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 .
Notice of Non-Patent Literature cited:
Melançon, S. Prismatic Cells vs. Cylindrical Cells: What is the Difference? | Laserax.
https://www.laserax.com/blog/prismatic-vs-cylindrical-cells (accessed 2026-07-08).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 objected to because of the following informalities in claim 1:
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sealing plate" in “and … The sealing plate
includes: … an electrode terminal” and “the terminal mounting hole to be exposed to outside the sealing plate”. It is unclear if “the sealing plate” is the same as the previously recited “a rectangular sealing plate” or refers to a non-obvious patentably distinct concept.
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.
Claims 1-11 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 Examiner notes that the applicant’s terms of “one end” and “the other end”, as used in “in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate, one end has the electrode terminal on either the positive or negative electrode side, and the other end has the electrode terminal on the opposite side to the electrode side” in claim 1, are ambiguous and unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if “one end” and “the other end” comprise the same “end”, or if the two concepts represent patentably distinct concepts.
The Examiner notes that the applicant’s term of “opposite side to the electrode side”, as used in “the other end has the electrode terminal on the opposite side to the electrode side” in lines 17-18, is ambiguous and unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the “opposite side to the electrode side” comprises the same electrode(s) as introduced in line 9, a patentably-distinct electrode(s) relative to the electrode side, or no electrodes.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites the limitation "the electrode side" in “opposite side to the electrode side”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The Examiner notes that the applicant’s term of “and on one side for accommodating the electrode body”, as used in “a rectangular parallelepiped flat rectangular battery case including [[an]] a rectangular opening, and on one side for accommodating the electrode body;”, is ambiguous and unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the “one side” comprises an object(s) placed in proximity to it and the nature of such object(s).
The amendments at lines 16-18 in Claim 1 include two recitations of "the electrode terminal," which lacks proper antecedent basis, given that a single electrode terminal is recited in lines 9-11.
This also renders all subsequent recitations of the electrode terminal/insulating member and its components indefinite (which also renders all dependent claims (2-11) indefinite).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 7-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuki JP-2010055992-A, and further in view of Melançon (see NPL section above).
Regarding Claim 1 Mutsuki discloses, a battery comprising:
an electrode body (Fig. 1, Object 3) including respective electrodes of positive (5) and negative electrodes (6) ([0012], “an electrode assembly in which…a positive electrode…and…a negative electrode”);
a battery case (2) including an opening, and for accommodating the electrode body
([0012], “sealing plate block that closes an…opening of the battery case”, “includes a battery case…electrode assembly”);
a sealing plate (7, 8, 9) including a terminal mounting hole (10), and for sealing the
opening ([0010], “sealing plate…which seals an opening…through hole provided”); and
a fitting part (16) for fitting the opening and the sealing plate thereon ([0016], “sealing
plate block is joined by laser welding to seal the opening”), wherein the sealing plate includes:
an electrode terminal (12) electrically joined at one end thereof with any electrode of the positive and negative electrodes inside the battery case ([0014], “electrode terminal of the positive electrode…negative electrode from each other”), the electrode terminal inserted at the other end thereof through the terminal mounting hole to be exposed to outside the sealing plate ([0015], through-hole…of the electrode terminal…to extend from the inside to the outside of the case.”); and
an insulating member (15) for establishing an insulation between an outer surface of a surface of the sealing, the outer surface being exposed outside the battery case with the opening sealed (7, 8, 9), and the electrode terminal (Claim 1, insulating member covering an outer… peripheral edge portion…of the sealing plate, wherein a…portion...is closed by a thin film portion”) wherein
the insulating member includes an exposed part (12) exposed to the outer surface, wherein the sealing plate (7, 8, 9) is dented in the thickness direction of the sealing plate (see Fig. 1 of Mutsuki), and
PNG
media_image1.png
571
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Mutsuki anticipates an indentation of the sealing plate in the thickness direction of the sealing plate
when comparing comparison between the fitting part (16) and the exposed part (12) indicates that a height of the fitting part from a bottom wall of the battery case is equal to or higher than a height of the exposed part from the bottom wall of the battery case.
Mutsuki teaches a cylindrically shaped battery, and is therefore silent towards a rectangular parallelepiped flat rectangularly shaped battery.
However, Melançon teaches a rectangular parallelepiped flat rectangularly shaped battery (“prismatic cell”) offers benefits to cylindrical cells such as increased energy per cell while offering decreased manufacturing complexity (see The Main Differences Between Prismatic and Cylindrical Cells; Size and Connections)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Mutsuki by modifying the cylindrical shape of the battery of Mutsuki to a rectangular parallelepiped flat rectangularly shape. This modification would benefit the system by improving voltage output and performance for energy-intensive applications, such as electric vehicles, while reducing production costs and decreasing manufacturing complexity, as shown by Melançon.
Mutsuki teaches a cylindrically shaped battery with a positive and negative electrode, but is silent towards a rectangular parallelepiped flat rectangularly shaped battery wherein in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate, one end has the electrode terminal on either the positive or negative electrode side, and the other end has the electrode terminal on the opposite side to the electrode side.
However, after modifying the disclosure of Mutsuki by modifying the cylindrical shape of the battery of Mutsuki to a rectangular parallelepiped flat rectangularly shape (see above), it was common practice in the field of rectangular tabbed batteries to have in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate, one end has the electrode terminal on either the positive or negative electrode side, and the other end has the electrode terminal on the opposite side to the electrode side, as shown by Melançon (see Melançon, FIG. 1 below)
PNG
media_image2.png
341
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Melançon, FIG. 1 shows electrode terminals on opposite ends of the long side in rectangular parallelepiped flat rectangular batteries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify the disclosure of Mutsuki by changing the cylindrical configuration of the battery to a rectangular configuration, and correspondingly relocating the electrode terminals, as shown by Melançon, such that modified Mutsuki would comprise a rectangular cell with two electrode terminals on the top side with the connection method of Mutsuki as described above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrode terminal and the insulating member are integrally molded ([0010], “insulating member…molded integrally with…the electrode terminal”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 1, wherein the electrode terminal (12) includes a base part (see FIG. 3),
PNG
media_image3.png
467
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 of Mutsuki anticipates a base part.
a shaft part (see FIG 2 of Mutsuki; the Examiner notes that FIG. 4 of instant disclosure shows base part (21) and shaft part (23) as part of the same piece, as anticipated in Mutsuki) inserted through the terminal mounting hole (10),
PNG
media_image4.png
467
505
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 of Mutsuki anticipates a shaft part and terminal mounting hole formed in the sealing plate.
PNG
media_image5.png
756
666
media_image5.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of instant disclosure for reference
and an outer connection part (18; the Examiner notes that FIG. 4 of instant disclosure shows base part (21) and outer connection part (24) as part of the same piece, as disclosed in the aforementioned reference) exposed to outside the sealing plate (Mutsuki, 8),
PNG
media_image6.png
467
505
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2 of Mutsuki anticipates an outer connection part
PNG
media_image7.png
756
666
media_image7.png
Greyscale
FIG. 4 of instant disclosure for reference
.
and the shaft part is formed in a shape constricted with respect to the base part and the outer connection part (the Examiner notes that the shaft part of Mutsuki is depicted in FIG. 2 of Mutsuki as integral and/or abutting the base part and outer connection part. Therefore, the shaft part is inherently formed in a shape constricted with respect to the base part and the outer connection part).
Regarding claim 8, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 1, wherein the insulating member (15 of Mutsuki) includes a tubular part (see FIG. 2) situated between the terminal mounting hole (10) and the electrode terminal (12), a first collar part (see FIG. 2) extending along an inner side surface of the sealing plate (8), and a second collar part (see FIG. 2) extending along an outer side surface of the sealing plate (8).
Regarding claim 9, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 3, wherein the sealing plate (Mutsuki, 7/8/9), the electrode terminal (8/12; the Examiner notes that the sealing plate 8 of Mutsuki also serves as the negative electrode terminal), and the insulating member (15) form an integral unitary structure (see (0024)).
Claims 4-5 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Mutsuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ling US-6183905-B1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 1, but is silent on height ratios of the exposed part of the insulation material and the fitting part of the battery case.
Ling US-6183905-B1 teaches wherein the diameter of an insulating region, such as the exposed part of the insulation material of modified Mutsuki, is selected to control the force applied to a lid of a battery, see Ling, Column 6, Lines 38-46.
This modification, selectively limiting the height ratio of the insulation material and fitting part, is taught by Ling to control the predetermined compression force and ensure secured fitting of the insulation material and fitting part.
Therefore, absent a showing of persuasive secondary considerations, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have optimized the height ratio of the insulation material and fitting part to control the predetermined compression force and ensure secured fitting of the insulation material and fitting part.
It is the Examiner’s position that this routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to have arrived at the claimed “wherein the ratio (R/P) of the height (R) from the exposed part to the fitting part to the height (P) from the bottom wall of the battery case to the fitting part is 1/20 or more and 1/4 or less without undue experimentation.
Regarding claim 5, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 4, wherein the electrode terminal and the insulating member are integrally molded (Mutsuki, (0010), “insulating member…molded integrally with…the electrode terminal”).
Claims 6, 11 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Mutsuki as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Nishide US-20070172722-A1.
Regarding claim 6, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 4 comprising a safety valve (25), but is silent on wherein, a safety valve is provided between the electrode terminal on either the positive or negative electrode side at one end in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate and the electrode terminal on the opposite electrode side at the other end in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate.
Nishide US-20070172722-A1 teaches wherein, a safety valve (Nishide, 130) is formed in an appropriate area taking into account the conditions for the use of the battery, or the conditions for the installation of the battery (see (0012)).
Nishide further teaches wherein, the safety valve (Nishide, 130) is provided between the electrode terminal on either the positive (124) or negative electrode (126) side at one end in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate (122) and the electrode terminal on the opposite electrode side (124/126) at the other end in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate (122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to modify placement of the safety valve of modified Mutsuki such that the safety valve is provided between the electrode terminal on either the positive or negative electrode side at one end in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate and the electrode terminal on the opposite electrode side at the other end in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate.
Regarding claim 11, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 6, wherein the safety valve (Mutsuki, 25) is a thin-walled safety valve set to relax internal pressure when internal pressure of the battery case increases to a prescribed level or higher ((0021), “the thin film portion 25 is a safety vent that is broken when the internal pressure reaches the 0Pa to open the hollow cylindrical portion 14 to the outside air and release the internal gas”).
Claim 10 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over modified Mutsuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishide US-20070172722-A1.
Regarding claim 10, modified Mutsuki teaches the rectangular battery according to claim 1, but is silent on the material composition of the insulating member.
Nishide teaches wherein the insulating member (Nishide, 135/127/128/134/136; (0058), “the seal member 135 includes a coating area 127, a seal portion 128, and terminal seal portions 134 and 136”) is formed of a PPS resin ((0041), “the seal member 28 [the Examiner notes 28 corresponds to 128, but in another embodiment] may be made of polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), which is capable of absorbing vibrations and impacts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit the composition of the insulating member of modified Mutsuki to PPS, as shown by Nishide. This modification, use of a PPS resin as the insulation member material, would benefit the disclosure of modified Mutsuki by reducing vibrations and impacts to the rectangular battery.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed April 30, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-11 remain pending in the application. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome the objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 19, 2024.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, as they apply to “in the direction of the long side of the rectangular sealing plate, one end has the electrode terminal on either the positive or negative electrode side, and the other end has the electrode terminal on the opposite side to the electrode side” 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Mutsuki fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the amended claim 1 limitation that ''the sealing plate is dented in the thickness direction of the sealing plate”, the Examiner notes that as analyzed in the analysis of claim 1, the sealing plate (7/8/9) is dented in the thickness direction (See FIG. 1, the Examiner notes that the vertex between 8 and 9 is dented) of the sealing plate (the Examiner notes that FIG. 1 shows sealing plate 7/8 that include walls 9 on both ends where in there is an indentation in the thickness direction of the sealing plate between the top of walls 9 and the top surface of sealing plate 7/8).
PNG
media_image1.png
571
614
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Mutsuki anticipates an indentation of the sealing plate in the thickness direction of the sealing plate
The Examiner notes the applicant’s amendment from “bent” to “dented” in the above limitation of claim 1. “Bent” is defined as “changed by bending out of an originally straight or even condition” (Merriam-Webster). “DENT” is defined as “a depression or hollow made by a blow or by pressure” (Merriam-Webster).
In the above noted limitation and annotated FIG. 1, the Examiner notes that the indentation as labelled in FIG. 1 is caused by a bending of an even condition of part 9, which caused a hollow (“dent”) in 9 made by pressure.
Therefore, the Examiner notes that applicant’s amendment from “bent” to “dented” makes no significant difference for the purpose of analyzing the present limitation.
Therefore, the Examiner presently maintains the rejection of claim 1 as referenced above.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Mutsuki fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the height relationship limitation recited in amended claim 1, which states ''a height of the fitting part from a bottom wall of the battery case is equal to or higher than a height of the exposed part from the bottom wall of the battery case”, “it must be recognized that under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification”, see MPEP, 2173, I..
The Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “equal to or”. “or” is defined as being “used as a function word to indicate an alternative” (Merriam-Webster). The Examiner notes applicant’s remarks in the response filed on April 30, 2026 recites “Mutsuki shows the insulating member (15) and peripheral wall (9) at the same level”. Therefore, the Examiner notes that the limitation ''a height of the fitting part from a bottom wall of the battery case is equal to or higher [P >= Q] than a height of the exposed part from the bottom wall of the battery case” is met.
The Examiner further notes that applicant’s instant disclosure FIG. 6 requires the limitation that the insulating member (133) and fitting part (140) are at the same level, as anticipated by Mutsuki.
PNG
media_image8.png
441
433
media_image8.png
Greyscale
FIG 6 of instant disclosure disclosing the insulating member (133) and fitting part (140) are at the same height
Therefore, the Examiner presently maintains the rejection of claim 1 as referenced above.
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 EVAN M ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9302. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM U.S. EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. 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.
EVAN ABELSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/ALLISON BOURKE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights