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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/25/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 4-6, line 4, “located on outside of the expanding directions” should read, “located outside of the expanding directions”.
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 1-6 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 lid peripheral portion is stacked on the opening peripheral portion on outside” in lines 17-18. It is unclear whether Applicant is referring to the outside of the opening peripheral portion, the electrode assembly, the case, or otherwise. For the purpose of this Office Action, the claim limitation is read as “the lid peripheral portion is stacked on an outside of the opening peripheral portion” as is reasonable in light of [0009] and Fig. 4 of the instant specification.
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (CN 113228384 A) in view of Kimura (US 20180294446 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses a power storage device (i.e. battery, [43]) comprising: a case (i.e. battery can, [97]); and an electrode body housed in the case ([97]), the case including: a case body (i.e. cylindrical portion, [97]) with an opening (i.e. opening edge, [97]) in which the electrode body is housed (i.e. accommodating the electrode body, [97]; and a lid member (i.e. lid portion, [98]) having a plate shape and closing the opening (Fig. 2F, 330).
Shimizu further discloses an embodiment where the lid member includes an inner surface facing to the case body, as shown in the annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F below, and a lid peripheral portion (i.e. second engaging portion, [84], Fig. 2F, 402) and an opening peripheral portion (i.e. first engaging portion, [80], Fig. 2F, 401) which are welded together (i.e. lid portion and opening edge portion joined by welding, [86]).
PNG
media_image1.png
355
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F
Furthermore, Shimizu discloses wherein the opening peripheral portion of the case body of the case body (i.e. first engaging portion, Fig. 2F, 401) is bent over an entire circumference to inside of the opening, and the lid peripheral portion of the lid member (i.e. second engaging portion, Fig. 2F, 402) is bent over the entire circumference toward the inner surface, as shown in annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F below.
PNG
media_image2.png
355
679
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F
Shimizu further discloses wherein the lid peripheral portion is stacked on an outside of the opening peripheral portion in a thickness direction, as shown in annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F below.
PNG
media_image3.png
377
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F
Shimizu further discloses wherein the stacked portions are over a ring-band shaped range (i.e. cylindrical battery, [97]) extending over the entire circumference and in expanding directions of the lid member, as shown in annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F below.
PNG
media_image4.png
445
731
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Shimizu Fig. 2F
Shimizu discloses the battery to be cylindrical ([97]) and does not disclose the case body having a bottomed prismatic shape.
Kimura teaches a battery case consisting of a second case piece ([0039], Fig. 3, 22) with a second wall portion with a rectangular shape (i.e. bottomed prismatic shape, [0039], Fig. 3, 22a).
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 arrived at a case body with a bottomed prismatic shape as this is a well-known configuration in the art for battery casing, as taught by Kimura.
Shimizu further discloses the peripheral portions can be joined by welding such as laser welding ([86]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lid and opening peripheral portions are hermetically joined to each other.
Kimura teaches a similar battery assembly wherein the first case piece and second case piece are joined by welding over the entire periphery at an overlapping portion between the side wall portions ([0040]). Kimura further discloses that it is necessarily to reliably weld and join the first side wall portion (i.e. lid peripheral portion, Fig. 4, 21b) and second wall portion (i.e. opening peripheral portion, Fig. 4, 21b) over the entire periphery to make the case airtight ([0054]). Kimura further teaches that the welding is performed such that width of the welded portion formed on the corner portion is smaller than that of the side surface of the case as this allows for an electric storage device with excellent durability with corner portions having high strength ([0053]).
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 utilized the peripheral welding as taught to achieve a hermitically welded and airtight battery casing with excellent durability and strength at the corner portions, as taught by Kimura.
Regarding claim 2, modified Shimizu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Shimizu further discloses wherein the lid peripheral portion and the opening peripheral portion are hermitically (i.e. airtight, Kimura, [0054]) welded together by a ring-shaped welded portion having a ring shape extending continuously over an entire circumference (i.e. welded over entire periphery, Kimura, [0054]), as rendered obvious above. Thus, modified Shimizu satisfies claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (CN 113228384 A) and Kimura (US 20180294446 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Kagiya (WO 2015186168 A1).
Regarding claim 3, modified Shimizu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Shimizu discloses the lid peripheral portion and opening peripheral portion to be welded together hermitically with a ring-shaped welded portion (Kimura, [0054]), as rendered obvious above, but does not disclose being hermitically welded together by a plurality of the ring-shaped welded portions.
Kagiya teaches a laser welding method applied to a secondary battery ([11]). Kagiya further teaches the laser welding method is used for welding overlapping portion of upper and lower weld materials ([16]). Kagiya further teaches three circular welding lines where each welding line is independent from one another, without crossing each other ([18];[25]). Additionally, Kagiya teaches since each welding line is circular closed loop (i.e. ring-shaped) ([24]), it is easy to control the movement locus of the laser light, and such an arrangement increases welding strength ([28]).
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 utilized the laser welding method taught by Kagiya such that the lid peripheral portion and the opening peripheral portion are hermitically welded together by three ring-shaped welded portions for the benefit of increased welding strength.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (CN 113228384 A) and Kimura (US 20180294446 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Sun et al. (US 20230041144 A1).
Regarding claims 4 -5, modified Shimizu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Shimizu further discloses the electrode body housed in the case body (Shimizu, [97]) having a dimension in expanding directions, and a ring-shaped electrode body (i.e. cylindrical battery, Shimizu, [97]) outer edge portion of the electrode body, as viewed in a depth direction of the case body, located outside of the expanding directions perpendicular to the depth direction, as shown in annotated Shimizu Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image5.png
712
1095
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Shimizu Fig. 4
However, modified Shimizu does not disclose wherein the ring-shaped electrode-body outer edge portion of the electrode body overlaps the opening peripheral portion of the case body over the entire circumference.
Modified Shimizu further discloses the material of the battery can is not particularly limited and can be iron, iron alloys, copper aluminum, aluminum alloys (Shimizu, [147]).
Sun teaches a similar battery assembly where a multiple electrode core assemblies are encapsulated in a metal housing ([0007-0008]). Sun further teaches the metal housing is pressed against an outer surface of the electrode core assembly to clamp the electrode core assembly, thereby reducing space for the electrode core assembly to move within the housing, in turn improving safety performance of the cell ([0071]). Sun further teaches the metal housing and internal electrode core assembles are to be as close as possible to reduce an internal gap to prevent the electrode core assembles from moving in the metal housing and to prevent relative displacement between the electrode core assembles, reducing damaging the current collector, wrinkling of the separator, and detachment of an active material, thereby improving mechanical strength and safety performance of the entire cell and prolonging the service life of the cell ([0008]).
A skilled artisan would recognize that in pressing the electrode assembly against the battery case where the battery case clamps the battery assembly, the ring-shaped electrode-body outer edge portion would overlap the opening peripheral portion of the case body over the entire circumference.
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 the electrode assembly pressed against the battery case such that the ring-shaped electrode-body outer edge portion would overlap the opening peripheral portion of the case body over the entire circumference, for the benefit of preventing the electrode assembly from moving within the battery case, thus improving mechanical strength and safety performance of the entire cell and prolonging the service life off the cell, as taught by Sun.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (CN 113228384 A), Kimura (US 20180294446 A1), and Kagiya (WO 2015186168 A1), as applied to claim 3 above, and in further view of Sun et al. (US 20230041144 A1).
Regarding claim 6, modified Shimizu discloses all limitations as set forth above.
Modified Shimizu further discloses the electrode body housed in the case body (Shimizu, [97]) having a dimension in expanding directions, and a ring-shaped electrode body (i.e. cylindrical battery, Shimizu, [97]) outer edge portion of the electrode body, as viewed in a depth direction of the case body, located outside of the expanding directions perpendicular to the depth direction, as shown in annotated Shimizu Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image5.png
712
1095
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Shimizu Fig. 4
However, modified Shimizu does not disclose wherein the ring-shaped electrode-body outer edge portion of the electrode body overlaps the opening peripheral portion of the case body over the entire circumference.
Modified Shimizu further discloses the material of the battery can is not particularly limited and can be iron, iron alloys, copper aluminum, aluminum alloys (Shimizu, [147]).
Sun teaches a similar battery assembly where a multiple electrode core assemblies are encapsulated in a metal housing ([0007-0008]). Sun further teaches the metal housing is pressed against an outer surface of the electrode core assembly to clamp the electrode core assembly, thereby reducing space for the electrode core assembly to move within the housing, in turn improving safety performance of the cell ([0071]). Sun further teaches the metal housing and internal electrode core assembles are to be as close as possible to reduce an internal gap to prevent the electrode core assembles from moving in the metal housing and to prevent relative displacement between the electrode core assembles, reduce damaging the current collector, wrinkling of the separator, and detachment of an active material, thereby improving mechanical strength and safety performance of the entire cell and prolonging the service life of the cell ([0008]).
A skilled artisan would recognize that in pressing the electrode assembly against the battery case where the battery case clamp the battery assembly, the ring-shaped electrode-body outer edge portion would overlap the opening peripheral portion of the case body over the entire circumference.
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 the electrode assembly pressed against the battery case such that the ring-shaped electrode-body outer edge portion would overlap the opening peripheral portion of the case body over the entire circumference, for the benefit of preventing the electrode assembly from moving within the battery case, thus improving mechanical strength and safety performance of the entire cell and prolonging the service life of the cell, as taught by Sun.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESTHER J TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3479. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-4:00 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, Jonathan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1292. 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.
/E.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/Haroon S. Sheikh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1751
Prosecution Insights