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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 2, 2026 is acknowledged. Claim 1 is currently amended and remains pending in the application. Claims 2-6 are canceled. Applicant’s amendments to the specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on December 8, 2025.
The previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment. New rejections follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “the annular seal surface is an annular roughened surface having an uneven shape with pits and protrusions on the order of nanometers” is not properly described in the application as filed because of the term “on the order of nanometers”, which is new matter. The specification includes no suggestion that the pits and protrusions are on the order of nanometers, except for mention of a laser surface treatment used to roughen the surface, with reference to Japanese unexamined patent application publication No. 2022-028587 (paragraph 0029). This publication is not incorporated by reference, and it is further noted that essential subject matter (e.g. subject matter providing the disclosure required by 35 USC 112) cannot be incorporated by reference to a non-US patent application publication. (see MPEP § 608.01(p)(I)) and 37 CFR 1.57(d). For this reason, the reference to the Japanese application cannot constitute written description support and the term “on the order of nanometers” is considered new matter.
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 1 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.
The term “on the order of nanometers” in claim 1, line 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “on the order of nanometers” 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. The limitation “the annular seal surface is an annular roughened surface having an uneven shape with pits and protrusions on the order of nanometers” has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “on the order of nanometers”. The lower and upper limits of “on the order of nanometers” are unclear.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong et al. (US 2010/0003583 A1) in view of Komatsuki et al. (US 2011/0027645 A1), Nomura et al. (US 2019/0206761 A1), and Kuwabara (JP 2001345081 A).
Regarding claim 1, Seong et al. discloses a sealed power storage device (abstract and Fig. 2A),
comprising:
a device case (paragraph 0052 and Fig. 2A, can 200) including a wall portion (paragraph 0053 and Fig. 2A, cap plate 350) formed with a liquid inlet (paragraph 0057 and Fig. 2A, electrolyte injection hole 370); and
a sealing member (paragraph 0057 and Fig. 2B, sealing member 382) covering the liquid inlet from above an outer surface of the wall portion to close the liquid inlet,
wherein the sealing member is a resin sealing member made of resin (paragraph 0057 and Fig. 2B, resin 381),
the outer surface of the wall portion includes an annular seal surface (paragraph 0057 and Fig. 2B, roughened surface 372), surrounding an opening edge of the liquid inlet (Fig. 2B),
the resin sealing member includes an annular joined portion (Figs. 2B and 3A) hermetically joined to the annular seal surface of the wall portion (paragraph 0076 and Fig. 2B)
the annular seal surface is an annular roughened surface having an uneven shape with pits and protrusions (paragraph 0076 and Fig. 3B, roughened surface 372),
the resin sealing member is hermetically joined to the annular roughened surface by the annular joined portion made of a part of the resin forming the resin sealing member, the part of the resin forming the resin sealing member entering into the pits of the annular roughened surface (paragraph 0076 and Fig. 4C, resin layer 381 conforms to the roughened surface 372)
Seong et al. does not disclose that the wall portion is a metal wall portion, that the pits and protrusions are on the order of nanometers, the resin sealing member also serves as a safety valve member, and the resin sealing member breaks when an internal pressure of the device case reaches a valve opening pressure to release sealing of the liquid inlet sealed with the resin sealing member.
Komatsuki et al. teaches a metal wall portion (paragraph 0051 and Fig. 8, lid member 40 made of
aluminum material).
Seong et al. and Komatsuki et al. are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of sealed lithium-ion secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealed power storage device of Seong et al. with the teachings of Komatsuki et al. so that the wall portion is a metal wall portion, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would yield an external case that is lightweight and has good thermal conductivity (Komatsuki et al., paragraph 0051).
Modified Seong does not disclose that the pits and protrusions are on the order of nanometers, the resin sealing member also serves as a safety valve member, and the resin sealing member breaks when an internal pressure of the device case reaches a valve opening pressure to release sealing of the liquid inlet sealed with the resin sealing member. Seong et al. discloses the tapered portion 371 having a surface roughness of from 1 μm to 17 μm (paragraph 0072).
Seong et al. is silent as to the width of the pits and protrusions. Nomura et al. discloses a metal member with pits and protrusions with width on the order of nanometers (paragraphs 0035-0040 and Figs. 1, 2, 5, and 6, porous metal layer 12 with thickness less than 1 μm and holes 12a with dimension width in the range of 1 nm or more and 100 nm or less). Nomura et al. also discloses that the porous metal layer 12 is formed on uneven layer 11, which is constituted by protrusions with an average height that is 1 μm or more and less than 100 μm (paragraphs 0033-0035).
Although Nomura et al. is in a different field of endeavor than the claimed invention because it discloses metal-resin composites for use in semiconductors, it is considered analogous art because it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of joining a metal member with an annular roughened surface with a resin sealing member. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the annular seal surface of modified Seong with the teachings of Nomura et al., so that a porous metal layer with nano-scale holes is formed on the annular seal surface, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would provide a second anchor effect and improve adhesiveness (paragraphs 0037-0038).
Seong et al. discloses that the desired leak pressure is generally 3 kgf/cm2 or more (paragraph 0081). Fig. 6 is a graph of leak pressure versus surface roughness of tapered portion 371 (paragraph 0082). Seong et al. also discloses that at a surface roughness of 0.5 μm, the minimum leak pressure was about 2 kgf/cm2, and that at a surface roughness of 1 μm, the minimum leak pressure was about 6.2 kgf/cm2 (paragraphs 0082-0084). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover pits and protrusions on the order of nanometers through routine optimization. Varying the surface roughness between the disclosed examples of 0.5 μm and 1 μm would have been routine optimization, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in formulating pits and protrusions on the order of nanometers while maintaining the minimum leak pressure above the desired 3 kgf/cm2 (see MPEP § 2144.05(II)).
Modified Seong does not disclose that the resin sealing member also serves as a safety valve member, and the resin sealing member breaks when an internal pressure of the device case reaches a valve opening pressure to release sealing of the liquid inlet sealed with the resin sealing member.
Kuwabara discloses wherein the resin sealing member also serves as a safety valve member (paragraphs 0014 and 0018 and Fig. 1, resin sealing film 8 functions as a safety valve), and the resin sealing member breaks when an internal pressure of the device case reaches a valve opening pressure to
release sealing of the liquid inlet sealed with the resin sealing member (paragraph 0018, resin film is ruptured first when the internal pressure of the battery reaches a range of 1 kgf/cm2 to 20 kgf/cm2).
Kuwabara is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of sealed secondary batteries. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the sealed power storage device of modified Seong to incorporate the teachings of Kuwabara so that the resin sealing member breaks at a certain internal pressure to release sealing of the liquid inlet, serving as a safety valve member, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. Doing so would prevent the expansion and rupture of the battery, and improve the safety of the battery (Kuwabara, paragraph 0018).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on March 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5, paragraph 4 of Applicant’s response, Applicant traverses the assertion that Seong et al. is relevant to amended claim 1 because Seong et al. fails to teach or suggest an annular roughened surface having an uneven structure on the order of nanometers. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2145(IV)). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teachings of the applied references and instead only argues that each reference individually does not teach all of the claim limitations. All of the limitations of the claim are disclosed in the combination of Seong et al., Komatsuki et al., Nomura et al., and Kuwabara, and it is the combination of the references that renders the claimed invention obvious. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it only attacks the references individually instead of considering their combined teachings, and Seong et al. is relevant to amended claim 1.
Similarly, on page 5, paragraph 5 of Applicant’s response, Applicant traverses the assertion that Kuwabara is relevant to amended claim 1 because Kuwabara fails to teach or suggest a resin sealing member joined to an annular roughened surface around a liquid injection port of a metal wall portion, and that the “metal” and the “resin” are firmly joined by a nano-anchor effect. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (see MPEP § 2145(IV)). Applicant’s reply fails to address the combined teachings of the applied references and instead only argues that each reference individually does not teach all of the claim limitations. All of the limitations of the claim are disclosed in the combination of Seong et al., Komatsuki et al., Nomura et al., and Kuwabara, and it is the combination of the references that renders the claimed invention obvious. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because it only attacks the references individually instead of considering their combined teachings, and Kuwabara is relevant to amended claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, the deficiencies relating to nano-scale pits and protrusions argued are addressed by the further modification of Seong et al. in view of Nomura et al.
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 Jackie Liang whose telephone number is (571)-272-0880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM - 4:30PM.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at (571)-272-1307. 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.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 27 March 2026
Prosecution Insights