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. 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. 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 “substantially rectangular shape ” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ substantially rectangular shape ” 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. No example other than a rectangle, as shown in at least Fig. 10, is provided in the specification, so the scope of forms beyond a rectangle is indefinite. The structure of the first surface is rendered indefinite because of the use of this relative term. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret this limitation to mean “a rectangular shape” , as the applicant has shown in Fig. 10. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the curved surfaces" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret this to mean “a plurality of curved surfaces of the curved portions of the adjacent wound electrode bodies”. Claims 2-8 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for their dependency on claim 1, which has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as explained above. Claims 5 and 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. Regarding claim 5, the phrase “a plurality of curved surfaces” creates indefiniteness because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this plurality of curved surfaces is the same as the “curved surfaces” of claim 1, on which claim 5 depends. For the purpose of examination , the examiner will assume that this plurality of curved surfaces is not the same as that of claim 1. Still regarding claim 5, the phrase “a plurality of the protruding portions” creates indefiniteness because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine if this is the same plurality of the protruding portions as in claim 4, on which claim 5 depends, or not. For the purpose of examination , the examiner will assume that this is the same plurality of protruding portions as those of claim 4. Regarding claim 6, the phrase “the bottom surface side” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, creating indefiniteness. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret this to mean “the bottom surface”. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US-20120052341-A1 , KIM . Regarding claim 1, KIM teaches: A battery (100) comprising: a wound electrode body ( 10) including a positive electrode (12) and a negative electrode (11) , and including a pair of curved portions (See Fig. 4) ; a battery case with a hexahedron shape (15) housing a plurality of the wound electrode bodies (10, See Fig. 4) , the battery case including a bottom surface (615) , a first surface with a substantially rectangular shape (20) facing the bottom surface, a pair of first side walls (Side walls of Fig. 1 perpendicular to IV -IV ) facing each other and extending from the bottom surface, and a pair of second side walls (Side Walls of Fig. 1 perpendicular to VIII -VIII ) facing each other and extending from the bottom surface; an electrolytic solution injection hole (29) formed on the first surface of the battery case; a sealing member (27) for sealing the electrolytic solution injection hole; and an insulating member (62) fixed to the first surface, wherein the plurality of wound electrode bodies is disposed in the battery case in such a manner that in each of the plurality of wound electrode bodies, one curved portion of the pair of curved portions faces the first surface and another curved portion of the pair of curved portions faces the bottom surface (See Fig. 4) , and the electrolytic solution injection hole is formed in a position that does not overlap with vertexes of the curved portions of the plurality of wound electrode bodies (See Fig s. 1 and 4, 27/29 are placed in the center of 20 in Fig. 1, in Fig. 4 which is taken along IV -IV . T here are 4 electrode bodies which means that the center of 20 would fall in between the curved portions of the bodies) , and wherein a part of the insulating member (625) is disposed in a valley portion (Space between curves of 10, see Fig. 4) surrounded by a surface linking the vertexes of the adjacent wound electrode bodies and the curved surfaces of the curved portions of the adjacent wound electrode bodies, and a part of the sealing member is disposed in the valley portion (See Fig. 4, vertex portion of 625) . Regarding claim 2, KIM teaches the insulating member includes a protruding portion (625) protruding toward the valley portion, and the protruding portion is disposed in the valley portion (See Fig. 4, vertex portion of 625) . Regarding claim 3, KIM teaches the battery comprises a terminal (21) disposed on the first surface, and a current collecting member ( 31 ) electrically coupling the terminal to the negative electrode [00 53 ] , wherein in a height direction (direction perpendicular to IV-IV and VII-VII ) of the battery case, the insulating member is sandwiched between the current collecting member and the first surface (See Fig. 4) . Regarding claim 4, KIM teaches the insulating member includes a protruding portion (625) protruding toward the valley portion, and a protruding portion formation region (space between 625 and 41) in which a plurality of the protruding portions is formed in a region that does not face the current collecting member in a middle side ( interior side of side walls on left and right of Fig. 5) in a longitudinal direction of the first surface (Left to Right on Fig. 5) . Regarding claim 5, KIM teaches the protruding portion formation region includes a plurality of curved surfaces (curved parts of 625) at a surface side facing the wound electrode body, the plurality of curved surfaces is formed between a plurality of the protruding portions (See Fig. 4) , and the plurality of curved surfaces each has a shape along a respective bending surface of the wound electrode bodies (See Fig. 4) . Regarding claim 6, KIM teaches a lower end portion of the insulating member is disposed closer to the bottom surface side than a lower end portion of the sealing member (See Fig . 5 , 625 is closer to 615 than 27/29 ). 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20120052341-A1 , KIM in view of US-20130309534-A1 , SUZUKI . Regarding claim 7, the teachings of KIM are explained in the 102 rejection of claim 1. KIM also teaches a n even number of wound electrode bodies (See Fig. 4) disposed in the battery case , with an electrolyte solution injection hole disposed in a position that overlaps with a center line in a transverse direction (See Fig. 1) , but does not overlap with the vertices of the wound electrode bodies (See rejection of claim 1) . KIM also teaches that any number and any arrangement of electrode bodies may be used [0067]. KIM does not teach an odd number of wound electrode bodies disposed in the battery case , with an electrolyte solution injection hole disposed in a position that does not overlap with a center line in a transverse direction. However, SUZUKI teaches an electrolyte filling hole (10) for a battery having an odd number of wound electrode bodies (2, See Fig. 11), which is offset from the center in a longitudinal direction of the battery casing [0044]. SUZUKI teaches that the benefit of this design is a reduced electrolyte filling time [0045]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to modify KIM to have an odd number of electrode bodies, as doing so would amount to no more than the duplication of parts to produce predictable results as stated in [0067] of KIM . T he mere duplication of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.04). In addition to that modification, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention modify the electrolyte filling hole of KIM to be positioned as shown in SUZUKI to gain the benefit of reducing the electrolyte filling time. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20120052341-A1 , KIM, in view of US-20110072648-A1 , YAMAUCHI . Regarding claim 8, KIM teaches the sealing member protrudes toward an inside of the battery case (See Fig. 5). KIM does not teach the sealing member includes a maximum width portion at the first surface side in a protruding direction. However, YAMAUCHI teaches a sealing member (16) for an electrolyte pour hole (15) comprising a washer (18) on the outside of the sealing plate (12) blind rivet which has a maximum width portion on the inside side of the sealing plate (See Fig. 1F). YAMAUCHI teaches the benefit of this arrangement of washer and blind rivet is preventing damage of the electrolyte pour hole during airtightness testing [0007] and easier detection of electrolyte leakage [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant invention to use the sealing method and structure of YAMAUCHI to replace the sealing member of KIM to gain the benefits of easier detection of electrolyte leakage and preventing damage of the electrolyte pour hole during airtightness testing. It would have been obvious because it would amount to no more than combining known methods in the art to achieve a predictable benefit. Claim 8 would be unpatentable over this modification because it teaches all of the claimed material of claimed 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6917 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. . 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 Allison Bourke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /LOUISE JAMES IANNUCCI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1721 /KOURTNEY R S CARLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721