DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/19/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 have been amended; support for the amendment can be found in Fig. 5-6.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 have been examined on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner notes a new ground of rejection has been made in view of Ahn.
Applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose the terminal disposed on an extension portion, such that the terminal and the electrode tab can be arranged in different directions (pg. 10, para. 1). This argument is not found persuasive because Ahn discloses wherein the cover member (130, 140) includes a plate portion (annotated Fig. 4; PP1, PP2) covering the end portion (EP1, EP2) of the exterior material (120), and an extension portion (annotated Fig. 4; EXTP1, EXTP2) formed to extend (Fig. 4) from the plate portion (PP1, PP2) toward the exterior material (120), the terminal (116, 117) is disposed on one surface (Fig. 1;
PNG
media_image1.png
282
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
131, 141) of the extension portion (EXTP1, EXTP2) of the cover member (130, 140) as set forth below.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the terminal and the electrode tab arranged in different directions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that Matsuura, Ahn and Fujita are not easily combined (pg. 11-12), the examiner notes that Matsuura, Ahn and Fujita are analogous art from the same field of endeavor and that Matsuura motivates one of ordinary skill in the art to use
In response to applicant's argument that Matsuura, Ahn and Fujita are not easily combined because Matsuura relates to a prismatic battery cell and Ahn relates to a pouch battery cell, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP2145.III. In the instant case, Matsuura, Ahn and Fujita are analogous art, all relating to batteries, and Matsuura suggests that using the disclosed collecting terminal 30 would decrease a space in a battery case that does not contribute to the battery capacity, so that it is possible to suppress a decrease in battery capacity ([0007]), thereby motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to use the collecting terminal in the invention of Ahn. Thus, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, line 14, it is unclear if the recitation “the end portion” refers to one, an other or both “end portions” previously recited in claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as referring to both of the previously recited portions. Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "both end portions" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependence on claim 1.
In claim 1, the recitation “for forming electrical connection” is unclear because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, thus confusing the metes bounds and scope of the claim, as claim 1 is drawn to a rechargeable battery. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “such that there is an electrical connection”. Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependence on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the external material " in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination, this recitation is interpretated as referring to “the exterior material”. Claims 2-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependence on claim 1.
In claim 4, it is unclear if “a first end portion” is a first of the previously recited “end portions” of claim 1 or is another end portion entirely. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 5-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependence on claim 4.
In claim 4, it is unclear if “a second end portion” is a second of the previously recited “end portions” of claim 1 or is another end portion entirely. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination, the former interpretation is used. Claims 5-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependence on claim 4.
In claim 5, the recitations “to be electrically connected” in line 3 and line 4 are unclear because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, thus confusing the metes, bounds and scope of the claim, as claim 5 depends from claim 1 which is drawn to a rechargeable battery. Further, in claim 5, the recitations “to be electrically connected” in line 3 and line 4 are unclear because unlike in the specification and original claim set where the connection structure (see Fig. 2; 186 and Fig. 3; 176) for forming electrical connections is a part of the cover member (see Fig. 2 and 3; 170-176 and 180-186) applicant has presently claimed the connection structure and cover member as distinct structures, the cover member being made of a non-conductive material (i.e. polypropylene in claim 1) and the connection structure being made of a conductive material (see claim 1). When the cover member and the connection structure are claimed as distinct structures as presently claimed, it is not clear how an electrical connection is made with the non-conductive cover member. It is the examiner’s position that the electrical connection is made between the leads and the connection structure as presently claimed and not the cover member. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “and the connection structure is electrically connected”. Claim 6-9 and 11-12 are rejected based on dependence on claim 5.
In claim 7, the recitation “the negative electrode lead is inserted” is unclear because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, thus confusing the metes bounds and scope of the claim, as claim 7 depends from claim 1 which is drawn to a rechargeable battery. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “the negative electrode lead is configured to be inserted”. Claim 8 is rejected based on dependence on claim 7.
In claim 7, the recitation “the positive electrode lead is inserted” is unclear because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, thus confusing the metes bounds and scope of the claim, as claim 7 depends from claim 1 which is drawn to a rechargeable battery. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “the positive electrode lead is configured to be inserted”. Claim 8 is rejected based on dependence on claim 7.
In claim 8, the recitation “are bonded by ultrasonic welding” is unclear because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, thus confusing the metes bounds and scope of the claim, as claim 8 depends from claim 1 which is drawn to a rechargeable battery. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “bonded by a weld”.
In claim 11, the recitation “to be spaced apart” is unclear because seemingly applicant is claiming a method step in an apparatus claim, thus confusing the metes, bounds and scope of the claim, as claim 11 depends from claim 1 which is drawn to a rechargeable battery. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted this recitation as “spaced apart”.
In claim 12, it is unclear if “a first extension portion” is a first of the previously recited extension portion or another portion entirely. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
In claim 12, it is unclear if “a second extension portion” is a second of the previously recited extension portion or another portion entirely. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
In claim 12, line 2 it is unclear if “one surface” is a part of the previously recited one surface or another surface entirely. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
In claim 12, line 4 it is unclear if “one surface” is a part of the previously recited one surface or another surface entirely. Therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination, the former interpretation is used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahn (US-20110117404-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn discloses a rechargeable battery (Fig. 3; 100), comprising:
an electrode assembly (Fig. 4; 110, 114, 115);
an exterior material (Fig. 3; 120) disposed to surround the electrode assembly (110, 114, 115) and having both end portions (annotated Fig.3; EP1, EP2) thereof opened (Fig. 3; [0031]);
PNG
media_image2.png
395
541
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a cover member (Fig. 1; 130, 140) disposed on the end portions (EP1, EP2) of the exterior material (120) and bonded to ([0026]) the exterior material (120);
a terminal (Fig. 3; 116, 117) coupled to (Fig. 3) the cover member (130, 140) and exposed externally (Fig. 3) of the cover member (130, 140); and
a connection structure (annotated Fig. 4; W; weld taught in [0030]) coupled to (via 116 and 117 in Fig. 4) the cover member (130, 140) for forming electrical connection ([0030]) between the electrode assembly (110, 114, 115) and the terminal (116, 117)
PNG
media_image3.png
286
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the external material (120) includes a laminate sheet ([0033]) formed of an aluminum material ([0035]), the laminate sheet ([0033]) having a thickness of 100 microns or more ([0033] teaches 170 to 300 microns)
wherein the cover member (130, 140) includes a polypropylene (PP) material ([0041, 0044]),
wherein the connection structure (W) includes a conductive material ([0028-0029] teach the material of 114 and 115 is metal thus the weld, W must also be metal)
wherein the cover member (130, 140) includes a plate portion (annotated Fig. 4; PP1, PP2) covering the end portion (EP1, EP2) of the exterior material (120), and an extension portion (annotated Fig. 4; EXTP1, EXTP2) formed to extend (Fig. 4) from the plate portion (PP1, PP2) toward the exterior material (120),
the terminal (116, 117) is disposed on one surface (Fig. 1;
PNG
media_image1.png
282
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
131, 141) of the extension portion (EXTP1, EXTP2) of the cover member (130, 140).
Regarding claim 2, Ahn discloses wherein the exterior material (120) and the cover member (130, 140) are combined to have a rectangular parallelepiped shape ([0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Ahn discloses wherein the electrode assembly (110, 114, 115) comprises a negative electrode lead (Fig. 1; 114) disposed on a first end portion (annotated Fig. 3; EP1) of the exterior material (120) and a positive electrode lead (Fig. 1; 115) disposed on a second end portion (annotated Fig. 3; EP2) of the exterior material (120).
PNG
media_image4.png
395
541
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Ahn discloses wherein the cover member (130, 140) comprises a first cover member (Fig. 1; 130) disposed on the first end portion (EP1) of the exterior material (120) to be electrically connected (see 112(b) rejection above; W is electrically connected to 114 per Fig. 4) to the negative electrode lead (114), and a second cover member (Fig. 1; 140) disposed on the second end portion (EP2) of the exterior material (120) to be electrically connected (see 112(b) rejection above; W is electrically connected to 115 per Fig. 4) to the positive electrode lead (115).
PNG
media_image5.png
286
488
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ahn discloses wherein the connection structure (W) comprises a first connection structure (annotated Fig. 4; W1) connected to the negative electrode lead (114) and provided on the first cover member (130), and a second connection structure (annotated Fig. 4; W2) connected to the positive electrode lead (115) and provided on the second cover member (140).
Regarding claim 9, Ahn discloses a first terminal (Fig. 1; 116) connected to the first connection structure (W1) and exposed externally of the first cover member (130); and a second terminal (Fig. 1; 117) connected to the second connection structure (W2) and exposed externally of the second cover member (140).
Regarding claim 12, Ahn discloses wherein the first terminal (116) is disposed on one surface (Fig. 1; 131) of a first extension portion (annotated Fig. 4; EXPT1) of the first cover member (130), and the second terminal (117) is disposed on one surface (Fig. 1; 141) of a second extension portion (annotated Fig. 4; EXPT2) of the second cover member (140).
PNG
media_image6.png
282
584
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US-20110117404-A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Ahn discloses wherein the thickness ([0033]) of the laminate sheet (120) is 200 microns or less ([0033] teaches about 170 to about 300 microns).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US-20110117404-A1), as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Matsuura (US-20180131030-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ahn fails to disclose wherein the first connection structure comprises a first insertion groove into which an end portion of the negative electrode lead is inserted, and the second connection structure comprises a second insertion groove into which an end portion of the positive electrode lead is inserted.
Matsuura discloses a battery (Fig. 1; 1 according to the third embodiment per [0092]), comprising: an electrode assembly (Fig. 1; 10)
a cover member (Fig. 1; 4)
a terminal (Fig. 1; 40) coupled to the cover member (4) and exposed externally (Fig. 1) of the cover member (4); and
a connection structure (Fig. 1; 30 according to third embodiment [0092]) coupled to (Fig. 1) the cover member (4) for forming electrical connection ([0092]) between the electrode assembly (10) and the terminal (40),
wherein the connection structure (30) includes a conductive material (“current collecting”; [0029]),
wherein the electrode assembly (40) comprises a negative electrode lead (Fig. 1; 26) and a positive electrode lead (Fig. 1; 26),
wherein the connection structure (30) comprises a first connection structure (Fig. 13; 36) connected to (Fig. 14) the negative electrode lead (26) and provided on (Fig. 14) the cover member (4), and a second connection structure (Fig. 14; 31; [0092]) connected to the positive electrode lead (21) and provided on the cover member,
wherein the first connection structure (36) comprises a first insertion groove (Fig. 13; 232; “gap portion 232”; [0093]) into which an end portion (Fig. 14; 26) of the negative electrode lead (26) is inserted (Fig. 14), and the second connection structure (31) comprises a second insertion groove ( “gap portion 232”; [0093]; [0092]) into which an end portion (Fig. 14; 21) of the positive electrode lead (21) is inserted (Fig. 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ahn by substituting the negative electrode lead, positive electrode lead, first connection structure, second connection structure, first terminal and second terminal of Matsuura for the negative electrode lead, positive electrode lead, first connection structure, second connection structure, first terminal and second terminal of Ahn such that the negative electrode lead, first connection structure and first terminal of Matsuura were at the first end portion of Ahn’s exterior material and the positive electrode lead, second connection structure and second terminal of Matsuura were at the second end portion of Ahn’s exterior material such that the first connection structure comprises a first insertion groove into which an end portion of the negative electrode lead is inserted, and the second connection structure comprises a second insertion groove into which an end portion of the positive electrode lead is inserted as Matsuura teaches. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to decrease a space in Ahn’s exterior material that does not contribute to the battery capacity, so that it is possible to suppress a decrease in battery capacity as Matsuura teaches ([0007]).
Regarding claim 8, Ahn in view of Matsuura discloses wherein the first connection structure (Matsuura 30 at EP1) and the negative electrode lead (Ahn Fig. 1; Matsuura’s lead configuration in place of 114), and the second connection structure (Matsuura 30 at EP2) and the positive electrode lead (Ahn Fig. 1; Matsuura’s lead configuration in place of 115) are bonded by a weld (Ahn [0095]; see (112(b) rejection above).
The limitation “ultrasonic welding” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus or product. The determination of patentability is based upon the apparatus structure itself. The patentability of a product or apparatus does not depend on its method of production or formation. 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 (see MPEP § 2113). In the instant case, Ahn in view of Matsuura discloses a permanent connection formed by a weld. Therefore, Ahn in view of Matsuura teaches the structure implied by the limitation “ultrasonic welding” and renders the instant claim obvious.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn (US-20110117404-A1) as applied to claim 9 as set forth above and further in view of Fujita (JP2002237287A, machine translation used for rejection below, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Ahn fails to disclose wherein the exterior material comprises installation grooves in which the first and second terminals are exposed externally, and
two of the installation grooves are disposed on one surface of the exterior material to be spaced apart from each other.
Fujita discloses a battery (Fig. 3B) comprising an exterior material (Fig. 3B; 1) including a laminate sheet ([0016]), wherein the exterior material (1) comprises installation grooves (Fig. 4; element 3) in which first (Fig. 3; one element 5) and second terminals (Fig. 3; another element 5) are exposed externally (Fig. 4; 15 of 5 is exposed externally), and two of the installation grooves (Fig. 3; element 3) are disposed on one surface (Fig. 3; top surface of 1) of the exterior material (1) to be spaced apart (Fig. 3) from each other.
PNG
media_image7.png
440
220
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Ahn by substituting Ahn’s first and second terminal configuration for the installation grooves and terminals of Fujita such that modified Ahn’s exterior material possessed installation grooves at the overlapping portion (Ahn annotated Fig. 4; OP1) of the first end portion (EP1) and the first cover member (130), and the overlapping portion (Ahn annotated Fig. 4; OP2) of the second end portion (EP2) of the exterior material (120) and the second cover member (140), in which first and second terminals are exposed externally, and two of the installation grooves are disposed on one surface (Ahn annotated Fig. 4; 1S) of the exterior material to be spaced apart from each other. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect to prevent bending or breakage of Ahn’s electrode terminals as taught by Fujita ([0038]). Thus, modified Ahn renders the instant claim obvious.
PNG
media_image8.png
240
486
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Ahn in view of Fujita discloses wherein the first terminal (Fujita 5 in place of Ahn’s 116) is disposed on one surface (annotated Fig. 4; 1S1) of a first extension portion (annotated Fig. 4; EXTP1) of the first cover member (130), and the second terminal (Fujita 5 in place of Ahn’s 117) is disposed on one surface (annotated Fig. 4; 1S2) of a second extension portion (annotated Fig. 4; EXTP2) of the second cover member (40).
PNG
media_image9.png
282
584
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
291
501
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE A KENLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-1253. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Tiffany Legette-Thompson can be reached at (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 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.
/G.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1723 /TIFFANY LEGETTE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1723