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 .
Remarks
Claim 1 has been amended, claims 2-6 and 14 are as previously presented. Claim 13 has been canceled. Claims 1-6 and 14 are currently examined.
Status of objections and rejections
The rejection below has been modified as necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20200035964 A1) and in view of Kojima (JP2001357834A).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a terminal component [0029, Zhang] comprising: a first metal (83) [0043, fig. 8, Zhang] and a second metal (64) [0043, fig. 8, Zhang], wherein an entire surface (bottom surface of 122) of the second metal facing the first metal is directly overlapped on an upper end of the first metal without any other parts in between [0048, fig. 8, Zhang].
PNG
media_image1.png
608
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 8, Zhang
Examiner note: the claim does not bar the presence of a second bottom surface of the second metal layer facing (i.e. bottom of 110) the first metal being present having intervening layers between it and the first metal layer.
Zhang further discloses the first metal being provided with a recess (108) where an inside is wider (125) than an opening (123) in a part of the portion directly overlapped with the second metal [0048, fig. 8, Zhang], a part of the second metal has entered the recess of the first metal and is metal-joined to an inner surface of the recess of the first metal [0044, 0046, 0051, fig.8 (121, 122), Zhang], and the second metal has a portion that has entered a portion of the recess of the first metal where the inside is wider than the opening [fig. 8 (123, 125), Zhang],
Zhang discloses an weldable aluminum terminal pad connected a copper current collector [0043, Zhang], wherein a peripheral edge portion of the second metal on a portion of the second metal that has not entered the recess of the first metal overlaps on a peripheral edge portion of the upper end of the first metal [fig. 8, Zhang]. However, Zhang is explicitly silent to a peripheral edge portion of the second metal directly overlapping a peripheral edge portion of the first metal.
However, Kojima discloses using aluminum and copper terminal components (equivalent to a first and second metal) [0003-0005, Kojima], wherein an entire surface of the second metal facing the first metal is directly overlapped on an upper end of the first metal without any parts in between [fig. 4, 6, and 8, Kojima], and wherein in one embodiment one metal contains a recess portion (31d) with a recess portion containing an insider wider than an opening [fig. 6, Kojima]. In a separate embodiment, Kojima discloses a peripheral edge portion of the second metal (31a) that has not entered a recess of the first metal (32c) directly overlaps on a peripheral edge portion of the upper end of the first metal (32a) [0038, fig. 4, Kojima].
Prior to the effective filing date, barring any criticality, and as a matter of mere change in size/proportion with a reasonable expectation of similar results, see MPEP 2144.04.IV, one of ordinary skill within the arts would find it obvious to modify Zhang such that a peripheral edge portion of the second metal (64) on a portion of the second metal that has not entered the recess of the first metal directly overlaps on a peripheral edge portion of the upper end of the first metal (83) as depicted in Kojima as seen in peripheral edges pieces (31/32) in figure 4 of Kojima.
The examiner notes that “the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.”, see MPEP 2144.04.IV.
Changing the dimensions of the peripheral edges of the first and/or second palate would not impact the performance of the battery. However, if one were to reduce the size of the peripheral edges such that they directly overlapped the peripheral edge of (83) then one could reduce the cost and weight of material needed for manufacturing the battery.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses a battery apparatus [0040, fig. 4, Zhang] comprising: an electrode body (80) including a positive electrode (48) and a negative electrode (50) [0040, fig. 4-5, Zhang]; a battery case (76) inside which the electrode body (80) is accommodated [0042, fig. 5, Zhang]; and a positive electrode terminal (77) and a negative electrode terminal (79) electrically connected to the positive electrode (82) and the negative electrode (83) [0043, fig. 5, Zhang], respectively, in the electrode body [0043, Zhang], wherein at least one of the positive electrode terminal and the negative electrode terminal includes the terminal component [0040-0048, Zhang].
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the terminal component, wherein the surface of the upper end of the first metal (83) and the surface of the second metal (64) facing the upper end of the first metal have the same shape [fig. 8, Zhang].
PNG
media_image2.png
485
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 8, Zhang
Claim(s) 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (US 20200035964 A1) and as evidence by Mechanical Properties of the Elements.
Regarding claim 2 and 5, Zhang discloses the terminal component, wherein the first metal has higher rigidity than the second metal [0047-0048, Zhang discloses that 83 (“first metal”) may be copper and the 64 (“second metal”) may be aluminum. Rigidity between metals can be compared via Vickers hardness [MPa]: copper = 343MPa @ 293K, aluminum = 167MPa @ 293K (see attachment Mechanical Properties of the Elements pg 438-439)].
Claim(s) 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20200035964 A1) as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the terminal component, wherein the opening in the first metal (83) and the recess of the first metal in a transverse cross section along a cross section taken at the same depth from the opening are circular (fig 6-8, Zhang shows the opening and recess of the first metal taken along a transverse cross section are circular).
Zhang discloses that the diameter of the opening (123, “D2”) is smaller than the diameter of the recess (125, “D1”) but does not explicitly state what their values are.
Prior to effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the arts to have a ratio of 0.4<D2/D1< 0.95. One of ordinary skill in the arts would know that if the opening was too wide then the two metals would not be able to be secured and could easily come apart. Additionally, if the opening was too narrow then the neck of the metal would be too thin and risk breaking.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (US20190044107A1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang is silent to the terminal component, wherein a further recess is formed in a bottom portion of the recess of the first metal.
However, Ito discloses a terminal component wherein a further recess is formed in a bottom portion of the recess of the first metal [fig. 4, Ito], and a further recess formed with a portion where the inside is widened in the depth direction from the opening [fig. 4, Ito].
PNG
media_image3.png
732
1162
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 4, Ito
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art to modify Zhang such that the first metal contained a further recess formed in a bottom portion of the recess of the first metal, wherein a portion is wider than the opening. Doing so would allow for the two metals to be strongly fixed together [0004-0005, Ito].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See below for details.
Applicant’s argues that Zhang does not teach the following: A) that an entire surface of the second metal facing the first metal is directly overlapped on an upper end of the first metal without any other parts in between. B) a peripheral edge portion of the second metal on a portion of the second metal that has not entered the recess of the first metal directly overlaps on a peripheral edge portion of the upper end of the first metal.
In regards to A) the examiner respectfully disagrees, applicant appears to be importing limitations from the specification/drawings such that “an entire surface of the second metal” would include both the peripheral edges and the portion inside of the recess of the first metal. However, the BRI of “an entire surface of the second metal” can read on an entire surface of the peripheral edge and/or an entire surface of the metal within the recess. In Zhang he discloses and depicts an entire surface of the of the second metal within the recess that directly overlaps an upper part of the first metal without any other parts in between.
In regards to B) Zhang depicts two sets of peripheral edges of the first and second metal, the first is to the left of 112 and the second is to the right of 112. While the second set clearly does not directly overlap it is possible that the peripheral edges to the left could directly overlap. Please note that the examiner is considering the claim language of directly overlapping to mean that the end portions are flush. However, since Zhang does not clearly depict this, the examiner has introduce Kojima which does depict embodiments in which all peripheral edges directly overlap.
No other arguments for claim 1 have been presented. As a result, the examiner does not find the applicants arguments persuasive and maintains their rejection
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUINTIN DALE ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5423. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-6pm (MST).
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, Miriam Stagg can be reached on 5712705256. 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.
/QUINTIN D. ELLIOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
/MIRIAM STAGG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1724