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 § 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(s) 1-3, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US 2020/0090879A1) . Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a cylindrical battery (see Title, Abstract, Fig. 1-21) , comprising: a bottomed cylindrical exterior housing can (container 120 including exterior can 121 having a can bottom portion 121a [0064]-[0066], Fig. 1) ; an electrode assembly that is housed in the exterior housing can (electricity storage device 110 housed in the exterior can 121 [0068], Fig. 2) , and in which an elongated first electrode and an elongated second electrode having different polarities from each other are wound with a separator interposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (negative electrode 130, positive electrode 140, separator 150 wound [0069]) ; a metal plate that is disposed between a bottom of the exterior housing can and the electrode assembly (reinforcement plate 160 made of metal [0100]-[01 30 ], Fig. 10-21) ; and a plurality of second electrode lead parts that extend from the second electrode toward the bottom (negative electrode lead foils 133 extend toward the bottom [0075]-[0076], Fig. 7-12,21) , wherein a tip portion of each second electrode lead part is sandwiched between the metal plate and the bottom and is electrically connected to the bottom (negative electrode lead foil 133 sandwiched between exterior can 121 and reinforcement plate 160 [0100]-[0 130 ] , Fig. 10-21 ) . Regarding claim 2, Mori discloses all of the claim limitations as set fort h above. Mori further discloses the plurality of second electrode lead parts are formed of a metal foil constituting a current collector of the second electrode (part of negative electrode current collector 131 projects, thereby forming negative electrode lead foils 133 [0075]) . Regarding claim 3 , Mori discloses all of the claim limitations as set fort h above. Mori further discloses at least one of the plurality of second electrode lead parts is bonded to the metal plate ( welded [0102] ) . Regarding claim 5 , Mori discloses all of the claim limitations as set fort h above. Further regarding claim 5 reciting the limitation “ the metal plate is bonded to the bottom not via the second electrode lead part ”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114) . Nevertheless, Mori further discloses welding the reinforcement plate 160, negative electrode lead foils 133 and exterior can 121 ([0102]) such that the reinforcement plate 160 and exterior can 121 are bonded/form a direct electric connection to each other. Regarding claim 6 , Mori discloses all of the claim limitations as set fort h above. Further regarding claim 6 reciting the limitation “ the plurality of second electrode lead parts and the bottom are electrically connected to each other by a laser beam emitted from outside of the exterior housing can ”, product-by-process limitations are not given patentable weight since the method does not provide additional structure to the product claim (see MPEP 2113 and 2114) . Nevertheless, Mori disclosure of welding the reinforcement plate 160, negative electrode lead foils 133 and exterior can 121 ([0102]) is considered to satisfy the final product resulting from the product-by-process limitation of claim 6. 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 2020/0090879A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6 above, in view of Takahashi (WO2021024734A1, refer to English equivalent US 2022/0149490A1) . Regarding claim 4 , Mori discloses all of the claim limitations as set fort h above. However, Mori does not further disclose an insulating layer is disposed between the metal plate and the electrode assembly. Takahashi discloses a secondary battery comprising an insulator 13 attached to negative electrode current collector plate 25 and electrode wound body 20 ([0032], [0034], [0074], Fig. 1,3-4). An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex , 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (US 2020/0090879A1), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6 above, in view of JP2019160751A, refer to English machine translation by EPO Regarding claim 7 , Mori discloses all of the claim limitations as set fort h above. Mori further disclose s a method of producing the cylindrical battery according to claim 1 (method, see Title, Abstract; see rejection of claim 1) , the method including the step of electrically connecting the plurality of second electrode lead parts and the bottom (resistance welding negative electrode lead foil 133 and exterior can 121 [0095]). However, Mori does not disclose emitting a laser beam from outside of the exterior housing can. JP2019160751A discloses a manufacturing method of sealed battery (see Title), including a step of laser-welding the lead to the outer can from the outside of the outer can (see p.1,3). An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc. v. Fisher-Price Inc ., 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also KSR v. Teleflex , 82 USPQ2d 1385, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). The claim would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claim would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If the leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” It has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is generally within the skill of the art. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JAMES LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7937 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 9AM - 5PM . 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 NICOLE BUIE-HATCHER can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3879 . 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. /James Lee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1725 3/13/2026