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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-11 are pending.
Claim 4 is still withdrawn.
No claims have been amended.
Status of Amendment
The amendment filed on July 6th, 2026 has been fully considered but does not place the application in condition for allowance.
Status of Objections and Rejections Pending since the Office Action of April 7th, 2026
The 103 rejections of claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, and 11 over Baek in view of Zytka are maintained.
The 103 rejection of claim 11 over Baek in view of Zytka and further in view of Hur is maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 80 on page 13 in paragraph [0067]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 6th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that the “balancing of the circuit board” mentioned in the previous Office Action is present within the claims via the limitations “distance between one end of the circuit board along a length direction of the circuit board and the first surface is a first spacing S1, a distance between the other end of the circuit board along the length direction of the circuit board and the first surface is a second spacing S2, and |S1-S2|≤1 mm.” The Applicant cites their specification, stating that assembling a battery comprising the claimed first conductive sheet and the second conductive sheet “inevitably causes a problem of an assembly tolerance.” The Examiner disagrees. While it may be a widely recognized and common problem in the battery arts, there are many different assembly processes. Several of these processes may be designed in such a way that they completely avoid a step in which this problem is generated. The Applicant cites paragraph [0014] of Baek’s specification and argues that the process described may introduce defects. However, the exact details of Baek’s process not necessarily described in the specification could still prevent defects. Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
The Applicant alleges that Baek’s top cap does not satisfy the requirements of claims 7 or 8, but only recites portions of the present application’s specification. There is no specific reasoning presented as to why Baek’s top cap does not satisfy those requirements. Therefore, the argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Baek in view of Hur does not teach an output terminal that extends from the circuit board body, not simply the upper surface. Baek, in view of Hur, teaches an output terminal that extends through the top cap (corresponding with the claimed protection piece). It must extend, directly or indirectly, from the circuit board in order to have an electrical output. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicant states that the “Examiner has not shown (with evidence) where Baek teaches (i) plural fillers as distinct components rather than a unitary tape, (ii) ‘one end [of each of the insulation fillers] connected to the first surface’ and ‘another end [of each of the insulation fillers] connected to a first plane of the circuit board (.e., dual-ended attachment/connection as claimed)’ and (iii) bending both conductive sheets to control the two end spaces to within ≤1 mm rather than merely depicting approximate alignment in drawings”. Each of these will be addressed individually.
Regarding (ii), Baek teaches a first portion of the insulation tape that is connected to the first surface of the housing and a first plane of the circuit board, a second portion of the insulation tape that is disposed on the first plane between the first conductive sheet and the second sheet, and a third portion of the insulation tape that is disposed on the first plane between the second conductive sheet and an end of the circuit board. The locations first and second portions of the insulation tapes have been addressed in multiple rejections on the record and will not be repeated here. Baek also teaches a third portion of tape that is directly between connection member B, the second conductive sheet, and the bottom of the circuit board [0064].
Regarding (i), separating one element of the prior art into multiple portions is not a patentable difference unless the structure is different. The Applicant states that the discrete fillers are able to act as calibrated spacers and ensure that the circuit board is approximately parallel to the first surface of the housing. Baek’s insulation tape, as stated by the Applicant, does provide electrical insulation. However, even though the thickness may be less than a conventional mounting member (the Applicant cites Baek’s paragraph [0017]), it is still capable of providing some structural support through whatever thickness it does have and its adhesive capacity to keep components (including the circuit board and conductive members) in an appropriate alignment.
Regarding (iii), figures 1-3, 6, and 7 all show how the connection members are bent as well as the location of the tape. The combination of figures 1 and 4 would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably assume that all components inside the cap are laid atop each other and would be oriented in a primarily parallel fashion with respect to each other such that |S1-S2|≤1 mm. While figures and drawings are always approximate, they provide information that allows for artisans to form reasonable conclusions, including the claimed parallelism and tape locations. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Baek nor Hur teach a “protection piece” formed by potting/dispensing/low-pressure molding that overlays and seals the circuit board. The Applicant has not provided proof nor evidence that would indicate that Baek’s top cap cannot be formed by said method. Therefore, the Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
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 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 1,3, 6-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek (US 2012/0276420 A1) and further in view of Zytka (US 4065710 A).
Regarding claim 1, Baek teaches a metal-shell battery comprising a metal housing and an electrode assembly sealed in the metal housing [0001]. Baek continues to teach a “first electrode terminal may be the top of the battery case”, with the battery case being the metal housing comprising a first surface [0019]. Baek also teaches that the “second electrode terminal may be the anode terminal protruding from the top of the battery case” [0019] which corresponds with the claimed “electrode post extending on the first surface”. The second terminal is insulated from the first terminal (the top of the metal shell housing, functioning as a cathode [0019]) by a gasket that may be in interposed between the two terminals [0019].
Connection member A (corresponding to the first conductive sheet) connects the first surface/terminal (111, Fig. 1) to the protection circuit board (PCB) and connection member B (corresponding to the second conductive sheet) connects the second electrode terminal (112, Fig. 1) to the bottom of the PCB [0011].
Baek continues to teach an insulating tape disposed between the circuit board and the first surface of the metal housing [0016]. As seen in Figure 2 below, the insulation tape (141) extends along the entire length of the top cap (and by extension, the first surface). When the tape is applied, the insulation tape will be between the first conductive sheet (121) and the second conductive sheet (122). Baek teaches this tape as a single component. However, absent objective evidence to the contrary, dividing the insulating tape into separable, multiple components is an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (C).
PNG
media_image1.png
424
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baek explicitly teaches an insulating tape that is between the second conductive sheet and the circuit board [0064].
The PCB (123) is mounted in the top cap, as seen in figures 3 and 4 below. Once the top part (Fig. 3) is mounted onto the battery cell, as seen in Fig. 4, the circuit board will be parallel to the battery cell 110, such that |S1 – S2| = 0.
PNG
media_image2.png
884
645
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Baek, however, fails to teach what material the insulation tape is comprised of. Zytka is analogous art to Baek because both teach materials used in batteries. Zytka teaches the usage of a vinyl electrical insulating tape in their disclosure (column 6, lines 16 – 23). Vinyl is a type of plastic. Zytka’s vinyl tape is suitable to be used in Baek’s disclosure because it performs the function of being insulating tape. 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). See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use Zytka’s plastic tape in Baek’s disclosure to function as an adhesive and an insulation filler.
Regarding claim 3, as seen in the figures above the circuit board is mounted in a parallel fashion such that α = 0° once the top part is mounted onto the battery cell.
Regarding claim 6, Baek teaches a strip of metal (their “metal clad”) that is disposed on the top of the battery cell (the first surface) and connects to connection member A (corresponding to the first conductive sheet) [0053].
Regarding claim 7, Baek teaches an electrically insulating top cap that protects and covers the circuit board (Figure 3, 130).
Regarding claim 8, the method by which the protection piece is formed is a product-by-process limitation. “[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.
Regarding claim 10, Baek teaches an electronic device comprising the metal-shell battery (abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Baek teaches an “electrolyte injection port” (corresponding to the claimed “first opening”) on the first surface of the metal housing [0057]. Baek also teaches “a structure in which an electrode terminal protruding from the top of the battery cell and a battery case form an anode terminal and a cathode terminal, respectively” [0019]. Since the battery case itself functions as a cathode terminal, there must be an opening (corresponding to the claimed “second opening”) in the metal housing in order for the anode terminal to protrude from inside the housing because the anode terminal cannot be in direct contact with the cathode terminal. Baek continues to teach a gasket, functioning as an insulation spacer, interposed between the terminals [0019]. Said gasket must be located at the opening from which the anode protrudes.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baek and Zytka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hur (US 2014/0212702 A1). Baek is silent on an output terminal that protrudes from the circuit board body. Hur is analogous art to Baek because they both teach a battery pack. Hur teaches a circuit board body (Fig. 3, 150; [0049]) with electrode terminals (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4a, 113 and 114; [0049] and [0055]) that are connected to external connection terminals (Fig. 4a, 111; [0055]) protrude from a protection piece [0054]. Figures 3 and 4a are included below.
PNG
media_image3.png
369
657
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
352
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
These external terminals allow for an easy connection between the battery and an external electronic device that allows the device to be powered by the battery [0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Baek’s battery with the external terminal portions of Hur in order to achieve the benefit of more easily connecting to external electronic devices.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RYAN K BLACKWELL-RUDASILL whose telephone number is (571)270-0563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at 571-272-3433. 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.
/R.B.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1722
/ANCA EOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722
Prosecution Insights