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 .
CARBON PARTICLES AND METHOD FOR THEIR MANUFACTURE
Examiner: Adam Arciero S.N. 18/718,742 Art Unit: 1727 September 2, 2026
DETAILED ACTION
The Application filed on June 11, 2024 have been received. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been fully considered.
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 1-4 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.
The term “thin easy” in claims 1 and 3-4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin easy” 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. It is unclear as to what structure Applicant is intending to claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, any thickness for the exterior housing will read on the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanagida et al. (JP 2017-103029; as found in IDS dated 06/11/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes).
As to Claims 1-2, Yanagida discloses a cylindrical battery, comprising: an electrode assembly 20 having a positive and negative electrode 21,22 wound with a separator 23 interposed therebetween;
a bottomed cylindrical exterior housing can 11 that houses said electrode assembly;
a sealing assembly/terminal cap (battery lid)14 that is fixed by caulking to an opening of the can with a gasket 17 interposed between the sealing assembly and the opening,
wherein the exterior housing can has a rupture portion (groove) 11Gv in a bottom portion 11Bt. The battery lid 14 has a shape with an inclined portion and a top portion, and the lid faces the central hole 20A with the safety valve 15 interposed therebetween and is exposed to the internal space of the battery,
and a top portion that connects with an inner edge of the inclined portion, and at least a portion of the top portion faces a hollow (central hole) 20a of said electrode assembly in an axial direction (Fig. 1-2 and paragraphs [0015-0017 and 0021]).
As to Claim 3, Yanagida discloses wherein the groove 11Gv has a C shape (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0022]).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanagida et al. (JP 2017-103029; as found in IDS dated 06/11/2024 and using machine translation for citation purposes) in view of Miyata et al. (US 2015/0132625 A1; as found in IDS dated 06/11/2024).
As to Claim 4, Yanagida does not specifically disclose wherein the easy rupture portion is formed by the claimed groove.
However, Miyata teaches of a cylindrical battery comprising a rupture portion having a polygonal shape (paragraphs [0011 and 0043]). The courts have held that the claimed configuration for the rupture portion is a matter of choice which a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence the claimed shape was significant, see MPEP 2144.04, IV, B. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the shape of the rupture portion of Yanagida to comprise the claimed shape because Miyata teaches that a battery with a crack occurrence and scatter occurrence rate of 0% is provided (Table 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM ARCIERO whose telephone number is (571)270-5116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5 ET.
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, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at (571)272-1330. 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.
/ADAM A ARCIERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights