DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This Office Action is responsive to the June 2nd, 2026 arguments and remarks (“Remarks”). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed June 2nd, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 as amended. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113346201 A) in view of Tsutsumi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170214030 A1) (Cited in the IDS), as further evidenced by Hojo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180131035 A1) and Zeng et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3651229 A1) is withdrawn. All rejections pending from this are also withdrawn.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113346201 A) in view of Tsutsumi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170214030 A1) (Cited in the IDS), Hu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200295317 A1), and Matsumoto (U.S. Pat. No. 20140234674 A1)
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5 (Huang et al.))]
PNG
media_image1.png
483
891
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figures of the prior art are annotated to indicate features that are structurally and/or functionally equivalent to those of the claimed invention, and may be described in the prior art using different terminology.
Regarding Claim 1, Huang et al. teaches a battery cell (2) comprising an electrode assembly (positive and negative electrodes with tabs) comprising a first tab (positive tab) (para. 5), a casing (1) for accommodating the electrode assembly (para. 59). As shown in annotated Fig. 5, the casing (1) comprises a wall provided with a gap or hole in which the electrode terminal (pole (3)) protrudes through forming an equivalent electrode lead-out hole (para. 23, Fig. 5). Therefore, the electrode terminal (pole (3) serving as a positive connection terminal) is mounted at the equivalent electrode lead out-hole (para. 23, Fig. 5). A current collecting member (positive current collecting plate (5)) is positioned between the wall and the first tab and configured to connect the electrode terminal and the first tab (para. 5, 23, Fig. 5).
Huang does not teach the product-by-process limitation of, “the folding structure being formed by bending the side wall of the first recess outward,” however, the courts have held the following:
‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)” (see MPEP 2113(I)).
The product-by-process language imparts the implicit structure that the electrode terminal comprises a folded [edge] structure in which the side wall of the first recess is bent or angled outward. Regardless of the process by which this is achieved (e.g., originally molded to have this form; or a method in which an original structure requires a subsequent bending step), the final product achieved of a folded edge structure in which the side wall of the first recess is bent or angled outward is considered the same or obvious. Accordingly, given the structural requirements achieved by the product-by-process limitation are entirely met by Huang, Huang’s folded edge structure having the outwardly bent side wall of the first recess appears to provide all the structure of the product recited in the product-by-process limitation. Alternatively, any differences provided by the product-by-process limitation would provide a product that is obvious from the folded edge structure of Huang. Regarding product-by-process limitation, see MPEP § 2113.
Huang et al. teaches the positive and negative connection terminals connected to the positive and negative tabs, respectively (para. 11).
Huang et al. teaches a limiting portion positioned on an upper side of the wall that is away from the first tab; and a body portion integrally formed with (connected to) a surface of the limiting portion that faces the wall and passes through the equivalent electrode lead out hole; an end of the body portion that faces the first tab is provided with the first recess and an equivalent folded edge structure (see annotated Figure 5). The configuration of the limiting portion and the folded edge structure allow the limiting portion and folded edge structure to clamp a part of the wall to fix the electrode terminal to the wall (para. 21, 57, Fig. 5).
As shown in annotated Figure 5, Huang et al. teaches a current collecting member (5) comprising a first current collecting portion and a second current collecting portion integral with or connected to the first current collecting portion; the second current collecting portion protrudes upward from a surface of the first current collecting portion that faces the electrode terminal to extend into the first recess and abuts against the bottom surface of the first recess (Fig. 5). The first current collecting portion and/or the second collecting portion is configured to connect to the first tab (positive terminal) including the first tab to establish an electrical connection between the current collecting member and the first tab of the electrode assembly based on contact there between; and establish an electrical connection between the current collecting member and the electrode terminal based on contact there between (para. 62, Fig. 5).
Huang et al. does not teach wherein in a thickness direction of the wall, the bottom surface of the first recess is closer to the first tab compared to an inner surface of the wall.
The feature is considered an obvious matter of design choice in terms of the form and shape of the electrode terminal (i.e., how far it protrudes into the can, its thickness, etc.) and/or the wall (i.e., it’s thickness, placement), wherein absent new or unexpected results fully commensurate in scope with the claimed feature, the change in form or shape is considered an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Moreover, Tsutsumi et al. teaches analogous art of a battery cell that includes a portion equivalent to a first recess in which in a thickness direction of a wall (32), a bottom surface of an equivalent first recess is closer to a lower end surface of the first recess than to an inner surface of the wall (para. 109, Fig. 5). Accordingly, the design is known in the state of the prior art, and provides the predictable result of allowing the recess portion to be closer to the portion it is to be welded to (i.e., the current collector), thereby providing improved structure stability and reduced strain among the joined components of the terminal, current collector, and electrode assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the battery cell of Huang et al. to include the bottom surface of the first recess closer to a lower end surface of the first recess compared to an inner surface of the wall as taught by Tsutsumi et al. as an obvious matter of design choice in terms of form and shape of the electrode terminal (i.e., how far it protrudes into the can, its thickness, etc.) and/or the wall (i.e., it’s thickness, placement), the construct known in the art as taught by Tsutsumi, wherein the implementation of the known construct provides the predictable results of allowing the recess portion to be closer to the portion it is to be welded to (i.e., the current collector), thereby providing improved structure stability and reduced strain among the joined components of the terminal, current collector, and electrode assembly.
Huang et al. does not teach wherein the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal are spaced apart from each other in the thickness direction of the wall; and the battery cell further comprising an insulating sheet:
surrounding an outside of the second current collecting portion and being at least partially clamped between the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal to seal the first recess;
that is in contact with the first current collecting portion; and
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Hu et al.))]
PNG
media_image2.png
427
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
that is elastic and configured to be elastically deformed when squeezed by the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal.
As shown in Figure 2 (partially cropped and enlarged to improve clarity), Hu et al. teaches analogous art of a battery cell that includes an insulating sheet (32) surrounding an outside of an equivalent second current collecting portion and a first current collecting portion of a current collecting member (34: 342, see annotated Fig. 2); the insulating sheet is provided between the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal (33) wherein the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal are spaced apart from each other in a thickness direction of a wall (cap plate 31, para. 65 by the insulating sheet (Fig. 2, 32). Hu et al. teaches that the insulating member decreases a reaction force applied to the electrode assembly by adsorbing the expanding force cause by deformation to avoid fracturing the electrode plate (para. 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery cell of Huang et al. wherein the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal are spaced apart from each other in the thickness direction of a wall by an insulating sheet; and the insulating sheet surrounds an outside of the second current collecting portion and a first current collecting portion as taught by Hu et al. in order to protect the electrode assembly by providing an insulating sheet that adsorbs the expanding force caused by deformation as described by Hu et al. above.
Huang as modified by Hu does not explicitly teach that the insulating sheet is elastic and configured to be elastically deformed when squeezed by the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal as claimed, although Hu does teach the goal is that the insulating member decreases a reaction force applied to the electrode assembly by adsorbing the expanding force cause by deformation.
In the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto teaches analogous art of a battery cell in which an insulator 43 surrounds an electrode terminal 40 and is elastic and configured to be elastically deformed to provide improved sealing ([0086]). The courts have held:
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) ("…selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to select as the specific material of the insulating sheet of Huang as modified by Hu, intended to adsorb the expanding force by deformation (para. 59), an elastic material configured to be elastically deformed when squeezed by the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal given the court has held the selection of a known material to meet known requirements supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07; see case law quoted above), and furthermore, to provide the predictable result taught by Matsumoto of improved sealing (P86).
Regarding Claim 3, as shown by the solid double-arrowed horizontal lines, in a radial direction of the wall, Huang et al. teaches a size of the limiting portion being larger than a size of the folded edge structure (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 4, Huang et al. does not teach wherein in the radial direction of the wall, a thickness of at least a part of the folded edge structure that extends from an outer end surface of the folded edge structure gradually increases from an outer side to an inner side of the folded edge structure.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5 (Tsutsumi et al.))]
PNG
media_image3.png
581
688
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As indicated by Reference Portion 1 of the annotated Figure 5 of Tsutsumi et al., Tsutsumi et al. teaches, in a radial direction (y direction) of the wall, a thickness of at least a part of the folded edge structure extends from an outer end surface of the folded edge structure gradually increasing from an outer side to an inner side of the folded edge structure (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the battery cell of Huang by Tsutsumi et al. to include, in a radial direction (y direction) of the wall, a thickness of at least a part of the folded edge structure extends from an outer end surface of the folded edge structure gradually increasing from an outer side to an inner side of the folded edge structure (Fig. 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to ensure the positive electrode terminal is efficiently fixed to the casing and to ensure a pressing force is effectively applied (Tsutsumi et al., para. 109, 150).
Regarding Claim 5, as Indicated by Reference Portion 2 of the annotated Figure 5 of Tsutsumi et al., at least a part of a surface (indicated portion) of the folded edge structure is an inclined surface; the inclined surface is integrated with or connected to the outer end surface and is inclined toward the electrode assembly (Fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt this feature when performing the modification as applied to Claim 4 above to ensure structural stability.
Regarding Claim 7, Huang et al. teaches an insulation seal (7) disposed between the wall of casing (1) and electrode terminal (pole 3) surrounding and configured to sealing the equivalent electrode lead-out hole (para. 61, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 8, as further shown in annotated Figure 5, the sealing member (7) includes an equivalent first sealing portion surrounding an outside of the body portion and positioned between the wall and the limiting portion; the electrode terminal further includes a first protrusion protruding from a surface of the limiting portion that faces the first sealing portion and surrounding the body portion (Fig. 5). The limitations describing that the protrusion is configured to press against the first sealing portion to seal the electrode lead-out hole is a function that naturally flows from the recited structure of Huang et al:
“If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima [facie] case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432” (see MPEP 2114(I)).
Regarding Claim 9, as shown in annotated Figure 5, Huang et al. teaches a projection of the first protrusion along the thickness direction of the wall lies within a projection of the folded edge structure along the thickness direction.
Regarding Claim 10, as indicated by the two dotted double arrows, Huang et al. teaches a minimum distance between the first protrusion and the body portion is smaller than a minimum distance between the first protrusion and an outer edge of the limiting portion (Fig. 5).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 6 (Huang et al.))]
PNG
media_image4.png
225
685
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, as applied to Claim 1, Huang et al. teaches the electrode assembly comprising a negative (second) tab having a polarity opposite to a polarity of the positive (first) tab (para. 11). The tabs including the second tab are electrically connected to the electrode assembly via the current collect member (para. 11, 55). As applied to Claim 7, the sealing member is disposed between the wall and the electrode terminal separating the wall from the electrode terminal; the sealing member insulates and separates the wall from the electrode terminal (para. 61, Fig. 5). Huang et al. teaches a battery cell (2) with a full-tab structure in which the entire tail of the current collector is used as the tab; the negative terminal is connected to the negative current collecting plate (6) by welding (para. 62). The negative current collecting plate functioning as the tab (second tab) is electrically connected to the cover plate (4) and housing (1) including the wall of the housing (para. 65, Fig. 6). One of ordinary skill in the art would find the teachings of Huang et al. useful to provide a charge to the casing (para. 17) and to provide benefits such as improved space utilization and negative electrode conduction efficiency (Huang et al., para. 34).
Regarding Claim 13, Huang et al. teaches a recess equivalent to a second recess formed at a position corresponding to the second current collecting portion; the second recess extends from a bottom surface of the first current collecting portion facing the tabs (including the first tab) in an upward direction towards the electrode terminal (3) and away from the first tab (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 14, as applied to Claim 1, Huang et al. teaches the first current collecting portion and the second current collecting portion being integrally formed in which no indication of a joining point (line, gap, break) between said portions is present.
Regarding Claim 15, Huang refers to a terminal analogous to a tab of the battery cell; and a connection terminal and pole analogous to the electrode terminal of the present invention (para. 23). Huang et al. teaches the first current collecting portion connected and fixed to (abutted against) the positive terminal (positive tab of the battery cell) by welding (para. 62, Fig. 5). The second collecting portion is connecting and fixed to (abutted against) the positive connection terminal (electrode terminal of pole (3)) via the bottom surface of the first recess by welding (para. 64, Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Huang et al. teaches the bottom surface of the first recess being a flat surface (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image5.png
190
703
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3 (Huang et al.))]Regarding Claim 19, Huang et al. teaches the casing comprises a cover plate (4) and a casing body (case (1)) (20) (para. 16, Fig. 3). Based on annotated Figure 5 above, the casing comprises portions equivalent to a casing side wall and a casing bottom wall in which are integrally formed; the casing side wall can be considered to surround the casing bottom wall (Fig. 5). One end of the casing side wall is connected or integrally formed with the casing bottom wall. The opposite end of the casing side wall extends downward and curves or encircles to forming an opening opposite to the casing bottom wall in which the opening is covered by the cover plate (para. 60, Figs. 3, 5). As applied to Claim 1, the wall is equivalent to the casing bottom wall.
Regarding Claim 20, the battery cell of the present invention is arranged to form a battery module (para. 65) in which consists of a plurality of battery cells by definition.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113346201 A) in view of Tsutsumi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170214030 A1) (Cited in the IDS), Hu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200295317 A1) and Matsumoto (U.S. Pat. No. 20140234674 A1) as applied to Claim 15 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113437410 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Huang et al. teaches the electrode assembly comprising a battery core (2) formed by winding analogous to a winding center hole in which is configured to be at the center of the electrode assembly (Huang et al., para. 5).
Huang et al. does not teach a winding center hole configured to be penetrated by an external welding part to weld the second current collecting portion to the bottom surface of the first recess.
Peng et al. teaches a winding core in which is used for welding by inserted a welding device through the core (Huang et al., para. 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electrode assembly of Huang et al. to include the winding center hole to be configured to allow insertion of a welding device as taught by Peng et al. When performing the described modification of Huang et al., it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the winding center hole at a position of the second current collecting portion in which is positioned at the center of the electrode assembly. One would be motivated to perform the modification of Peng et al. to provide an alternative method of welding via a winding core in which damage to the core is prevented (Peng et al., para. 17).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINA RENEE DAULTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, ULA RUDDOCK can be reached at (571) 272-1481. 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.
/C.R.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights