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. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “30” (see paragraphs [0084]-[0086], [0089], and [0092] of the specification) . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided . In this instance, the abstract recites the legal term “comprising” in the 2 nd line . The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0074], 4 th line, replace “21” with “23” after “case”. In paragraph [0074], 5 th line, replace “23” with “21” after “end cover”. In paragraph [0078], 5 th line, replace “23” with “21” after “end cover”. In paragraph [0085], 2 nd line, replace “23” with “232” after “portion”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim s 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 13, 1 st line, add “said method” before “comprising” for clarity. In claim 14, 1 st line, add “said device” before “comprising” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required. 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. In this instance, independent claim 14 includes the following limitations: “a first providing means”, “a second providing means” , “a third providing means” , “a f ourth providing means” , and “a n assembling means” . 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 1-14 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation " the thickness direction " in the 5 th line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the movement" in the 7 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface" in the 11 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 2 recites the limitation "the surface side" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the center" bridging the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the unfolded state" in the 1 st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “an” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the notch" in the 1 st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the notch” with either “each notch” or “the plurality of notches” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cross-section" in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cross-sectional radius" in the 1 st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the length L 1 " in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the radius" in the 1 st line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the length L 2 " in the 2 nd line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the thickness direction" in the 8 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the movement" in the 10 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the surface" in the 14 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. With regard to independent claim 14, the limitations “a first providing means” , “a second providing means” , “a t hird providing means” , “a f ourth providing means” , and “a n assembling means” are indefinite, since there are no structural features shown in the flowchart of Figure 14 of any of the “providing means ” or the “assembling means ” (as shown by reference numbers ( 501-505 ) of Figure 14). Claim 14 recites the limitation "the thickness direction" in the 9 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the movement" in the 11 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to delete “the” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the surface" in the 15 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In this instance, it is suggested to replace “the” with “a” to obtain proper antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1- 3, 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108807734 A , of which a complete copy of the Chinese document with an English abstract was provided with the Information Disclosure Statement dated June 4, 2023, and with a machine translation provided with this Office Action. Regarding independent claim 1 , CN ‘734 discloses a battery cell (abstract; pages 2-6 of translation under the heading “summary of the invention”; and Figures 3 and 4), in which the battery cell includes the following structural features: a n electrode assembly (electrode core coil (7)) – see Figure 3 ; a case (housing (1)) for accommodating the electrode assembly (7) , wherein the case (1) has an opening and a first position-limiting portion in the form of a sealing flange (1-2) – see pages 4 -6 of translation; and Figure 3 ; a n end cover (4) for covering the opening, wherein in a thickness direction of the end cover (4) , the end cover (4) is located on one side of the first position-limiting portion (1-2) facing the electrode assembly (7) , and the first position-limiting portion (1-2) is used for restricting movement of the end cover (4) in a direction away from the electrode assembly (7) – see pages 5 and 6 of translation; and Figure 3 ; and a sealing member (insulating gasket (3)) for sealing the end cover (4) and the first position-limiting portion (1-2) , so that the end cover (4) and the first position-limiting portion (1-2) are in sealed connection ( see pages 4-6 of translation; and Figure 3 ) ; wherein the end cover (4) comprises a cover body (4-1,4-2) and a protrusion (4-3) protruding from a surface of the cover body (4-1,4-2) facing away from the electrode assembly (7) in the thickness direction of the end cover (4) , and at least part of the sealing member (3) is clamped between the protrusion (4-3) and the first position-limiting portion (1-2) – see pages 4-6 of translation; and Figures 3 and 4 . Regarding claim 2 , CN ‘734 discloses that the first position-limiting portion (1-2) is a flanging structure formed on a surface side of the end cover (4) facing away from the electrode assembly (7) by partially folding the case (1) towards the end cover (4) – see Figure 3 . Regarding claim 3 , CN ‘734 discloses that the first position-limiting portion (1-2) comprises a first portion and a second portion which are connected, the first portion clads the protrusion (4-3) , and the second portion extends a first predetermined distance from an end of the first portion near a center of the end cover (4) towards the center of the end cover (4) – see Figures 3 and 4 . Regarding claim 6 , CN ‘734 discloses that the case (1) is further provided with a second position-limiting portion (1-1), wherein in the thickness direction of the end cover (4), the cover body (4-1,4-2) is located on one side of the second position-limiting portion (1-1) facing away from the electrode assembly (7), and the second position-limiting portion (1-1) is used for restricting the movement of the cover body (4-1,4-2) relative to the case (1) in a direction facing the electrode assembly (7) – see Figures 3 and 4. Regarding claim 7 , CN ‘734 discloses that the sealing member (3) isolates the end cover (4) from the case (1), so that the end cover (4) is insulated from and connected to the case (1) – see Figure 3. Regarding independent claim s 1 3 and 14 , CN ‘734 discloses a method and device for preparing a battery cell (abstract; pages 2-6 of translation under the heading “summary of the invention”; and Figures 3 and 4), in which the method and device comprise the following process steps and structural features, respectively (also refer to Figures 3 and 4 as applicable to independent claim 1 above) : providing an electrode assembly (7) via a first providing means; providing a case (1) having an opening and a first position-limiting portion (1-2) via a second providing means; providing an end cover (4) via a third providing means; providing a sealing member (3) via a fourth providing means; and accommodating the electrode assembly (7) within the case (1) and covering the opening with the end cover (4) via an assembling means; wherein in a thickness direction of the end cover (4), the end cover (4) is located on one side of the first position-limiting portion (1-2) facing the electrode assembly (7), and the first position-limiting portion (1-2) is used for restricting movement of the end cover (4) in a direction away from the electrode assembly (7); the end cover (4) and the first position-limiting portion (1-2) are sealed with the sealing member (3), so that the end cover (4) and the first position-limiting portion (1-2) are in sealed connection; and the end cover (4) comprises a cover body (4-1,4-2) and a protrusion (4-3) protruding from a surface of the cover body (4-1,4-2) facing away from the electrode assembly (7) in the thickness direction of the end cover (4), and at least part of the sealing member (3) is clamped between the protrusion (4-3) and the first position-limiting portion (1-2). 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. Claim s 4, 5, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 108807734 A . Regarding claim s 4 and 5 , CN ‘734 discloses the structural features of claims 1-3 above . A lthough CN ‘734 discloses that, in an unfolded state of the first position-limiting portion (1-2), the second portion comprises a notch spaced around a central axis of the case (1), with the notch extend ing to an end of the second portion away from the first portion and compris ing two tangential edges intersecting at a vertex and forming a predetermined angle, wherein after the first position-limiting portion (1-2) is folded towards the end cover (4), the two tangential edges leading from the vertex are butted, so that the second portion forms a complete annular structure ( see pages 4-6 of translation; and Figure s 3 and 4), CN ‘734 does not explicitly disclose a plurality of notches (of claim 4, from which claim 5 depends). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the notch defined adjacent to the first position-limiting portion (1-2) disclosed by CN ‘734 would have readily been increased in number for the purpose of obtaining additional clamping and/or sealing a djacen t a region at an interface of the sealing member (3) and the end cover (4) of the case (1) . Regarding the use of a plurality of notches versus a single notch , it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. Regarding claim 8 , CN ‘734 discloses the structural features of independent claim 1 above. Although CN ‘734 discloses that the case (1) is a cylindrical case and that the protrusion (4-3) is annularly distributed around the circumference of the end cover (4), CN ‘734 does not explicitly disclose that a cross-section of the protrusion (4-3) is semicircular. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a selection of one or more shapes of the cross-section of the protrusion (4-3) of CN ‘734 would have been obvious to try in view of a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining an even more secure clamp and/or seal adjacent a region at an interface of the sealing member (3) and the end cover (4) of the case (1) . Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the cross-section of the protrusion , since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim s 9 and 10 , CN ‘734 discloses and suggests the structural features of claims 1 and 8, respectively. Although CN ‘734 would define a cross-sectional radius of the protrusion (4-3) as R 1 , as well as a radius of the case (1) as R 2 , CN ‘734 does not explicitly disclose that, in the unfolded state of the first position-limiting portion (1-2), the length L 1 of the first portion satisfies: π x R 1 < L 1 < 10mm, and a length L 2 of the second portion satisfies: 2mm < L 2 < R 2 - 6mm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, given the teachings of CN ‘734 applied to claims 1 and 8 above, that selection of one or more shapes of the cross-section of the protrusion (4-3) of CN ‘734 would have been obvious to try in view of a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of obtaining an even more secure clamp and/or seal adjacent a region at an interface of the sealing member (3) and the end cover (4) of the case (1). Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the cross-section of the protrusion , since modification of shape is merely a design choice. In the absence of persuasive evidence to the contrary, any change in shape is merely a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) and referring to In re Dailey , 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1966). Regarding the claimed ranges of lengths ( L 1 , L 2 ) and radii (R 1 , R 2 ) in the above formulas of claims 9 and 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215 (1980). Regarding claim s 11 and 12 , CN ‘734 discloses all structural features of the battery cell of independent claim 1 , but does not explicitly disclose a plurality of battery cells that would define a battery (claim 11) used for providing electric energy as an electrical apparatus (of claim 12). However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a (single) battery cell in claim 1 of CN ‘734 would inherently be able to provide electric energy, and use of a plurality of battery cells of the type claimed in claim 1 of CN ‘734 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to multiply the amount of electric energy to serve as an electrical apparatus by merely using multiple battery cells to largely increase energy output. Moreover, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co. , 193 USPQ 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEVIN P KERNS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1178 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8am-430pm . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith Walker can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3458 . 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. /KEVIN P KERNS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735 December 20 , 2025