DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/485,157, “SECONDARY BATTERY AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING SAME”, was filed with the USPTO on 10/11/2023 and has a foreign priority document of KR10-2022-0129774 filed on 10/11/2022.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 7/6/2026.
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 1, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-5 are now pending and claims 6-10 have been cancelled.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 11/6/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2023, 12/14/2023 and 4/11/2024 are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and being considered by the examiner except:
It is inconsistent for the foreign patent document “KR 10-2022-010811” listed in the IDS filed on 12/14/2023 (see strike-out line) while a copy was provided as “KR 10-2022-0108011” filed on 12/14/2023. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(paragraph citations are based on the specification filed on 10/11/2023)
[0049]: “the second through-hole s142b” appears to be a typo of “the second through-holes 142b”;
[0057]: “in addition, an electrolyte be injected into….” appears to be missing a verb such as “can be” or “is injected into”;
[0075]: “the can 110” appears to be “the can 310”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/946,170 (hereinafter 170’) in view of Sodeyama (US 20200091469 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 170’ teaches a secondary battery (secondary battery, claim 1 of 170’) comprising:
a can (case, claim 1 of 170’) having an accommodation space therein;
an electrode assembly (electrode assembly, claim 1 of 170’) accommodated in the accommodation space in the can (“to accommodate the electrode assembly”, claim 1 of 170’); and
a cap assembly (cap plate, claim 1 of 170’) sealed with the can (“to seal the upper end portion of the case”, claim 1 of 170’),
wherein the can (case, claim 1 of 170’) has a beading part (beading portion, claim 1 of 170’) recessed into a side wall of the can (“depressed toward an interior of the case”, claim 1 of 170’) at a region below where the cap assembly is accommodated (position below the cap plate, claim 1 of 170’).
170’ does not teach wherein the beading part has an acute angle with respect to the side wall of the can.
Sodeyama teaches wherein the beading part (11U, Fig. 3) has an acute angle (θ, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) with respect to the side wall of the can (side wall of 11, see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
928
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the beading portion taught by 170’ to have the angle θ taught by Sodeyama because it’s known in the art to have such an angle for the bent portion (see Sodeyama Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, 170’ in view of Sodeyama teaches wherein the acute angle (θ, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) is in a range from 20° to 45° (approx. 45°, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3).
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of copending Application No. 18/778,790 (hereinafter 790’) in view of Sodeyama (US 20200091469 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 790’ teaches a secondary battery (cylindrical secondary battery, claim 1 of 790’) comprising:
a can (cylindrical case, claim 1 of 790’) having an accommodation space therein;
an electrode assembly (electrode assembly, claim 1 of 790’) accommodated in the accommodation space in the can (“cylindrical case accommodating the electrode assembly”, see claim 1 of 790’); and
a cap assembly (cap plate, claim 1 of 790’) sealed with the can (“seal the open upper end portion of the cylindrical case”, see claim 1 of 790’),
wherein the can has a beading part (beading portion, claim 2 of 790’) recessed into a side wall of the can at a region below where the cap assembly (position below the cap plate, claim 2 of 790’) is accommodated.
790’ does not teach wherein the beading part has an acute angle with respect to the side wall of the can.
Sodeyama teaches wherein the beading part (11U, Fig. 3) has an acute angle (θ, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) with respect to the side wall of the can (side wall of 11, see Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the beading portion taught by 790’ to have the angle θ taught by Sodeyama because it’s known in the art to have such an angle for the bent portion (see Sodeyama Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, 790’ in view of Sodeyama teaches wherein the acute angle (θ, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) is in a range from 20° to 45° (approx. 45°, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sodeyama (US 20200091469 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sodeyama teaches a secondary battery (Fig. 1) comprising:
a can (11, Fig. 1) having an accommodation space (where 20 is housed, see Fig. 1) therein;
an electrode assembly (20, see Figs 1 and 4) accommodated in the accommodation space in the can (see Fig. 1); and
a cap assembly (14, Fig. 1) sealed (via 15, see Figs 1-3) with the can (11, Fig. 1),
wherein the can (11, Fig. 3) has a beading part (11U, Fig. 3) recessed into a side wall of the can (side wall of 11, see Fig. 3) at a region below (see Fig. 3) where the cap assembly (14, Fig. 3) is accommodated, and
wherein the beading part (11U, Fig. 3) has an acute angle (θ, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) with respect to the side wall of the can (side wall of 11, see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Sodeyama teaches wherein the acute angle (θ, Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3) is in a range from 20° to 45° (approx. 45°, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Sodeyama teaches wherein the cap assembly (14, Fig. 3) is seated on an upper portion (upper portion of 11U, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3-1) of the beading part (14 sits on 31 on 15 then on upper portion of 11U, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 3-1).
PNG
media_image2.png
820
753
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodeyama (US 20200091469 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 20200365839 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sodeyama is silent wherein the beading part continuously extends along a circumference of the can.
Kim et al. teaches wherein the beading part (113, Fig. 1A) continuously extends (see Fig. 1A) along a circumference of the can (110, Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the recess taught by Sodeyama to continuously extends along a circumference of the case as taught by Kim et al. to prevent the cap assembly from being deviated to the outside (see Kim et al. [0026]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sodeyama (US 20200091469 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sodeyama is silent wherein a depth of the beading part inside the can is in a range from 10% to 20% of a diameter of the can.
Sodeyama teaches wherein a depth (P, Fig. 3) of the beading part (11U, Fig. 3) inside the can (11, Fig. 3) is 7.5% (P = 1.6 mm, D1 diameter = 21.2 mm, see [0261]-[0262]; P/D1 = 7.5%) of a diameter (D1, Fig. 1; diameter = 21.2 mm, see [0262]) of the can.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the 1.6 mm depth P taught by Sodeyama to be 3.2 mm because a depth P of the recess 11U is not particularly limited, and thus can be set arbitrarily (see Sodeyama [0069]). When the depth P is 3.2 mm, it is 15% (3.2 mm/21.2 mm × 100%) of the 21.2 mm diameter of the battery can.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NING CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1163. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM - 4:30 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, Tiffany Legette can be reached at (571) 270-7078. 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.
/NING CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights