DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/20/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55..
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed, 06/17/2026, has been entered. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (US-20220021087-A1) in view of Yoshida (US-20180062152-A1) and Tse (US-20200403210-A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
456
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1,
Guo teaches a button cell (Fig. 9, 100; [0096]) comprising:
an electrode assembly (Fig. 1, 10; [0066]),
comprising a first electrode (Fig. 1, 12; [0087]),
a second electrode (Fig. 1, 11; [0087]),
and a separator between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0087], “separator (not shown in the drawing) is further disposed between … 11 and … 12”);
a case (Fig. 9, 21; [0093]) comprising an inner space (Fig. 9, 210; [0093]) in the electrode assembly (10) is accommodated [0093] and having an opening at a side thereof (Fig. 9, opening closed by 22; [0094]);
a cap plate (Fig. 9, 22; [0073]) coupled [0070] to the opening of the case (Fig. 9, opening closed by 22)
and comprising an outer surface (Fig. 9, outer surface of 22),
an inner surface (Fig. 9, inner surface of 22) facing away from the outer surface (Fig. 9),
and a terminal hole (Fig. 9, hole in 22; [0066], “hole 201”) passing through each of the outer surface and the inner surface (Fig. 9) to expose the inner space (Fig. 9, 210);
an electrode terminal (Fig. 9, 40) electrically connected to the electrode assembly [0079] through the terminal hole (Fig. 9, wherein 40 protrudes through the terminal hole) and overlapping the cap plate (Fig. 9, wherein a portion of 401 and 402 overlap 22),
an electrode tab (Fig. 1 illustratively, 101; [0086]) electrically connected [0087] to the second electrode 11 ([0087]);
and a thermal bonding layer (Fig. 9, 50; [0081], “melt-embedding”) between and insulatingly bonding ([0004], [0067], [0081], "melt-embedding", wherein 50 must be insulating when 22 is conductive [0073] for the battery to function) the electrode terminal (40) and the cap plate (22),
the thermal bonding layer (Fig. 9, 50; [0081], “melt-embedding”) configured to melt at a certain temperature ([0081], “melt”),
wherein the cap plate further comprises a first surface (annotated Fig. 9, “end portion of cap plate 22”) extending from the outer surface to the inner surface (Fig. 9) so as to define the terminal hole (201),
and, prior to the thermal bonding layer melting [0081], an open space (annotated Fig. 9, “open space”) is defined between the first surface (annotated Fig. 9, “end portion of cap plate 22”) and the electrode terminal (40) within the terminal hole (Fig. 9, hole in 22);
However, Guo fails to teach wherein an uppermost portion of the electrode tab is directly welded to a lower surface of the electrode terminal, and wherein the cap plate (Fig. 9. 22; [0073], “The material of the second housing body 22 may… a conductive material” [0019], “the conductive material is…stainless steel”) and the electrode terminal are made of different metals, because Guo is silent to the material of terminal 40.
Tse teaches wherein an uppermost portion (upper surface of tab 116 directly connected to bottom surface of 106, see Fig. 3) of the electrode tab (Fig. 2, 116; [0042]) is directly welded ([0042], “serpentine tab to be welded to an end of the pin”) to a lower surface (bottom surface of 106 directly connected to the upper surface portion of 116, see Fig. 3) of an electrode terminal (Fig. 2, 106; [0021]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to replace the terminal lead-out structure of Guo (tab 101, conductive member 30) with the terminal structure of Tse (serpentine tab 116 , with the uppermost portion of tab (top surface of 116) welded directly to lower surface of terminal), such that 116 connects electrode 11 to terminal 40 in Fig. 9, as Tse’s solution reduces internal volume consumption as traditional tabs require a “service length” [0017] that “occupies space within the enclosure thereby…reducing packaging efficiency” [0027], which is aligned with the Guo’s desire to reduce thickness and improve energy density [0004], and because Tse’s low-profile serpentine tab is a predictable variation of a terminal structure to achieve the same result of leading polarity out of a thin hole. Additionally, Guo teaches alternative means to sealing the battery when 30 is not relied upon for that purpose [0068], wherein also the bonding member (see Fig. 9, 50) still acts as a barrier between the interior and exterior of the cell.
Yoshida teaches wherein the cap plate (Yoshida, Fig. 4, 12; [0025]) and the electrode terminal (Yoshida, Fig. 4, 15; [0024], “aluminum”) are made of different metals (Yoshida, [0024-0025]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention modify the button cell of Guo such that the metal of the terminal is aluminum, as taught by Yoshida, because Yoshida teaches that it is known in the art to use a combination of aluminum for an electrode terminal and stainless steel for a cap plate ([0024]-[0025]). Further, Guo teaches that element 22 may be stainless steel (Guo, [0019]) and that modifications may be made to the device (Guo [0111])
Regarding claim 2,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the cap plate (22) is electrically connected (see [0085-0086] wherein the first housing body 21 has a negative polarity, and [0073], wherein 22 is a conductive material, and Fig. 9 wherein 21 and 22 are contacting, such that it must also have a negative polarity) to the electrode assembly (10), and the cap plate (22) and the electrode terminal (40) are respectively electrically connected to different electrodes of the electrode assembly ([0085], [0080]; wherein 116 of Tse connects 40 to 11 in rejection of claim 1 above, such that 40 and 22 are respectively electrically connected to different electrodes).
Regarding claim 3,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the cap plate (22) is made of a metal ([0073], “The material of the second housing body 22 may… a conductive material” [0019], “the conductive material is…stainless steel”) having a lower ionization tendency than that of the electrode terminal ( wherein modified Guo teaches the terminal is aluminum, see rejection of claim 1 above, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_series, wherein stainless steel is more cathodic than aluminum and thus has a lower ionization tendency).
Regarding claim 4,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3 above), but fails to teach wherein the cap plate is made of a metal having a higher ionization tendency than that of an electrode of the electrode assembly electrically connected to the cap plate, because Guo is silent to the materials of the electrodes. Yoshida teaches a graphite electrode, wherein graphite is more cathodic than stainless steel in the galvanic series, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_series, and therefore has a lower ionization tendency). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the button cell of Guo such that an electrode of the electrode assembly is graphite because Yoshida teaches that it is known in the art to have a graphite anode [0043]. Further, Guo teaches that modifications may be made to the device (Guo, [0111]).
Regarding claim 5,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the electrode terminal (40) is electrically connected ([0086], [0080], wherein 116 of Tse connects 40 and 11, see rejection of claim 1 above) to a positive electrode of the electrode assembly (11), but fails to teach is made of a same metal as an electrode current collector of the positive electrode (11) as Guo is silent to the materials of the electrode current collector and terminal. However, Yoshida teaches wherein the terminal (Fig. 7, 15; [0024], “aluminum”) is made of a same metal as an electrode current collector (Fig. 2A, 20; [0043], “aluminum”) of the positive electrode [0043]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use aluminum for both the positive terminal and electrode current collector as Yoshida teaches it is preferable in the art to use aluminum for these members [0024], and because it is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid welding two dissimilar metals.
Regarding claim 6,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above), wherein the electrode terminal is made of aluminum (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 4 (see rejection of claim 4 above), wherein the cap plate (22) is electrically connected to a negative electrode of the electrode assembly (see [0085-0086] wherein the first housing body 21 has a negative polarity, and [0073], wherein 22 is a conductive material, and Fig. 9 wherein 21 and 22 are contacting, such that it must also have a negative polarity), and an electrode current collector (Fig. 1, current collector of 12; [0087], “the second electrode plate includes a second current collector”) of the negative electrode (see [0086-0087], which describes the second electrode plate is the negative electrode because it is connected to negative tab 102), but fails to teach the cap plate is made of a different metal from that of an electrode current collector of the negative electrode because Guo is silent to the material of the negative electrode current collector. Yoshida teaches the cap plate (Yoshida, Fig. 4, 12; [0025]) is made of a different metal from that of an electrode current collector (Fig. 1A, 30; [0024], “copper”) of the negative electrode [0023]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify the button cell of Guo such the negative electrode current collector is copper, as taught by Yoshida, because Yoshida teaches that it is known in the art to have a combination of a copper negative electrode current collector [0023] and a stainless steel cap plate [0025]. Further, Guo teaches that element 22 may be stainless steel (Guo, [0019]) and that modifications may be made to the device (Guo, [0111]).
Regarding claim 8,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the cap plate is made of stainless steel (Fig. 9, 22; [0073], “The material of the second housing body 22 may… a conductive material” [0019], “the conductive material is…stainless steel”).
Regarding claim 10,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the electrode terminal (40) comprises: a flange portion (Fig. 9, 401 and 402; [0080]) configured to cover the terminal hole (Fig. 9, covering hole 201) and overlapping (Fig. 9) the cap plate (Fig. 9, 22); and a protrusion (Fig. 9, sloped portion between 401/402 and 403) integrally formed with the flange portion (Fig. 9) to protrude from the flange portion toward the terminal hole (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 11,
PNG
media_image2.png
381
1020
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
307
363
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein an outer surface of the protrusion (Fig. 9, along inner surface of 40) comprises a curved surface (annotated Fig. 9a, “curved surface”, wherein the curved surface has an obtuse shape) and an inclined surface (annotated Fig. 9a, “inclined surface”, wherein the inclined surface has a substantially linear shape), a distance from the curved surface (annotated Fig. 9b, upper distance bracket) to an end portion of the cap plate (annotated Fig. 9b, “end portion of the cap plate”) exposed to the terminal hole (hole in 22) is shorter (see annotated Fig. 9b, wherein the upper distance bracket is shorter than the middle distance bracket) than a distance from the inclined surface (see above) to an end portion of the cap plate (see above) exposed to the terminal hole (see above), and the distance from the inclined surface (see above) to the end portion of the cap plate (see above) exposed to the terminal hole (see above) becomes longer (see annotated Fig. 9b, wherein the lower distance bracket is longer than the middle distance bracket) toward an end portion of the inclined surface (annotated Fig. 9b, “end portion of inclined surface”).
Regarding claim 12,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above), wherein the thermal bonding layer (Fig. 9, 50; [0081], “melt-embedding”) is between the cap plate (Fig. 9, 22) and the flange portion (fig. 9, 401 and 402) and insulatingly bonded between the cap plate and the flange portion (wherein 50 must be insulating when 22 is conductive [0073] for the battery to function).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (US-20220021087-A1) in view of Yoshida (US-20180062152-A1) , Tse (US-20200403210-A1), and Eguchi (US-20230048086-A1).
Regarding claim 9,
Guo in view of Tse and Yoshida teaches the button cell of claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above), wherein the cap plate (see rejection of claim 1 above) and the case (Fig. 9, 21; [0085], “the first housing body 21 is a conductive material”, [0019], “the conductive material is…stainless steel”) are made of the same metal ([0019], “stainless steel”), but fails to teach wherein the cap plate is welded to the case. Euguchi wherein the cap plate (Fig. 3, 54; [0033]) is welded [0105-0106] to the case (Fig. 3, 52; [0033]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to substitute the fixing method of modified Guo ([0011], “accommodation groove”) with the fixing method of Euguchi, wherein the lid-shaped member 54 is welded to the cup-shaped member 52, because Euguchi teaches welding the cap plate to the case is known in the art [0106], and enables a simple inclusion of the electrode assembly [0106]. Further, Guo teaches that modifications may be made to the device (Guo, [0111]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that both Guo and Tse fail to teach the uppermost portion of the electrode tab is welded. However, this argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s Specification expressly provides that positional terms such as “upper” are relative concepts described with reference to the direction indicated in the drawings [0034]. Consistent with Applicant’s own definition, Fig. 3 of Tse illustrates an upper surface of tab 116 directly connected to bottom surface of 106, see Fig. 3). Paragraph [0046] further teaches that the first end of serpentine tab 116 is welded to the end of pin 106, wherein the uppermost portion corresponds to the higher end of the electrode tab opposite the lower end. Accordingly, Tse teaches the limitations as claimed (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Applicant argues that other claims should be allowed based off an allowable claim 1. However, this is not persuasive, as the rejections on all claims have been sustained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20190189998-A1, relevant to a different embodiment of a thermal fusion member.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL WYROUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-4806. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL CHRISTIAN ST WYROUGH/Examiner, Art Unit 1728
/TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723
Prosecution Insights