Application No.: 16/718,910
`
`Docket No.: P191327US00
`
`REMARKS
`
`By this Amendment, claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1 and 5-7 are amendedherein to
`
`improveclarity and correct informalities. New claim 8 is added. Support is detailed below.
`
`Applicant’s Response to the Claim Objections
`
`Per page 2 of the Office Action, the objections suggest that claim 5 be rewritten to improve
`
`conciseness, and that claims 6 and 7 be corrected by addingarticles “a” for “first control” and
`
`“second control”. Applicant has amended claims 5-7 to address those issues.
`
`In light thereof,
`
`applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration.
`
`
`
`Per page 3 of the Office Action, the rejection notes indefiniteness regarding the limitation
`
`“the pressurizing unit being provided betweenat least one ofthe pair of end plates, and the battery
`
`laminate” as previously recited in claim 1. Applicant has corrected claim 1 to replace the limitation
`
`with --the pressurizing unit being provided between one ofthe pair of end plates and the battery
`
`laminate--. In light thereof, applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration.
`
`
`
`Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki
`
`(US 2016/0204399 A1). Hereinafter referred to as Suzuki.
`
`In response thereto, applicant respectfully submits that the invention as now claimedis not
`
`anticipated by Suzuki for at least the reason that the reference does not provide for each and every
`
`aspect thereof,
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/718,910
`
`Docket No.: P191327US00
`
`Specifically, Suzuki at least fails to provide for the aspects of parent claim 1 as to an
`
`exterior body that houses the electrode assembly, and has a protrusion which swells inward to
`
`press the electrode assembly in the first direction, and which deforms with expansion of the
`
`electrode assembly.
`
`Per page 4 of the Office Action, the rejection maintains that Suzuki discloses a power
`
`storage device meeting all the aspects of claim 1, including, infer alia:
`
`an electrode assembly (“battery main body” [0030]); and
`
`an exterior body (“casing” [0030]) that houses the electrode assembly, and
`has a protrusion which swells inward (“recess W” [0026], Fig. 1) to press the
`electrode assembly in the first direction (Fig.
`1 — where the battery main body of
`the battery packs are pressed along the X direction), and which deforms with
`expansion of the electrode assembly (“in the vicinity of the center R1...
`the
`deformation causedby the increasein the internalpressure becomes significant.”
`[0033], Fig. 2A and 2B).
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`For easy reference, Fig. 1 of Suzuki is reproduced below:
`
`FIG.
`
`1
`
`Applicant respectfully notes that even if Suzuki as applied in the rejection may teach a
`
`certain “compressive force” or “load” (0026) acting on its casing or alleged exterior body of the
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/718,910
`
`Docket No.: P191327US00
`
`battery pack 10, the reference does not reveal whether the exterior body or a protrusion thereof
`
`“press[es| the electrode assembly” enclosed therein, particularly where the referenceis silent as
`
`to how the electrode assembly or battery main body is “housed”or positioned inside the exterior
`
`body or casing (see, e.g., paragraph [0030] of Suzuki). Nor does Suzuki disclose expansion of the
`
`electrode assembly—asopposedto expansion ofthe exterior body of the battery pack—as required
`
`by present claim 1. As noted above, Suzuki as applied in the rejection is limited to disclose “the
`
`deformation caused by the increase in the internal pressure” within the casing, which tends to
`
`further evince the lack of a corresponding structure in Suzuki where the exterior body “has a
`
`protrusion which swells inwardto press the electrode assembly” and “deforms with expansion of
`
`the electrode assembly” as required by present claim 1.
`
`Under U.S. case law regarding 35 U.S.C. §102: "unless a reference discloses within the
`
`four corners of the documentnot only all of the limitations claimed butalso all of the limitations
`
`arranged or combined in the same way asrecited in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior
`
`invention of the thing claimed and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102." Net MoneyIN,
`
`Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`Moreover, per M.P.E.P. §2112.IV: “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must
`
`make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the
`
`reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however,
`
`may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may
`
`result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.’ Jn re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49
`
`USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”
`
`Wherefore, applicant respectfully submits that parent claim 1 as now presented, as well as
`
`its respective dependent claims, are not anticipated by Suzuki.
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/718,910
`
`Docket No.: P191327US00
`
`Applicant’s Response to the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C.§103
`
`Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki
`
`(US 2016/0204399 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et al,
`
`hereinafter referred to as Jiang (US 2009/0159354 A1).
`
`Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki
`
`(US 2016/0204399 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meintscheletal,
`
`hereinafter referred to as Meintschel (WO 2009080141 A1).
`
`Applicant respectfully submits that by addressing the rejection of parent claim 1 as detailed
`
`above, likewise the current rejections of claims 4-7 are addressed by nature of their dependency.
`
`New Claim
`
`Newclaim 8, dependent on claim 1, recites that the power storage device further includes
`
`“a gap located betweenthe electrode assembly and a bottom portion of the exterior body.” Support
`
`may be foundin the original disclosure, for example, paragraph [0022] of the specification asfiled
`
`as well as Figs. 2-4. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 8 is on its own merits distinguished
`
`from the prior art of record, aside from the dependencyfrom claim 1.
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and accompanying remarks, it is submitted thatall
`
`pending claims are in condition for allowance. A prompt and favorable reconsideration of the
`
`rejection and an indication of allowability of all pending claimsare earnestly solicited.
`
`

`

`Application No.: 16/718,910
`
`Docket No.: P191327US00
`
`If the Examiner believes that there are issues remaining to be resolved in this application,
`
`the Examineris invited to contact the undersigned attorney at the telephone number indicated
`
`below to arrange for an interview to expedite and complete prosecution of this case.
`
`If this paperis not timely filed, Applicants respectfully petition for an appropriate extension
`
`of time. The fees for such an extension or any other fees that may be due with respect to this paper
`
`may be charged to Deposit Account No. 50-2866.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`WESTERMAN, HATTORI, DANIELS & ADRIAN, LLP
`
`/Michael J. Caridi/
`
`MichaelJ. Caridi
`Attorney for Applicants
`Registration No. 56,171
`Telephone: 703-827-3800
`Facsimile: 571-395-8753
`
`MJC/fo
`
`