DETAILED ACTION
Application 18/566,879, “A CYLINDRICAL SECONDARY CELL WITH SHAPED CAN HOLE WALL AND A METHOD OF ITS ASSEMBLY”, was filed with the USPTO on 12/4/2023 and has a foreign priority document of SE2150716-5 filed on 6/4/2021.
This office action is in response to communication filed on 8/3/2026.
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 with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 8/3/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the present claims are directed to a single inventive concept deserving full substantive consideration on the merits. This is not found persuasive because Group I and II lack unity of invention as the common shared technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lee et al. (US 20240006722 A1), see rejection of claim 1 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/3/2026.
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 12/4/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/4/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0013]: “a corner radius of more than >=0.2 mm”: “more than” is not exactly the same as “>=”;
[0025]: “FIG. 5 is a flow chart if” appears to read “FIG. 5 is a flow chart of”;
[0028]: “(herein referred to as simply a cells)” appears to read “(herein referred to as simply cells)”;
[0060]: “the second portion 7a” is inconsistent with “the second portion 7b”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“and wherein an outer corner (2e) that formed where the inner peripheral surface (2c) meets and an outer surface (2g) of the can end wall (2a),” appears to read “and wherein an outer corner (2e) that is formed where the inner peripheral surface (2c) meets an outer surface (2g) of the can end wall (2a),” by adding “is” between “that” and “formed” and removing “and” between “meets” and “an outer surface”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2 recites “the virtual corner is defined as the point where”. Corner is a 3D concept and might not be a point. For examination purposes, the aforementioned recitation has been interpreted as “the virtual corner is defined as the area/region where”.
It is noted that the status of claim 10 is incorrectly labeled as “previously presented” because claim 10 has been amended compared to the claim 10 filed on 12/4/2023. For examination purposes, claim 10 has been examined as claim 10 filed on 8/3/2026.
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 1-12 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 "an inner surface of the can end wall" twice. The second recitation of "an inner surface of the can end wall" is indefinite as it is unclear if it’s the same inner surface as in the first recitation of "an inner surface of the can end wall" or a different inner surface. For examination purposes, the second recitation of "an inner surface of the can end wall" has been interpreted as "the inner surface of the can end wall".
Regarding claim 2, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the point.”
Claim 12 recites the limitation "an outer surface of the can end wall" twice. The second recitation of "an outer surface of the can end wall" is indefinite as it is unclear if it’s the same outer surface as in the first recitation of "an outer surface of the can end wall" or a different outer surface. For examination purposes, the second recitation of "an outer surface of the can end wall" has been interpreted as "the outer surface of the can end wall".
Claims 2-11 are rejected as they depend from claim 1, and therefore incorporate the claimed subject matter from claims rejected under this statute.
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 1-6, 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 20240006722 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. teaches a cylindrical secondary cell (70, Fig. 10) comprising:
a cylindrical can (51, Fig. 10) having a can end wall (52, Fig. 10),
a terminal part (50, Fig. 10) comprising a pin shaped body (see Fig. 10) inserted into a terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 10) formed in the can end wall (52, Fig. 10) and protruding out from the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 10) into the cylindrical can (51, Fig. 10) to provide a connection (73 welded to 79, 79a welded to 50a, see [0255]) to an electrode (73, Fig. 10) arranged inside the cylindrical can (51, Fig. 10), and
an isolating part (54, Fig. 10) arranged in the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 10) to electrically isolate (gasket 54 having an insulating property, see [0199]) the can end wall (52, Fig. 10) from the terminal part (50, Fig. 10),
wherein
the isolating part (54, Fig. 9) covers an inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9; also see where 54 and 53 contacts, see Fig. 9) of the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) and extends out (54a extends out from 53, see Fig. 9) from the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) and over (54b over 52b, see Fig. 9) at least part of an inner surface (52b, Fig. 9) of the can end wall (52, Fig. 9), and
an inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) of the can end wall (52, Fig. 9), that is formed where the inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) of the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) meets an inner surface (52b, Fig. 9) of the can end wall (52, Fig. 9), is blunted (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) and has a surface (inner surface of inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) free from edges having edge angles of less than 100 degrees (angle of inner corner is ~160 degrees, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
1318
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. teaches wherein the inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 2)) is positioned within a virtual corner (virtual corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 2)) with regards to the can end wall (52, Fig. 9), wherein the virtual corner (virtual corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 2)) is defined as the point where a virtual prolongation (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 2)) of the inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 2)) of the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) intersects a virtual prolongation (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 2)) of the inner surface (52b, Fig. 9) of the can end wall (52, Fig. 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
619
1092
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. teaches wherein the inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) is formed such that the isolating part (54, Fig. 9) is prevented from folding more than 100 degrees (angle θ is 0° to 60° or less, see [0202]) at any point along the surface (inner surface of inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) of the inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. teaches wherein the inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) is free (angle of inner corner is ~160 degrees, free of sharp edges with right angle, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) from edges (“edges” interpreted as sharp edges with right angle) that pierce the isolating part (54, Fig. 9) while applying a rivet pressure force on the terminal part (50, Fig. 10) from inside the cylindrical can (51, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. teaches wherein the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) is tapered from the inside (tapered from the inside, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 5)) the cylindrical can (51, Fig. 10) towards an outer opening (outer opening, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9 (claim 5)).
PNG
media_image3.png
509
1322
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. teaches wherein the isolating part (54, Fig. 9) is made of a deformable material (gasket 54 made of a polymer resin having elasticity, see [0199]) that fills (54 provided between 50 and the outer diameter of 53, see [0196]) a remainder of the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) not occupied by the terminal part (50, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. teaches wherein the inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) is chamfered (corner-cut, see [0207]; also see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. teaches wherein the surface of the inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) that is covered by the isolating part (54, Fig. 9) lacks (angle of inner corner is ~160 degrees, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) edges sharper than 120 degrees (interpreted as edges having internal angle less than 120 degrees) or lacks edges sharper than 135 degrees.
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. teaches wherein the isolating part (54, Fig. 9) extends out from the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) over (54a over 52a, see Fig. 9) at least a part of an outer surface (52a, Fig. 9) of the can end wall (52, Fig. 9), and wherein an outer corner (outer corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) that formed where the inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) meets and an outer surface (52a, Fig. 9) of the can end wall (52, Fig. 9), is blunted (see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) and has a surface (inner surface of outer corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) free from edges having edge angles of less than 100 degrees (angle of outer corner is ~160 degrees, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240006722 A1) in view of Tyler (US 20170110708 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. teaches wherein the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) is formed such that an outer corner (outer corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) that is formed where the inner peripheral surface (inner peripheral surface, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 9) of the terminal through-hole (53, Fig. 9) meets an outer surface (52a, Fig. 9) of the can end wall (52, Fig. 9).
Lee et al. does not teach wherein the isolating part is thicker at the inner corner (2d) than at an outer corner (2e).
Tyler teaches wherein the isolating part (48, Fig. 10) is thicker (thickness 2 > thickness 1, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) at the inner corner (inner corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10) than at an outer corner (outer corner, see Examiner’s Annotated Fig. 10).
PNG
media_image4.png
837
1005
media_image4.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 thickness of the gasket taught by Lee et al. to be thicker at the inner corner than at an outer corner as taught by Tyler because it’s known in the art to have such a configuration of different gasket thickness along the top of the battery housing (see Tyler Fig. 10).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240006722 A1).
Figures 8 and 9 of Lee et al. does not teach wherein the inner corner (2d) is rounded.
Lee et al. teaches wherein the inner corner is rounded (the upper end of the inner wall of the through-hole 53 transformed into a smooth curved surface having a curvature, see [0207]).
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 upper end of the inner wall of the through-hole taught by Lee et al. to be the smooth curved surface having a curvature taught by Lee et al. to relief the stress applied to the gasket (see Lee et al. [0207]). Further, it has been held that combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness and involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20240006722 A1) in view of Hattori (US 20140170472 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lee et al. does not teach wherein the inner corner (2d) has a corner radius of > 0.2 mm.
Hattori teaches the inner corner (8, Fig. 2) has a corner radius (R1; R1 is the outer radius of curvature of the first curved portion 8, see [0063]) of > 0.2 mm (R1 was set to 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm, or 0.50 mm, [0065]).
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 radius of the inner corner taught by Lee et al. to be 0.30 mm, 0.40 mm, or 0.50 mm taught by Hattori to widely disperse the pressure applied in the crimping process, and thus significantly suppress the deformation of the sealing plate (see Hattori [0022]).
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
