DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendment filed 06/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 14-26 remain pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 15, 18, 20, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities: the “a.” is unnecessary because there is no “b.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 22 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. Instant claim recites one of “a” or “b” with “b” being a prismatic housing. Dependent on claim 14, claim 14 recites the electrochemical energy storage element is a cylindrical round cell; therefore, housing cannot be prismatic. As a result, the remaining limitation is already recited in the independent claim and would fail to further limit the independent claim.
Claim 23 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. Dependent on claim 14, claim 14 recites a wound electrode-separator assembly; therefore, the electrode-separator assembly cannot be a stack. As a result, the remaining limitation is already recited in the independent claim and would fail to further limit the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2006/0099502) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kim et al. (US 2006/0099502).
Regarding claim 25, instant claim is regarded as a product by process. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113. In this case, the product is cylindrical battery with an electrode assembly in direct contact with the housing wall with out clearance.
Kim discloses a cylindrical lithium secondary battery comprising:
cylindrical case 400 (metallic housing part) generally made of aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), or an alloy thereof (Fig. 5B; para 0037); and
electrode assembly 300 disposed within the housing (Fig. 5B); and
cap assembly 500 (Fig. 5D).
The electrochemical energy storage element is a cylindrical round cell, the electrode-separator assembly is a cylindrical wound electrode-separator assembly, an inner wall of the metallic housing part is in circumferential direct contact with an outer circumference of the electrode-separator assembly without clearance (Fig. 5B). In the alternative, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to have the recited structure because the cylindrical electrode assembly is coupled to the cylindrical case (para 0046). Figure 5B to Kim is provided below.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Kim teaches electrochemical energy storage element is a cylindrical round cell, the electrode-separator assembly is a cylindrical wound electrode-separator assembly (Fig. 5B). Moreover, the cylindrical electrode assembly is coupled to the cylindrical case (para 0046) interpreted as having an internal spatial utilization of more than 99%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-21 and 24 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: novel over the closest prior art to Katayama (JP 2020-177844). Katayama teaches heating the case main body 13 to cause an expansion of the case (para 0059) then inserting the electrode assembly 12 into the case body 13 (para 0060) before cooling (para 0061). Both prismatic and cylindrical cell are known in the art. Katayama, however, further recites insulating film F between the electrode assembly and the container wall (Fig. 3). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, an inner wall of the metallic housing part is in circumferential direct contact with an outer circumference of the electrode-separator assembly. In this case, the electrode assembly of Katayama is not in direct contact with the inner wall of the housing because of the insulating film F.
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 CARLOS BARCENA whose telephone number is (571)270-5780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8-5 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, Tong Guo can be reached at (571)272-3066. 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.
/CARLOS BARCENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights