DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the January 16th, 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.
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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendments received on January 16th, 2026:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are pending in the current application. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 6 is cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended to incorporate the limitations from original Claim 6 in which describe a positional relationship between a bottom surface of the first recess, first tab, and an inner surface of the wall.
Applicant’s amendment finds support in the originally filed claims and specification. No new matter has been added.
All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as described below:
Claims 1, 3, 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) as further evidenced by Hojo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180131035 A1) and Zeng et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3651229 A1). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 4-6 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). The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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 Peng et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113437410 A). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113346201 A) in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200295317 A1). The rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 16th, 2026 have been fully considered as further described below:
Applicant presents arguments to Claim 1 as amended. Applicant argues that the limitations describing the bottom surface of the first recess as closer to a lower end surface of the first recess compared to an inner surface of the wall is not disclosed in the specification of Tsutsumi; applicant further argues that [0109] of Tsutsumi as cited by the examiner does not provide further explanation of said structure (see pg. 8-9 of the “Remarks”).
Regarding the use of drawings as prior art, “the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979)” (see MPEP 2125(I)).
“The description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977)” (see MPEP 2125(II)).
“Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (emphasis in original) (see MPEP 2143.01).
PNG
media_image1.png
638
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5 (Tsutsumi et al.))]Therefore, it is entirely proper to utilize drawings as prior art based on an evaluation of what they would reasonably disclose and suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the description. In this case, [0109] of Tsutsumi et al. as cited in the rejection teaches a large diameter portion (416) in which forms an analogous first recess (see annotated Fig. 5 below). Specific dimensions are not relied upon as Tsutsumi et al. does not disclose that the drawings are to scale; however, a skilled artisan can observe that a bottom surface of the first recess does not extend to the inner surface of the wall (32) but is rather disposed closer to an end surface of the first recess (see Fig. 5). Therefore, it is clear that a bottom surface of the first recess is substantially closer to a lower end surface of the first recess than to an inner surface of the wall (para. 109, Fig. 5).
Further, when performing the described modification, as primary reference Huang et al. discloses contact between the positive and negative terminals and respective positive and negative tabs, it would be obvious for the bottom surface of the first recess to also be closer to the first tab compared to the inner surface of the wall, as the first recess of Huang et al. is directly connected to the first tab via the current collector. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the described modification to improve structure stability and reduce the strain provided on the lower side of the electrode terminal to clamp the electrode assembly to the wall. "Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. __,__, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.)."
Further, applicant argues that the arrangement of the recess as disclosed by Huang only teaches a reduction in height of the battery cell, and does not consider bending the recess nor the advantage of reducing the pressure exerted by the side wall of the recess on the wall during the bending process (see pg. 9 of the “Remarks”).
"The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious" Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (see MPEP 2145(II)).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) (see MPEP 2145(IV)) (emphasis in original).
Huang does not teach a specific method of bending the recess to form said structure. However, as cited in the rejection “‘[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)).
Therefore, as the structure of Huang et al. is substantially identical to the structure as claimed and the recited process does not impart distinctive structural characteristics, the process by which the folded edge structure is formed (by bending the side wall of the first recess outward) is not given patentable weight. However, as further support, Hojo et al. is cited in the rejection as evidence of nonobviousness of said bending process (Hojo et al.; para. 27, Fig. 3A). Further, applicant’s recognition of another advantage of reducing the pressure exerted by the side wall of the recess on the wall flows naturally from the structure of the first recess as disclosed by Huang ae modified by Tsutsumi et al.; and therefore, cannot be the basis of patentability.
Therefore, applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive. All changes made to the rejection are necessitated by amendment.
Cited Prior Art
Previously Cited Zeng et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3651229 A1) (“Zeng et al.”)
Previously Cited Tsutsumi et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20170214030 A1) (“Tsutsumi et al.”)
Previously Cited Huang et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113346201 A) (“Huang et al.”)
Previously Cited Peng et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113437410 A) (“Peng et al.”)
Previously Cited Hu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200295317 A1) (“Hu et al.”)
Previously Cited Hojo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180131035 A1) (“Hojo et al.”)
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.
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), as further evidenced by Hojo et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20180131035 A1) and Zeng et al. (E.P. Pat. No. 3651229 A1).
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 5 (Huang et al.))]
PNG
media_image2.png
483
891
media_image2.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).
As shown in annotated Figure 5, a first recess is provided at an end of the electrode terminal (3) that faces the first tab (para. 5, Fig. 5); further, as shown, a side wall of a bottom surface of the electrode assembly protrudes outward and a connection is formed by riveting in which the electrode terminal is fixed or clamped to the wall (para. 21, 57, Fig. 5). The current collector is abutted against and connected to a bottom surface of the first recess (part of the pole (3) located inside the housing (1)) in which a bottom surface of the first recess is a flat surface (para. 64, Fig. 5). The structure of the electrode terminal of Huang et al. in which the electrode terminal clamps a part of the battery casing can be formed by methods well known in the field of endeavor such as by bending an upper and lower end to sandwich the casing as further evident by Hojo et al. in which teaches an electrode terminal (14A) fixed to the cover plate (64) of a battery housing by bending an upper end and lower end (para. 27, Fig. 3A). Therefore, as the first recess is located at a lower end of the electrode terminal, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the protruding portion (folded edge structure) of the electrode assembly of Huang et al. by bending a side wall of the first recess outward to effectively secure the electrode terminal of the battery housing to the casing.
However, “‘[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)). Therefore, as the structure of Huang et al. is substantially identical to the structure as claimed and the recited process does not impart distinctive structural characteristics, the process by which the folded edge structure is formed (by bending the side wall of the first recess outward) is not given patentable weight.
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 portion equivalent to 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). As described above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the folded edge structure (protruding portion) such as by bending a side wall of the first recess outward (additionally see MPEP 2113(I)). 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) as further evident by Zeng et al. as describe below.
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 4 (Zeng et al.))]
PNG
media_image3.png
178
331
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(As shown in the annotated Figure 4, Zeng et al. teaches the current collecting member (70) comprising an extending portion (70a) equivalent to a second current collecting portion and connecting portion (70b) equivalent to a first current collecting portion (para. 33, Fig. 4). The first current collecting portion (70b) is configured to connect to the tabs including the first tab to establish an electrical connection between the current collecting member and the first tab of the electrode assembly (para. 33, Fig. 4). The second current collecting portion (70a) is configured to connect to the electrode terminal to establish an electrical connection between the current collecting member and the electrode terminal (para. 33, Fig. 4). The second current collecting portion (70a) protrudes from an upper surface of the first current collecting portion (70b) that faces the electrode terminal extending into the first recess (601b) and in abutment with or against a bottom surface of the first recess (Fig. 4)).
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.
Tsutsumi et al. teaches 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).
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. When performing the described modification, as Huang et al. teaches contact between the positive and negative terminals and respective positive and negative tabs, it would be obvious for the bottom surface of the first recess to also be closer to the first tab compared to the inner surface of the wall, as the first recess of Huang et al. is directly connected to the first tab via the current collector. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to improve structure stability and reduce the strain provided on the lower side of the electrode terminal to clamp the electrode assembly to the wall.
Regarding Claim 3, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. 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). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adopt this feature to ensure structural stability and efficiently secure the electrode terminal to the casing.
Regarding Claim 4, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above.
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_image4.png
581
688
media_image4.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).
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, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 4 above. 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). It would be 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. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. 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, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. 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). It would be obvious for the protrusion to be configured to or function to press against the first sealing portion to seal the electrode lead- out hole in which can be considered an inherent function based on 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)). As the limiting portion functions to secure the electrode assembly to the casing by a clamping force, it would be obvious for the protrusions shown in Figure 5 to have an effect on the connection strength and to be included in the design.
Regarding Claim 9, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. 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, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 8 above. 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_image5.png
225
685
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 7 above. 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. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. 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, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. 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 et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. 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. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. Huang et al. teaches the bottom surface of the first recess being a flat surface (Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image6.png
190
703
media_image6.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 3 (Huang et al.))]Regarding Claim 19, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. 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, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 1 above. 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), and further in view of Peng et al. (C.N. Pat. No. 113437410 A).
Regarding Claim 16, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 15 above. 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).
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).
Claim 17 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), and further in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 20200295317 A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Huang et al. is modified by Tsutsumi et al. teaching all claim limitations as applied to Claim 15 above.
Huang et al. does not teach 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.
As shown in Figure 2 (partially cropped and enlarged to improve clarity), Hu et al. teaches an insulating sheet (32) surrounding an outside of an equivalent second current collecting portion and a first current collecting portion (Fig. 2, 32). Hu et al. teaches the insulating member decreases a reaction force applied to the electrode assembly by adsorbing the expanding force cause by deformation to avoid
PNG
media_image7.png
502
558
media_image7.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Fig. 2 (Hu et al.))]fracturing the electrode plate (para. 59).
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. to include an insulating sheet surrounding an outside of an equivalent second current collecting portion and a first current collecting portion as taught by Huang et al. When performing the described modification, it would be obvious to include the insulating sheet clamped between the first current collecting portion and the electrode terminal to ensure a secure connection. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to perform the described modification to further protect the electrode assembly as described by Hu et al. above.
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 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