 0.2% proof stress of the positive core to the 0.2% proof stress of the negative core, because Ueda teaches a range of that ratio completely encompassing the claimed range of that ratio. “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” MPEP at 2144.05 citing In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 4, Ueda teaches a range of 0.2% proof stress of the positive core of 150 to 300 MPa (1 MPa = 1 N/mm2) and a ratio C2/C1 of 0.7-1.5 (machine translation at page 3, fourth paragraph), the 0.2% proof stress range completely encompassing the claimed range, and the ratio overlapping the claimed ratio as is being interpreted above in paragraph 3.
Regarding claim 10, given Applicant’s disclosure that the relative 0.2% proof stress of the positive and negative electrode cores leads to the relative amount of plastic deformation of the positive and negative electrodes (see Specification at paragraph [0028]), and Ueda’s teachings above with respect to the 0.2% proof stress of the positive and negative electrode cores, it is expected that Ueda teaches a range of embodiments, a number of which read on the claimed limitation that an amount of plastic deformation of the positive electrode is less than an amount of plastic deformation of the negative electrode.
Regarding claims 11-12, Applicant admits that it is conventional in the art to use a larger negative electrode than a positive electrode (see Specification at paragraph [0002]), therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a larger negative electrode than a positive electrode in order to keep the positive electrode and negative electrode mixture layers facing each other even when the positive electrode is elongated due to charge and discharge (see Applicant’s specification at paragraph [0002]).
Regarding claims 13-14, given Applicant’s disclosure that the relative 0.2% proof stress of the positive and negative electrode cores leads to the suppression of elongation of the positive electrode during charge and discharge, and suppression of the formation of region of the positive electrode not facing the negative electrode during charge and discharge (see Specification at paragraphs [0051]-[0052]), and Ueda’s teachings above with respect to the 0.2% proof stress of the positive and negative electrode cores, it is expected that Ueda teaches a range of embodiments, a number of which read on these claimed limitations.
Claims 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo (JP09-231985; machine translation relied upon).
Regarding claim 3, Ueda does not specifically disclose the breaking elongation percentage of the positive core. Endo teaches using a breaking elongation of a positive core of from 1.3% to 3.1% (machine translation at page 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a breaking elongation of the positive core as taught by Endo in the battery of Ueda in order to prevent discharge failure due to the disconnection of the positive electrode while avoiding the failure of the positive electrode manufacturing process (see Endo machine translation at page 5, last paragraph).
Regarding claims 5-8, Ueda teaches a separator (machine translation at page 9, last paragraph), but does not specifically disclose that the separator is wound, that the battery is housed in a sealed cylindrical can. Endo teaches a battery having a wound electrode assembly housed in a sealed cylindrical can (machine translation at page 4, sixth paragraph; figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the battery in the form of a wound battery in a sealed cylindrical battery can as a simple change in shape that is well-known and predictable in the art (see MPEP at 2144.04 IV B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueda in view of Endo as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Thibault (US Pat. No. 4,307,158).
Regarding claim 9, Ueda (combined) does not specifically disclose a breakable vent member to allow the release of gas, but such a member is well-known and conventional, as is shown, e.g., by Thibault (see column 1, line 7 - column 3, line 59; figure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a breakable vent member in the cap sealed to the can in order to prevent the battery from exploding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ueda neither teaches nor suggests the newly claimed range of 0.2% proof stress ratio in claim 1. However, as is set forth above, Ueda teaches a range for this ratio of 0.7-1.5 (machine translation at page 3), such a range completely encompassing the claimed range of from 1.05-1.3, and rendering claim 1 obvious.
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 PHILIP N SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1612. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/P.N.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 1749 July 29, 2026
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights