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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1, Claims 1 and 3, in the reply filed on 08/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Hiyama and Yue do not disclose or suggest the features of amended Claim 1. This is not found persuasive because, as laid out in the rejection of Claim 1 (see below) Hiyama in view of Hermann render obvious the newly recited limitations of Claim 1.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (Pg. 3) that the foam metal layer of Hiyama is not a constituting element of the battery can, the Examiner notes that Hiyama discloses that the foamed metal layer is attached to the side of the battery can [0016]. Accordingly, absent a special definition, the combination of the battery can and the foamed metal layer read on the recited limitation of an exterior housing can. The rest of Applicant’s arguments appear moot in view of the new rejection of Claim 1 necessitated by Applicant’s amendment (see below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 and 3 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 “a dense metal portion”. The term “dense” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “dense” 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. As such, it is unclear whether the dense metal portion must have a particular porosity (e.g. 0%), or whether the term “dense” relates the density of the dense metal portion to another structure (e.g. the dense metal portion has a higher density than the porous metal portion). As such, Claim 1 and 3 are rejected as being indefinite. For the sake of compact prosecution, the second interpretation will be applied to the claims as supported by the instant specification [0027, 0031].
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(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiyama et al. (JP-2011150902-A; see also English translation provided 07/02/2026 for citations) in view of Hermann et al. (US-20100136424-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiyama discloses a cylindrical battery (Fig. 1) comprising: an electrode assembly including an elongated positive electrode, an elongated negative electrode and a separator [0012, 0024, 0041, 0044, 0069]. Although Hiyama does not specifically teach that the electrode assembly is wound, such a configuration is well-known in the art as evidenced by Hermann [Hermann: 0026], and thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Hiyama further discloses:
a bottomed cylindrical exterior housing can (corresponds to the combination of the battery case and the foamed metal layer; [0012-0014, 0016, 0024, 0042]; Figs. 1-2) that houses the electrode assembly (see Figs. 1-2, 4; [0024, 0041]),
wherein the exterior housing can includes a cylindrical porous metal portion (foamed metal layer) formed of a porous metal [0023, 0028-0032, 0042, 0044].
Hiyama discloses a cylindrical battery case (Figs. 1-2; [0021, 0024]). Although Hiyama does not specifically disclose that the battery case is formed of “a dense metal”, Hermann teaches that nickel-plated steel is a typical material used to form a cylindrical battery case [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the battery case of Himaya to be formed of nickel-plated steel with a reasonable expectation that such a material would result in a successful battery case. Nickel-plated steel is understood to be a denser material than the porous metal portion, and therefore reads on “a dense metal portion” (see 112(b) rejection, above). Hiyama discloses that the dense metal portion is disposed radially inside of the porous metal portion [0016, 0024].
Although the embodiment of Hiyama previously discussed discloses that the porous metal portion is provided around the entire outer side surface of the battery case (see Figs. 1, 4; [0024]), Hiyama further discloses an alternative embodiment wherein the porous metal portion is provided around only the central region of the outer side surface of the battery case (see Fig. 5a; [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the porous metal portion to be provided only around the central region of the outer side surface of the battery case with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would have resulted in a successful cylindrical battery. The portion comprising both the porous metal portion and the dense metal portion reads on the recited limitation of “a layered portion”.
Hiyama does not teach a grooved portion, and therefore does not explicitly teach that the layered portion is disposed between a grooved portion and a bottom of the exterior housing can.
Hermann teaches that the addition of a crimped portion is common in most cylindrical battery configurations, and helps to hold internal elements (e.g. seals, electrode assembly, etc.) in place [0025]. The crimped portion (119) is provided towards the top of the cylindrical battery cell (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the top of the cylindrical battery case of Hiyama with a crimped portion (reads on groove) with a reasonable expectation that such a configuration would result in a successful battery capable of holding internal elements in place.
Since modified Hiyama renders obvious that the grooved portion is formed towards the top of the battery case, and that the layered portion is formed in the central region of the battery case, the layered portion is thereby necessarily formed “between a grooved portion and a bottom of the exterior housing can” (see annotation of Hiyama Fig. 5a, below for visualization).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotation of Hiyama Fig. 5a.
Since modified Hiyama discloses that the battery case is formed of nickel-plated steel (i.e. a dense metal; see above), and that the grooved portion and the bottom are portions of the battery case, the grooved portion and the bottom are necessarily formed from the dense metal portion (i.e. nickel-plated steel).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Hiyama renders obvious all of the limitations as set forth above. Hiyama discloses a high inherent porosity of the foamed metal layer is advantageous from the viewpoint of heat dissipation [0026, 0032]. However, if the porosity is too high, the contact area at the interface between the battery can and the foamed metal layer will decrease, which may result in poor heat transfer [0032].
Therefore, although not disclosed in a specific embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have optimized the porosity of the porous metal portion, including selecting the porosity to be 70-90%, with a reasonable expectation that such a porosity would result in a successful balance between maximizing porosity to increase heat dissipation while providing enough contact between the dense metal portion (battery can) and the porous metal portion (foamed metal layer) such that sufficient heat transfer is obtained, thereby resulting in a successful porous metal portion (MPEP 2144.05, II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW C NEWMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9873. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 10:00 AM - 6:00 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.
/D.C.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1751
/JONATHAN G LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1751 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights