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. CYLINDRICAL BATTERY Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/281,846 Art Unit: 1727 March 17, 2026 DETAILED ACTION The Application filed on September 13, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been fully considered. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The original disclosure uses double sided tape as the “ fixing means” in claim 1 (Abstract and paragraph [0036] of the PGPub ). 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-4 are 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. The term “ elongated ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ elongated ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what structures or lengths of the current collectors read on the claims and what structures or lengths do not. For purposes of compact prosecution, any wound electrode assembly with current collectors will read on the claimed current collectors . 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. 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) 1 -4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imanishi et al. (US 2020/0373626 A1) in view of Lee (US 2008/0102354 A1; as found in IDS dated 09/13/23) . As to Claim s 1 -3 , Imanishi discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a wound electrode assembly wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector (reads on elongated) and an active material layer provided on at least one side wall of said positive current collector; the negative electrode comprises a current collector (reads on elongated) and a negative active material layer provided on at least one side wall of the negative collector. The negative electrode comprises a n exposed portion 42 that represents an outermost circumferential surface of the electrode assembly and is provided with a tape 50 for fixing the electrode assembly ; (Abstract, Fig. 2 and paragraphs [ 0026-0028 and 0039]). Imanishi does not specifically disclose wherein the tape is provided on an inner circumferential surface of the outermost circumferential portion for fixing the outermost circumferential portion to an inner circumferential side portion facing the inner circumferential surface. However, Lee teaches of a non-aqueous electrolyte secondary battery, comprising: a wound electrode assembly wherein the positive electrode comprises a current collector (reads on elongated) and an active material layer provided on at least one side wall of said positive current collector; the negative electrode comprises a current collector (reads on elongated) and a negative active material layer provided on at least one side wall of the negative collector. The electrode assembly comprises a winding end 285 that represents an outermost circumferential surface of the electrode assembly; and an inner circumferential surface of the outermost circumferential portion of the electrode assembly is provided with a double-sided finishing tape (fixing means ; adhesive ) 430 for fixing the outermost circumferential portion to an inner circumferential side portion 270 facing the inner circumferential surface (Abstract, Fig. 6 and paragraphs [ 0007- 0008, 0019 and 0039 ] ). At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fixing means of Imanishi to read on the claims because Lee teaches that the tape can be applied in a manner unlike ordinary tape which requires a substrate layer; can reduce the cost of the tape and a battery with improved charge capacity is provided (paragraphs [0013-0014 and 0019]). As to Claim 4, modified Lee does not specifically teach the claimed limitation. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device , see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A; and the particular placement of the fixing means was held to be an obvious matter of design choice that would not have modified the operation of the device, see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fixing means of Lee to read on the claims because Lee teaches that the tape can be applied in a manner unlike ordinary tape which requires a substrate layer; can reduce the cost of the tape and a battery with improved charge capacity is provided (paragraphs [0013-0014 and 0019]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5116 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET . 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 Barbara Gilliam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1330 . 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. /ADAM A ARCIERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727